Comments on: Intel Strategy Shift

By: Rob

Rob — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 03:40:11 +0000

Jason,
Exactly. That strategy seems to be successful for those that dare try it. So why hasn’t it become more popular? Fear over logic, I guess.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:35:20 +0000

I think this is interesting because many great companies have done this. I just read about Rockefeller who cannibalized the rail car portion of his business to build oil pipelines. He knew that if he was going to stay competitive, he had to continue to innovate to stay ahead of his competitors.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 06:23:29 +0000

Otellini’s move really isn’t all that different than what Grove did when he moved from memories to microprocessors. It is strange that the media would frame it as Otellini going against the direction Grove took Intel, and Grove surprisingly approving of the decision. I guess they needed the drama.

The thing is, to me the key story here is that Intel has a history of, and continues to, make their current products obsolete. The shift strategies when they are on top, not when it’s too late (like most other companies)

By: laurence haughton

laurence haughton — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 04:55:05 +0000

Don’t you love business journalism.

If you’re a rich former executive known for your “legendary wrath” and expected to give a “tongue-lashing of epic proportions” you are called “revered and charismatic.”

If you were just some rank and file hothead or old crank I’ll bet you’d get called something else.

Sure Grove deserves many accolades (and some criticism if that rep was earned) but business reporting should strive to be a cut above Entertainment Tonight.