Then do you have an interim goal in the next transition?
I think our goal in the next transition is to manage this in a way so that Intel is still Intel, before and after. We will all bring our own perspectives, but we will also bring two decades-plus of history working together into this job. Every one of these guys has been around a long time in Intel.
You are an 80,000-person company now -- or close to it. Do you think Intel still has the same entrepreneurial drive that it had five to 10 years ago?
If you would have asked that question in comparison to 30 years ago, I would have said "no" because the scope was a lot different. Five years ago is a drop in the bucket. We are much the same then as we are now... in terms of our focus on products.
We are today much more adept at handling and integrating new architectures and then marketing them. We were very good for some -- for two decades -- at bringing out the next best microprocessor and just doing that time and time again. The model that we are addressing now is a better use of our resources, one that actually gives us a better, sustainable competitive advantage.
What do you think you are going to face, in terms of challenges that Craig Barrett has not had to face, as you expand beyond the traditional PC business?
The fundamental value proposition of bringing standards-based Moore's Law to their business unit is the same thing... it's the same value proposition we've brought to the computer industry for three decades.
In the consumer electronics space, I do not think it is much different. We show prototypes, and we talk about architectures. A year and a half ago, we created an organisation called the Digital Home Working Group, which brought together all the key CE (consumer electronics) and computer and software content companies to say: "Okay, guys, two years from now, we need a common standard for interoperability." So the first thing you do -- the first discussion you have -- is: "How do we all work together?" And from there, you have a common dialogue and a common business model.
Is it a question, then, of using old tactics and strategy and simply applying a new vocabulary?
What I suggested early on was that we take a much more holistic view of product development, market development and demand creation today than we did five years ago as a company... It is a notion of what Moore's Law brings to you, in terms of innovation and integration. So, I do not think that there is a difference in this regime, per se.
