iPhone

T-Mobile offers $100 rebate for iPhone-iPad bundle

News

British school launches iPhone into space, takes stunning footage

iPhone

Samsung's latest Galaxy S5 ad pokes fun at iPhone battery

iOS Devices

Apple's larger next-gen iPhones reportedly said to go into production next month

Photography

5 cool connected camera accessories for your iPhone

News

Intel and Samsung teaming up for lower-cost 4K monitors

MacBook Air

Intel's newly announced Core M processors will pave the way for thinner MacBooks

News

Apple confirms iCloud breach not the reason behind Apple ID hijack

Macs

Intel's next-generation Broadwell processors due by the holidays — faster and longer lasting Macs are coming

Apps

United Airlines updated their app to give you in-flight video

News

J.D. Power survey shows consumers still most satisfied with iPhone on all major U.S. carriers

News

Apple and Google settle with employees over antitrust no-hire case

News

Apple releases iOS 7.1.1 with a few bug fixes, Touch ID improvements

News

Intel sketches out the next generation of Thunderbolt: twice as fast, 33% thinner

How to

How to secure your iPhone or iPad with a strong alphanumeric password

iPhone

Apple launches iPhone trade-in program in Germany

News

Apple expected to purchase stake in LCD chip manufacturer Renesas

iPhone

Apple engineer Greg Christie recounts the first iPhone development process

iPhone

China Mobile added 1 million iPhone customers in February alone

News

United Airlines launching free in-flight video service for iOS devices

Intel's outgoing CEO explains how they turned down the original iPhone

Intel CEO Paul Otellini has stepped down from his post, but not before divulging some interesting revelations in the process. As it turns out, Otellini and Intel turned down the chance to work on the original iPhone, now with some element of regret. As Otellini told The Atlantic:

"We ended up not winning it or passing on it, depending on how you want to view it. And the world would have been a lot different if we'd done it. The thing you have to remember is that this was before the iPhone was introduced and no one knew what the iPhone would do... At the end of the day, there was a chip that they were interested in that they wanted to pay a certain price for and not a nickel more and that price was below our forecasted cost. I couldn't see it. It wasn't one of these things you can make up on volume. And in hindsight, the forecasted cost was wrong and the volume was 100x what anyone thought."

On the one hand, at the time no-one probably did know just how much of a success the iPhone would become, and how many units would be shipped. Since then, Intel has finally begun to make moves into the mobile market, but they're very much late to the party and going their own way.

The full article at The Atlantic is a lengthy profile of Paul Otellini's time at Intel, and is definitely worth a read. If they had supplied chips to the original iPhone, though, how different their presence in mobile could be today.

Source: The Atlantic

Richard Devine

Senior Editor at iMore, part time racing driver, full time British guy

More Posts

 

2
loading...
9
loading...
45
loading...
0
loading...

← Previously

Looking for a tough Lightning cable? Moshi has just the thing for you

Next up →

Deal of the Day: 43% off the Incipio Smart Feather Ultralight Hard Case for iPad 4th gen and The New iPad

There are 4 comments. Add yours.

Plazmic Flame says:

Hindsight is always 20/20... Damn that sucks. All for the better I guess, battery life would have probably been worse.

infiniti says:

How are you guessing that that battery life would have been worse? Provide proof?

Greengold says:

I would offer up the fact that every major player has passed on Intel for mobile as proof.

SockRolid says:

The really interesting question is whether that proposed iPhone chip was ARM-based or legacy x86-based, e.g. Atom. I'd guess Intel proposed a legacy x86-based chip, and Otellini asked for an ultra-high Intel Tax because he thought Apple had no choice. If so I'd imagine that Otellini's thought process went something like this:

"Dang. Those ARM chips are cheap and powerful. But no, there's simply no way Apple can cram a legacy desktop OS like Mac OS X into a device that small. And OS X already runs on our legacy x86-64 architecture anyway. It would take them years to port OS X back from CISC to RISC."

"And no, there's no way Apple can achieve economy of scale on a niche market product like a touchscreen smartphone. It'll be a low-volume product, and it will need vastly more power than any ARM chip could ever deliver. Apple will be forced to pay our price, for Atom, no matter how high it is. We've got our boot on their neck."

So yeah, maybe Otellini's claim of Apple not wanting to pay "a nickel more" is true.
But one thing is for sure. When Otellini says "I couldn't see it," he isn't kidding.
How could he see it? His company has built chips for Windows boxes for decades.