Intel CEO Paul Otellini Retiring 108
An anonymous reader writes with a quick bit from a press release about Intel's CEO retiring: "Intel Corporation today announced that the company's president and CEO, Paul Otellini, has decided to retire as an officer and director at the company's annual stockholders' meeting in May, starting an orderly leadership transition over the next six months. Otellini's decision to retire will bring to a close a remarkable career of nearly 40 years of continuous service to the company and its stockholders."
Intel is too big ... (Score:2, Interesting)
... Intel used to be nimble --- and I'm talking about the time of 8088/8086 up to 80386/80387.
When Pentium came to market, Intel were so successful that most of its competitors just got out of the game, and allowed Intel to get bigger and bigger until they became the 800lb gorilla.
What Intel is facing is a market that's totally different from what it had faced for the past 30 years - embedded processor from ARM.
Intel's Atom processors was their reply to ARM and we all know how successful Atom turned out to
Re: (Score:1)
the Republican party was the party in favor of freeing slaves while the democratic party wanted to keep them chained.
"Founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Southern Democratic Party and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party. The main cause was opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Ka
Re: (Score:1)
The civil rights movement was also headed up by the republicans. Unless parties have shifted around since I last looked, Richard Nixon was a republican, not a democrat, and it was southern democrats who opposed the civil rights movement.
If slashdot wants to live in its revisionist fantasy, though, thats fine.
Re: (Score:2)
that is more to do with the south being racist, while the dems have a black candidate so of course they voted for the white guy
Re: (Score:2)
So i just did a little flash research. If you had to guess, how do you suppose Georgia voted in the 1960 Presidential election? Turns out it was 63% in favor of Kennedy. In fact, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, all voted majority for Kennedy.
This whole discussion is ridiculous, I certainly will not imply that all democrats are racist, but to try to prove that the republican party has been the enemy of civil rights is frankly absurd.
Re: (Score:1)
Get educated, dude. Many of the founding fathers had already successfully abolished slavery in their states, and were working to do so in all the colonies as soon as they peacefully could.
I'm sorry, but what? Depending on who's on your "founding fathers" list, many of them not only supported slavery but owned several, sometimes ranging in the hundreds, of slaves. I'm not going to question your upbringing or education, but whitewashing a somewhat embarrassing side of history is ridiculous. Call for what it is.
Re:Romney endorsement (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of the founding fathers had already successfully abolished slavery in their states, and were working to do so in all the colonies as soon as they peacefully could.
This is true
many of them not only supported slavery but owned several, sometimes ranging in the hundreds, of slaves
So is this.
It's almost like the founding fathers were a disparate group of people, each with their own opinions and perspectives, and trying to paint the entire group as either ruthless slavers or crusading abolitionists is painting with too wide a brush.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They did, by writing language in to provide for the abolition of the slave trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves
The goal of the Constitutional Convention was to form a stronger Federal Union, which they archived. Leaving the status quo with Slavery was required to form a stronger union that could one day abolish the abhorrent practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is moving us in the direction of the nanny state -- a government that aggressively redistributes money is unlikely to respect private property or private freedoms.
Get educated, dude. The Republican party is the nanny state X10. Party of liberty my ass.
Re:Romney endorsement (Score:4, Insightful)
Libretarians are the party of liberty.
Tea Party is the fiscally and socially conservative party,
Democrats and Republicans both are Huge government controlling you.
Democrats want a bunch of money to spend on green energy, unions and social welfare.
Republicans want a bunch of money for defense contractors and oil.
They both are the bane of freedom.
The biggest threat to freedom though are the lazy entitled voters. Freedom is hard, dangerous and takes work.
Americans are no longer those types of people.
Re: (Score:1)
Heh. Bending over for large corporations and the rich is not "fiscally conservative", nor is it "fiscally responsible". Those are myths perpetuated by corporations and the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Now that you mention it, "fiscally conservative" does seem like it could be a euphemism for "greedy bastard"...
Re: (Score:2)
Get educated, dude. The Republican party is the nanny state X10. Party of liberty my ass.
I don't know about the X10 part, it sort of depends what issues are most important to you. Both Republicans and Democrats push for a nanny state in different ways. Since you're obviously already aware of the Republican side, I'll just list a few Democrat ways:
- Restriction of free speech in terms of political donations.
- Restriction of free speech by categorizing it as "hate speech".
- Restriction on commerce -- for example, even if you are an experienced hairdresser, you can't just set up a hair salon
Re: (Score:1)
Good thing we got the collapse out of the way first, then?
Re: (Score:1)
Preventing the collapse of companies that needed to collapse will lead to the collapse of the entire economy.
Re: (Score:2)
"called in"? On what terms do you think the debt is?
The interest on the debt is basically funding the buying up of the US by foreign countries, a very bad thing, but not something they want to "call in".
Re:Romney endorsement (Score:4, Insightful)
If your ancestors hadn't been kidnapped from Africa, then you might be considered property in 2012 considering slavery is alive and well in many regions of Africa right now...
Re: (Score:2)
If your ancestors hadn't been kidnapped from Africa, then you might be considered property in 2012 considering slavery is alive and well in many regions of Africa right now
And unless he's done some geneology research, his anscestors may have quite possibly been free people. Not all American blacks were slaves.
Re:Romney endorsement (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, Otellini was smart enough to play both sides of the isle, ensuring that no matter who came out on top, IBM had friends with benefits or markers to call in. And honestly, who cares who he supported or endorsed. If you're basing your entire assessment of a person on who they endorse for President, it makes you look narrow-minded.
Re: (Score:3)
IBM? Otellini is Intel's CEO, not IBM.
Re:Romney endorsement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you one of those Libertarian asshats that cloaks your sociopathic tendencies in ideology?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he is one of those Libertarian asshats who are actually all Social Conservatives in disguise.
Re: (Score:3)
regain the former glory that the founding fathers intended.
So you like wearing wigs. eh?
Or were you talking about just a select part of what you consider "former glory" and use "founding fathers" as an argument to give your personal views a false sense of authority?
On the other hand, if you are talking about returning the entire state of the US back a few centuries, I'm all with you; they didn't have computers back in those former glory times.
Claiming something is right based on some decissions made by politicians for a society centuries ago (I guess politicians ba
Silly season is over. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Youre on the wrong site if you want to avoid stupid partisan arguments.
Re: (Score:1)
Hitler was never slandered so badly!
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, yes. However, that is a very recent phenomenon.
Re: (Score:2)
really? we hae tons of partisan arguing.
vi vs emacs
rpm vs deb
apple vs ms vs linux
android vs ios
C vs any other language
risc vs cisc
amd vs intel
kde vs gnome
gnu vs bsd
linux vs gnu/linux
sql vs nosql
steve woz vs steve jobs
its all partisan arguing just our arguing is usually more interesting than which power hungry liar is worse
Re: (Score:2)
He was referring to partisan politics, not vi vs emacs or Gnome vs KDE.
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Congrats (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The smart money says he was pushed, rather than that he jumped.
Re: (Score:2)
Given his track record i highly doubt that.
There aren't many CEOs with his track record (Score:5, Insightful)
This man raised the personal computing industry from birth to adolescence. The entire world would be a different place (for better or worse) without Otellini's Intel. Now that's an accomplishment worth carrying into retirement.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be ignorant.
He managed the group that gave us the Pentium 1.
Re: (Score:1)
Reason for departing (Score:5, Funny)
what do the bunnypeople have to say? (Score:2)
Notice how we haven't seen them in ads for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice how we haven't seen them in ads for years.
As a bunny-suit wearing Intel fab worker, I find this interesting, but not completely unexpected. It was never a matter of if, but when. Otellini wasn't Intel's first CEO, and unless something crazy happens between now and May, he won't be the last.
Sanjay Jha for a replacement? (Score:2)
Bad Ass (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel is pretty corporate, and that's like a crime here on /. But for anyone old enough to remember or fool enough to listen, when it's all said and done this guy's track record has been damn close to paved in gold.
No, I don't mean Intel's track record with the Peruvian Jackalope, Global Coating or whatever axe you have to grind. I mean his job of being part of, contributing to and guiding a very large and important ship. Much of it before the average /.r could read.
Having been Z80 guy, a 6502 guy and a 68k guy, and also a guy writing endless apps in the Intel space and building endless machines, when it's all said and done, if your last words are anything other than "thank you", you're a punk.
Safe travels Paul.
Re: (Score:3)
f your last words are anything other than "thank you", you're a punk
Did the illegal trust-making activity happen on Otellini's watch?
Re: (Score:2)
Go fuck yourself.
Your comment fits your sig quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
Having been Z80 guy, a 6502 guy and a 68k guy
Otellini: The guy no one payed attention to (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
I never ever helped Microsoft in its world conquest, that's infinitely better than what he did.
Re: (Score:2)
The number of people who will remember Otellini will vastly outweigh the number of people who remember you
The number of people who will remember Hitler will vastly outweigh the number of people who will remember Otellini. Logical fallacies are fun, right?
let's not falsely elevate ourselves above him because of some artificially limiting ideology like "Microsoft is bad."
Artificially limiting ideology? Now I know you're just a troll. The ideology "Microsoft is bad" is a totally rational defense mechanism, based on the lessons of history.
Re: (Score:2)
It is an artificially limiting ideology. If you were given two products one that worked though it potentially violated your personal set of ethics and the other took a lot of effort to get working, wasn't really supported by anyone and didn't violate your personal set of ethics, and you chose the former, your ideology is by definition artificially limiting.
It's not just about ethics, although that is and always should be a factor. Working against your own ethics is unprofitable in the long term, because you're helping create the world you don't want to live in, and it costs more to fix a problem than to not create it in the first place. The simple truth is that going with Microsoft will save you money today but when the technology you are using is abandoned with no path forward and you have to rewrite anyway, you will find yourself losing money in the long te
Never forgive, never forget (Score:2)
Remember the Alamo [wikipedia.org]
Otellini is a great CEO (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked at Intel for 11 years and met Otellini a couple of times. First of all, he was a great guy. But much more on point, he was a clear and level-headed thinker who asked the right questions, and role-modeled the best of Intel culture in every way. He rescued Intel from the aftermath of the train wreck that was Craig Barrett, and rebuilt the company and restored the company culture.
Also note, Otellini was the first Intel CEO who came up through marketing. That was an important transition for the company in many ways, and the company is much better off for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also note, Otellini was the first Intel CEO who came up through marketing. That was an important transition for the company in many ways, and the company is much better off for it.
I'm confused... How is leaving the lion's share of the market in mobile computing devices to ARM making Intel better off?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes you are confused. I was saying that Intel has been better off for the last 7 years for having been run by a marketing guy instead of a "sand head" (physical chemist, in Intel-ese) and would have been better off with a marketing guy running the co for 10+ years.
Yes, the situation in mobile sucks. There are a host of reasons for that, mostly inherited by Otellini. The situation would suck harder if Barrett were still in charge. Otellini played the cards in his hand well.
Re: (Score:2)
the situation in mobile sucks
No actually, it doesn't, we're finally ridding ourselves of the suffocating domination of Wintel.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
By what, exchanging it for suffocating domination by ARM and Google? Much better.
Domination yes, suffocation no. They're not doing anything anticompetitive with Android; indeed, the anticompetitive things are being done to them by their competitors, like abuse of bad patents required for competition. (Apple was offered access to FRAND patents on a very reasonable basis; in exchange for their bullshit patents which they never should have been granted on obvious interface elements.)
Re: (Score:2)
by intel making better profits by using their foundries for producing intel chips which give much better $$$ than if said foundries were producing arm chips.
don't be a fool. intel could be making the best fabbed arm chips in 6 months if they chose that x86 is dead. however the arm fabs can't switch other way.
Re: (Score:3)
intel could be making the best fabbed arm chips in 6 months if they chose that x86 is dead
It'd take longer; Intel's fabs are a long way ahead of everyone else's and so ARM aren't yet producing layouts for that scale. Which would mean that Intel would have to rearchitect the Intel designs for their own fabs, which takes time.
however the arm fabs can't switch other way
Definitely true at the moment; the ARM licensees (ARM don't make stuff themselves; that's not their business model) are a generation or two behind Intel on the fab side of things. They compensate by having specialist hardware on their chips to do particularly important operat
Re: (Score:2)
Those are naive assertions. Intel's production logic processes are tuned for speed, not low power consumption. That doesn't mean that the fab chemists don't have a dozen low-power processes in their hip pocket that they have demonstrated in the development fab that could be rolled out to production fabs in a matter of a few months. Processes more suitable to going after ARM market share. As to doing a new layout -- Intel has the tools and the people to simply "make it so".
Intel fabs run at max capacity
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Somebody who gets it. Intel looks at gross margin per wafer. They know pretty much exactly how many wafers they can run through a fab in a year. They can easily calculate the gross margin per wafer for any product. For a while when I was at Intel, Intel was a huge buyer of outside fab capacity -- any project that wanted to run in Intel fab had to show that their gross margin per wafer justified being on it. Otherwise, the project was told to "go fish" -- for fab. And they did, or they shut down.
Cringely says the board should fire themselves too (Score:2)
just wondering, hangning up and listening...ank