Intel's Mobile Boss Leaves

There was no explanation given why Chandrasekher left other than a quote from executive vice president David Perlmutter who briefly thanked Chandrasekher for his 24 years of service - and wished him well in his "future endeavors."   

It's the type of announcement that suggests that this was not a mutual agreement. Someone was fired here. The Atom platform was Chandrasekher's core responsibility  and we know that Intel has not been exactly successful in the ultra mobility market besides netbooks. Netbooks appear to be on the decline these days, while tablets and smartphones are the hot new products - in which Intel is not represented yet. Promised market introductions have been delayed multiple times and Intel's hope that the smart TV segment would adopt Atom processors quickly isn't materializing either.  

Atom was originally launched as a low-cost processors for the netbook in a time when the computer industry faced slowing sales as part of a severe recession. Atom excelled in 2008 and 2009. It propelled the netbook to glory within a short period of time. However, Intel's plans to sell premium versions of Atom into mobile internet devices (MIDs) failed as those devices largely turned into smartphones, which is a segment that is dominated by ARM. Until today, Intel has no finalized product to compete with ARM on the smartphone level.

It is somewhat obvious that Chandrasekher had to go because of a lacking Intel product in the smartphone and tablet space, which is a serious problem for the company today. The way Chandrasekher was let go, with a "chip shot" announcement that isn't even seven lines long, could be interpreted as a sign of disrespect and indication how much the parties disagreed on the future Intel mobile strategy. However, Chandrasekher was 24 years at Intel and deserved a more prominent note.

Mike Bell and Dave Whalen will take over Chandrasekher's responsibilities effectively immediately, Intel said.  

Create a new thread in the US News comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
13 comments
    Your comment
  • I would not blame this guy, I would blame the fact that atom is pathetically weak as an architecture....it looked good on paper because they could say things like dual core with hyprethreading and 1.8 Ghz while still being cheap (and low cost) but the core 2 architecture which is older is just as power efficient and performs better.....(examples being all the CULV core 2 parts)
    -1
  • Intel's die-hard x86 approach didn't work too well in smart phones or tablet PCs. In fact, if i recall correctly, it didn't work at all. The atom has mostly been used in HTPCs and netbooks, but now that fusion is slowly creeping it's way into those segments it looks like the atom will be even more of a failure. Same or better power usage, near identical CPU performance and better graphics? I'll take the green one rather than the blue.

    It does beg the question of just what Intel will be releasing with their new atom. If he was in fact fired then I highly doubt that the new one will be much of an improvement at all.
    1
  • scook9I would not blame this guy, I would blame the fact that atom is pathetically weak as an architecture....it looked good on paper because they could say things like dual core with hyprethreading and 1.8 Ghz while still being cheap (and low cost) but the core 2 architecture which is older is just as power efficient and performs better.....(examples being all the CULV core 2 parts)

    Core 2 costs more per square mm. In other words you have something that performs close to a c2d at a fraction of the size and cost. That's great! Having said that I think that Atom needs to improve more if it wants to compete in other spaces like cellphones.
    1