What If Microsoft And Intel Weren't Two Years Late?
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
User Rank: Apprentice
3/21/2012 | 9:04:30 PM
re: What If Microsoft And Intel Weren't Two Years Late?
That's true but then again Newton was > 5 years too early and while not half baked it answered a need that wasn't yet out there and it was limited by the technology that existed at the time. The difference I think was in the Apple culture. Mr. Jobs and the team tha the surrounded himself with seemed to be able to learn from past failures without being scared to try again. Apple's turnaround could never have happened without that quality.

I read plenty of references to Newton when rumors of the "iSlate" surfaced. The Apple team knew that the technology was mature, they had a winning design team, and the market was ready. So they went forward.

Intel had some challenges in the core architecture of its chps; it's understandable that they didn't leap right away. MS is more of a mystery. I guess that Mr. Ballmer was still too busy explaining why smartphones were a passing fancy to see that tablets were the next PC.

I agree that Wintel could never have dominated this market as they once did PCs but they could have avoided the risk of going on life support. And Microsoft in particular could have triangulated a position between the totally closed world of Apple and the chaotic multi-flavor world of Android that might have been the sweet spot for many users. At this point they've got no margin for error but it ain't quite over. . .
User Rank: Apprentice
3/21/2012 | 11:24:27 AM
re: What If Microsoft And Intel Weren't Two Years Late?
A better question would be, what if MS and Intel weren't 5 years too early and put out half baked ideas that failed?
User Rank: Apprentice
12/20/2011 | 11:36:55 PM
re: What If Microsoft And Intel Weren't Two Years Late?
I thought Itanium (Itanic) was the Titanic at Intel?

Anyway, I think you nailed it. The device makers want to use Android over Windows in large part because Google will let them alter the OS and user experience. It gives them a chance to differentiate their products and not be in a pure commodity market (e.g. Windows PCs). Although, if Microsoft would have had their act together, they may have been able to keep that thought out of the OEM's heads. Now the genie is out of the bottle. How you going to keep them down on the farm after they have seen Karl Hungus?

Intel doesn't do low power well. It is kind of the nature of x86 and CISC, although Intel has been good at squeezing as much as possible out of x86. Similar situation, if Intel would have put out something that would have worked for Apple and the Android OEMs, they may have been able to head off ARM. Now people have rediscovered RISC and it is going to be hard for Intel to convince OEMs that they should pay more for the "Intel Inside" sticker. Also, as Steve Jobs said about Intel when choosing ARM, why tell Intel everything you know and help them build the chip when they are just going to turn around and sell it to your competitor?

Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
2016 InformationWeek Elite 100
Our 28th annual ranking of the leading US users of business technology.
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
Join us for a roundup of the top stories on for the week of June 19, 2016. We'll be talking with the editors and correspondents who brought you the top stories of the week to get the "story behind the story."
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.