Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
About this Site
Moores Law defines the history of technology. It held that the number of circuits etched on a given piece of silicon could double every 18 months as far as its author, Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, could see. Moores Law has spawned constant revolutions since then, not just in computing but in communications, in science, in a host of areas. Moores Law applies to radios, and to optical fiber, but there are some areas where it doesnt apply. In this blog well take a daily look at new implications of Moores Law in real time, as it rolls forward to create our future.
As the first non-engineer to rise to the top at the chipmaker, he said he would push platforms, and communications, and low power, and change the corporate culture. He would also push more product internationally, and put consumer products (not just ingredients) under the Intel brand.
Whether he is moving rapidly enough remains an open question.
There are enormous claims of movement this week at CES, where Intel built a booth that would have made its former Comdex managers blush, and changed its slogan besides. But is Intel really leading? Or is it following?
What's with this getting in bed with Microsoft on a Media PC? Don't they know those things don't sell? Microsoft does.
Why is Intel continuing its campaign to pollute the developing world (this time Vietnam) rather than deal with the pollution problems caused by semiconductor manufacture?
Intel needs to be defining new platforms, based on families of chips. This week, all it's doing is the same-old same-old.
Oh, and word to the media.
Intel Inside wasn't Intel's logo. It was its "ingredient brand," under which payments were made to PC makers who included the logo on their advertising. Intel paid part of the PC industry's ad budget in order to get its name on the ads. That program is ending, to be replaced by a pure corporate ad campaign under the "Leap Ahead" tagline.
Now is when Intel should be coming forward with a unified vision. Otellini's speech should have gotten the headlines Gates got. Instead, it was second best. That's not good.
But we'll see. Jury's still out. Otellini has done some smart things, like bring Eric Kim over from Samsung as chief marketing officer. Intel is also a huge company. Much of the work Intel needs to do is in Washington, and in other world capitals, freeing up spectrum for Wi-Fi, WiMax, and other new communication technologies. It will take real innovation to bust that logjam. Maybe Otellini has it.
For what it's worth, I was very impressed with Otellini when he was onstage at Apple's WWDC. He was the only speaker there capable of holding his own with Steve Jobs: he projects charisma, charm, confidence. And not a sleazeball.
I'm wary of putting marketing types in leadership positions at companies fundamentally bound to the quality of their engineering (look what's happened to GM), but I'm willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt.
2. Jesse Kopelman on January 5, 2006 02:12 PM writes...
Why is changing the logo such an essential strategic move? Seems like it will benefit the marketing guy who came up with the plan and the company that gets paid $20M for the new logo, but not Intel . . .
1. Chris on January 5, 2006 12:48 PM writes...
For what it's worth, I was very impressed with Otellini when he was onstage at Apple's WWDC. He was the only speaker there capable of holding his own with Steve Jobs: he projects charisma, charm, confidence. And not a sleazeball.
I'm wary of putting marketing types in leadership positions at companies fundamentally bound to the quality of their engineering (look what's happened to GM), but I'm willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt.
Permalink to Comment2. Jesse Kopelman on January 5, 2006 02:12 PM writes...
Why is changing the logo such an essential strategic move? Seems like it will benefit the marketing guy who came up with the plan and the company that gets paid $20M for the new logo, but not Intel . . .
Permalink to Comment