Intel Mobility is and will continue to remain an oxymoron, similar to saying ‘Apple Telecom’; just not going to happen. Intel missed the entry point on mobility about five years ago. Unfortunately, it opted to continue to pursue its faster GHz game plan. They should have foreseen ‘fast deteriorating desk-top revenues’ three years ago but they didn’t (stock down over 30% for the same period). Regrettably, Intel has become a prisoner of its own legacy (Moore’s Law) because it is the ONLY thing Intel knows how to do (see my Jan. 8 post).

The fact that Intel “needs a roadmap” means nothing, absolutely nothing. It takes more than just ‘a need’ to be successful; it takes strategic prowess, which Intel does not currently have. They spent more time (and a king’s ransom in PR) worrying about where the letter ‘e’ is positioned within its logo than they did on market (revenue) issues.

And speaking of oxymora, there will not be any ‘WiMax mobility’ (of any consequence) for the next five years. See you then…

bb

I agree WiMax is irrelevant for Intel as a product, however that does not mean that they do not derive substantial value from their strong association WiMax. WiMax is mysterious sexy path forward for their Mobility group, it allows an analyst to paint pretty pictures about Intel’s future revenue streams, the comparisons between WiMax and Qualcom are not lost on today’s corporate bond investors (remember these guys have just been burned by Ford and GM, they need to believe some US industries still have solid sustainable revenue streams). I’m certain that the effect Wimax has on lowering Intel’s “cost of capital” more than pays for itself. This view also makes WiMax more valuable as tomorrow’s technology than today’s product, which might go a long way towards explaining the slow progress.

A quick glance at Intel’s recent Q4 release shows a fast deteriorating desk-top revenue stream ($5.1B gross with $1.1B income for Q4 2006, down from $6,4B gross with $2.4B income for Q4 2005). The picture over at the Mobility group was much rosier, based on this, Intel needs a roadmap for future mobility revenue and earnings far more than it needs any product.

Robert

PPS

Boris,
Re: Centrino was an Intel success, ROTFLMAO is about all I bring myself to type. The original Centrino chips set was a licensed from Symbol Technologies and fabbed by TI and included TI ADC’s & DAC’s. I could tell you a VERY funny story about how much Intel was actually paying TI for its solution but I’d rather keep TI’s lawyers out of my life, for just a little longer.

As far as global significance of WiMax, I agree, you might find use for it in the third world countries together with 100$ PC and mosquito nets.

And by the way, you need to realize that using “Wi” (for wireless) in WiFi and WiMAx is purposely deceptive (i.e. marketing scam) thanks to WiFi community. WiFi is not wireless it is “Cordless”. Cordless does not sound to exciting and may not constitute basis for any serious business, but it may be fun and entertaining as much are these comments.

Albert Lew (above) pre-empted my reply but still, let me clarify my comments:

Yes, WiMax is a terrific (access only for now) technology and having participated in the early standards-initiation process (Dr. Baseghi was my CSO at Malibu — http://www.ieee802.org/16/meetings/mtg10/reglist.html) I am a full card-carrying WiMax supporter.

Having said that let me put things in perspective, as in Intel: WiMax Forum is not rudderless but has been directionless; it is only taken them over seven years to get to a “standard”. And just look at the definition of the word Forum – ‘the marketplace or public square of an ancient Roman city, the center of judicial and business affairs and a place of assembly for the people’ – and think Rome when you think of Intel. Intel’s only gain is if the world adopted WiMax, which would require more powerful processors, which Intel knows how to monetize. That is NOT going to happen (for various reasons). Bottom line: no successful emerging technology ever needed a Big Brother (Ethernet, IP, CDMA, Wi-Fi, MS-DOS, Apple, etc.). The ones that tried being a Big Brother failed miserably (such as IBM w/Token Ring, OS/2 and SNA; Data General w/mini-computers; Sun w/Unix; Sony w/Betamax; had enough?). Intel is fighting precedence (history). For more info, please read Andrew Grove’s book: “Only the Paranoid Survive”. Intel is no longer paranoid, it has switched to being delusional (as in delusions of grandeur). And if you really want to know how I feel about Qualcomm, here’s another link: http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2007/010807letters.html?page=3 (No Second Act)

Unfortunately, I did NOT get to deploy this time but I will!

Continued success…

We touched upon all the themes described by Andrew in this blog entry over dinner. No one can answer the question about why Intel is doing this. Intel is also visiting mobile operators in an effort to get them to use mobile WiMax technology. Let’s just say that with this one operator, they are not biting.

Albert

The beauty of Wi-MAX is compared to Qualcomm’s technology, its going to be an open system that doesn’t charge high licence fees.

Is your point that you don’t think Intel will make money with Wi-MAX? That, always, is a different matter. And, one last thought, I thought centrino made up 13% of their revenues in recent years. That’s not chopped liver.

Thanks for your feedback Bill. I admire anyone getting out there and deploying networks.

Onno Husing