Slashdot Mirror
Former Intel CEO Paul Otellini Dies At 66 (engadget.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: Paul Otellini, Intel's previous CEO, died in his sleep on Monday, the company announced this morning. He was 66. Otellini served as Intel's fifth chief executive from 2005 through 2013, and leaves behind a legacy of the company's dominance in x86 processors. Notably, he also worked with Apple as it moved away from PowerPC chips and adopted Intel's wares. After retiring in 2013, Otellini revealed one major regret during his tenure: not working hard enough to get Intel's chips in the iPhone. Consequently, Intel mostly missed on the smartphone revolution.
Otellini joined Intel in 1974 and served various roles throughout his career, including chief operating officer from 2003 to 2005. He would go on to spend almost 40 years at the company. He was an intriguing choice as CEO, since he was the company's first non-engineer to hold that role.
Otellini joined Intel in 1974 and served various roles throughout his career, including chief operating officer from 2003 to 2005. He would go on to spend almost 40 years at the company. He was an intriguing choice as CEO, since he was the company's first non-engineer to hold that role.
Until he liquidated it to Marvell, Intel had StrongARM; and internally had the RISC i960 that both could have done amazingly in this space, both were (stupidly IMnsHO) liquidated to make room for Atom/TinyIA/Quark, all of which have some level of the x86 baggage (from most to least) and thus the power consumption overhead.
i960 *could* have been re-tooled into an ultra low power core and simply add on the peripherals to make it into a SoC, or StrongARM could have been remodeled into a QC competitor.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
I was with a chipset firmware team that was duplicated in the states and in Israel. Unfortunately the culture clash and competition clash led to some very abusive practices. I stood up against management about this, and was railroaded out the door with my chin up high, and like Milton's red stapler I took my lab chair with me!
I've seen this too many times. Companies seem to be reading out of the same textbooks. What they seem to be doing is using psychology and sociology to essentially create a milder form of negative social conformity similar to what many malevolent rulers have employed in history. It's hard to describe. Basically, you establish some cultural principles but you spin them to sound good when in reality they are very bad. Like for example "we don't like slackers" means "if you work less than 80 hours a week, you're a slacker". You don't want to be shamed as being a slacker do you? Or we like "positive, enthusiastic people" really means "just say yes to management about any decisions it makes and give them much praise for their infinite wisdom and that they were benevolent enough to allow you to bask in this." You don't want to not be positive and enthusiastic do you? Nobody likes people like that. If you challenge any of these principles you get semantically tagged as being "a problem" or "negative" or any number of errors of fundamental attribution that any rational and sane person could plainly see. Once this happens the sociopathic, passive aggressive games start and it never ends well.
It really is a milder form of Philip Zimbardo's Lucifer effect. These executive managers are creating the most psychologically dysfunctional environments by doing this and they are not completely harmless. You might not be getting put on a firing line or tortured physically, but these types of tactics are by definition, psychological abuse. The same psychological abuse you would find in a dysfunctional family of sociopaths. You can read quite clear descriptions of this stuff in any psychology textbook.
Ultimately, the only thing compelling about a dysfunctional and psychologically abusive work environment is the pay and people will only want the pay if there is "no better option" common during The Great Recession. That is used as leverage. Once the supply of workers goes down and need for labor goes up, those companies are forced to change or they can go down in a blaze of glory.
We'll make great pets
Intel had an ARM chip division for Phone CPUs called XScale from 2002 to 2006 when they sold it to Marvell to focus on the more profitable x86 series.
His "greatest regret" comment is pure BS. He made the wrong decision to get out of phone CPUs