But ever since I began writing for TheStreet, I have found myself pounding the table about Intel's problems.
What do I have against Intel, you might ask? Do I have a personal vendetta against the company?Uh, no. I love Intel. It's the most important company founded in the second half of the 20th century -- more important than Apple (AAPL) and Microsoft (MSFT) combined, because the Intel microprocessor enabled both companies.
But as I've previously noted, the 21st century is passing Intel by. In an age of devices, manufacturers are demanding more control over design and a product's use than a merchant chipmaker can give them. Now there are indications that Intel's management is hearing the message, with the sudden decision by CEO Paul Otellini to retire three years before he has to, as Newser reports. Did he jump, or was he pushed? Since Otellini took command in 2005 Intel shares have gone nowhere, and it has become a dividend stock with a current yield of over 4%. So probably it's a little of both. Otellini is a fine man, an excellent manager, but he's no visionary like Andy Grove or (God knows) Gordon Moore. Under Otellini the trains run on time, the budgets are met, the road map unfolds year after year like clockwork. But that's not what Intel needs right now. I think both he and his board finally understand this, which is why the board is being given the chance to change that direction under a new CEO. Trouble is, a new CEO alone won't get the job done. The heir apparent is COO Brian Krzanic, Techeye says, who comes out of the manufacturing side of the business, the "fab." Again, good man, with executive-style hair. But visionary? So the board says it will consider candidates from both inside and outside the company. This tells me the company may be interested in the most feared, but most obvious move on the board.