Intel says will find new MeeGo partners

LONDON Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:56am EST

Intel CEO Paul Otellini talks during the company's unveiling of its second generation Intel Core processor family during a news conference at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas January 5, 2011. REUTERS/Rick Wilking

Intel CEO Paul Otellini talks during the company's unveiling of its second generation Intel Core processor family during a news conference at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas January 5, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Rick Wilking

Related Topics

LONDON (Reuters) - Intel Corp said its partner Nokia dropped the MeeGo operating system after Microsoft offered "incredible" amounts of money for the phonemaker to switch to Windows but it would find new partners for MeeGo.

Intel's Chief Executive Paul Otellini said in a meeting with analysts in London, accessed by Reuters via conference call, that Nokia's choice of Microsoft over Google's Android platform was a financial decision.

Otellini said Nokia's Chief Executive Stephen Elop received "incredible offers -- money" from Google and Microsoft to switch.

"I wouldn't have made the decision he made, I would probably have gone to Android if I were him," he said. "MeeGo would have been the best strategy but he concluded he couldn't afford it."

Microsoft was not immediately available for comment.

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona on Wednesday that he had held extensive talks to try to woo Nokia.

Otellini said Nokia would find it hard to differentiate using the Windows platform: "It would have been less hard on Android, on MeeGo he could have done it."

"We will find another partner. The carriers still want a third ecosystem and the carriers want an open ecosystem, and that's the thing that drives our motivation," he said.

MeeGo was created last year by the merger of Nokia and Intel's Linux-based platforms Maemo and Moblin.

Otellini said in Barcelona that open systems had the edge over closed systems: "Some closed models will certainly survive, because you can optimize the experience, but in general, if you harness the ability of all the engineers in the world and the developers in the world, open wins.

ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

In his meeting with analysts on Thursday, Otellini tackled head on what he said was the elephant in the room: the rise of tablets at the expense of PCs.

"(The view that) 'PCs are dead and tablets are going to eat our lunch and there's no growth in the PC market', let me just say 'bunk' to that," he said.

Last year was one of the strongest growth years ever for PC unit sales with a 17 percent rise, he said, and Intel forecasts unit growth in the low double-digits again this year driven by notebook sales in emerging markets.

Intel's chips, which generally have high power but are energy hungry, have not yet found a use in mobile phones or tablets, where manufacturers favor chip's designed by British firm ARM.

Otellini said one problem with the perceived Intel versus ARM battle was that there was no ARM, in the sense that ARM's chips were made by 1,200 licensees.

"There's no architecture consistency," he said. "It is a big expensive, hard job to create persistence in your architecture over multiple generations: that's what we do exceptionally well."

He also dismissed ARM's prospects in the server market. The British company has said some of its chipmaker partners are working on processors for servers, and products could be on the market in five years.

"I don't see anytime soon ARM having the software capability, the computer architecture, the transistor performance to be able to become a factor in servers," Otellini said. "AMD is much more potent as a server competitor than the ARM guys ever will be."

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
“I wouldn’t have made the decision (Nokia CEO Stephen Elop) made, I would probably have gone to Android if I were him,”

I too would have gone for Android: it is the platform that is winning the hearts and minds of consumers worldwide.

Hundreds of millions of consumers can’t be wrong. Neither can all the other phone makers, who have jumped on to the Android bandwagon. Google’s Android too has its drawbacks and glitches but we don’t live in a perfect world either.

Steve Ballmer’s “phenomenal windows phone” is yet to be seen: it is pure “promiseware” at present. If Microsoft’s new Wndows 7 mobile phone was such a “terrific” one, why did’nt it hit the jackpot in Q4- 2010 sales? Why did consumers all over the world buy Android phones instead for Christmas?

Nasty questions to which neither Nokia nor Microsoft has given any credible answers. Because there are no answers.

Feb 17, 2011 8:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
AdamSmith wrote:
Intel is very good at making a few lines of chips exceptionally well. But making software for developers or for the public? In that department, Intel is a sea of mediocrity. The days of Andy Grove are long gone, unfortunately.

Microsoft’s Phone 7 system is a potent challenger, technically, to iPhone and Android, except that it crucially lacks the payment system that Apple is using in iPhone and iPad, and that Google is quickly preparing for its Android.

Meanwhile Intel on the software development side is just too slow, too many failed projects.

Feb 17, 2011 2:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dividebyzero wrote:
I can’t wait to put my hands on a Nokia MeeGo phone, but I must say I hope it to carry an ARM chip, and I am also not crazy about Intel saying they want to make an open system in order to please operators…

Feb 17, 2011 7:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.