I’ve always wanted to like Intel, writes Richard Saintvilus of Forbes.com in his recent column on the company’s leadership change.
He added that Despite the company’s chronic struggles to adapt in a new mobile era, which has caused it to lag behind more nimble rivals such as Qualcomm and ARM Holdings, I have always found it difficult to not want to give the company the benefit of the doubt. Still, it’s hard to quantify how unimpressive (if not) pathetic the state of the company has become. Saying that Intel has “fallen on hard times” would be an incorrect description of its current true status, which is Intel has “fallen off” (as in) completely off the radar.
Related Stories: Intel CEO to step down in 2013
Troubling results from IBM and Intel
Saintvilus makes the point that Paul Otellini should have been ousted two years and the transition to mobile started then.
No so fast. Let’s not forget that Intel has 75 reference designs for ultrabooks coming to market next year. And, they will all sport Intel chips. Maybe they do need new leadership. This is not your Andy Grove’s Intel, either. Companies such as Intel that are so by the book get stale over time. Look at IBM as an example. IBM in the early nineties was hand-cuffed by their own processes called the IBM-way.
They needed someone from the outside to basically slap them in the face and knock some sense into them. Lou Gerstner did that for Big Blue and showed the business world that Elephants can dance.
So it is in a way a critical time for Intel. They must find a new leader who can innovate and be relevant for today’s market. They could use Gerstner, but I hear he is retired. Is there a Gerstner for Intel out there?
You can read the entire article here, which has insight on RIM and HP leadership changes.
