Do you not hear the outside world talking to you? It seems so, and if so, this is a terrible mistake. They are not saying, "Hey Paul, nice going, you're really being a competitive guy. This is just 'business as usual.'" They are saying, "we think Intel is breaking the law. Stop it!" When a whole series of nations say this to you, this isn't just your competitors causing trouble; it means you are out of control, out of bounds, over your head.
When Intel joined the board of the One Laptop Per Child non-profit, and then announced its own competing product (one that also competes with its own customers), and then seemingly walked around the world sabotaging OLPC's order book -- well, that wasn't necessary, was it? That kind of competitive behavior verges on the anti-competitive. Of course you have the right to make computers, but do you need to act badly to win? Do you really have to kill off the other guy?
There is a difference, in business, between leaving a few pennies on the table when the deal is done, or not; between competing with a company, or destroying it. In addition to any legal questions involved, in my experience it will cost you billions more in ill will if you choose the latter path. This has nothing to do with being paranoid: It has everything to do with good business, smart management, and long-term market planning.
As Cisco CEO John Chambers could tell you, you live in an ecosystem, where competitors one day are often resellers -- or even new divisions -- the next day.
And here is the worst part of crossing that line between being a tough competitor and just being out of control. Are your employees happy? Are your customers?
Personally, I don't think they are. Clearly, the huge headcount cuts during the processor market share loss didn't help; but it's at times like these that culture matters most. I asked one longtime employee with a husband also at Intel what the mood was internally, and she said they were both job hunting. I've talked with top people at Intel who were apologetic about the company's behavior.
You've found various quasi-legal (i.e., still under legal review) ways to lock in customers, and perhaps freeze out competitors, but the carrot is always better than the stick. As you know, sticks tend to be illegal, and they create serious long-term ill-will.
My unasked-for advice on all this is simple: Take a page from Steve Ballmer's playbook. You can be just as competitive as before, and make more money for your shareholders than ever, without being tripped up by constant charges of misbehavior. Intel, like Microsoft, should be working on a new global role for itself, viewed by other CEOs and country presidents as a statesman. Monopolists that act like monopolists are constantly in trouble, so move beyond it.
Intel is facing a huge new challenge, as you and the company search for major new markets, both geographic and by product. The history of the WiMax standard meetings would be documentation of the company at its worst. And yet, the world (as well as Intel) benefits if your investment practices create a broadband wireless standard. Intel was booted right out of the cellphone/mobile space not long ago, and having (competitive broadband technology) LTE beat WiMax in the marketplace (a fate the rumor mill is discussing this week) would not do you, or the company, any good at all.
Post new comment