Intel's Atom chips, once suited for powering anemic set-top boxes and tablet PCs, have been dramatically improved. Unfortunately, their biggest competitor is sitting right next to them: Intel's Core chips for PCs.

Intel announced a new revision to the Atom chips, known as "Silvermont," this week, something that consumers should cheer about. Like an engine that can power cars, trucks and boats, the Silvermont architecture will end up in everything from phones to PCs.

That's where the problems begin. Intel needs the Atom, a low-cost, low-power, Windows-capable chip, to compete with ARM in the phone market — something earlier generations of the Atom notably failed to do. But what if PC buyers actually prefer the Atom to Intel's high-priced Core? What does Intel do then? It takes it in the shorts, that's what. And likes it.

Intel vs. Intel

It's not an abstract concept. Intel executives promised that Silvermont Atoms will deliver twice the performance and consume four times less power than its rival processors, and - more important - deliver about two to three times the performance of the last-generation Atom chips that powered the early convertible tablets.

From a performance standpoint, that means that you'll be able to buy far more powerful Windows tablets that push closer to what the Core offers. And from a price perspective, those tablets will cost about $200 or so - about the price of the Core processor, by itself.

Sure, Intel's Core chips will improve, too, with the "Haswell" revision due this summer. But we're seeing a stagnating traditional PC market in part because there most people don't have much need for constantly increasing processor performance. Remember, Windows 8 was designed to be more efficient than Windows 7, and thus requires less memory and raw computing power.

In other words, Microsoft was intrinsically designing toward the Atom, not the Core.

But if consumers see that the new generation of Atoms provide good-enough performance, that result should be an acceleration of low-cost PCs - possibly even enough to give the PC market a real jolt. That would certainly help Microsoft's hopes for a resuscitated PC market, but it would leave Intel holding the bag. Microsoft has another motive, too: Either it adopts the new chips, or its Surface tablet gets priced out of the market.

Why Does Intel Need the Atom And The Core?

In some ways, the Atom is Intel's do-over. Intel was built upon performance: raw computing power that powered PCs and servers, driven by manufacturing that always remained a step ahead of the competition. Intel really didn't care about low-power chips until a company called Transmeta pushed it into the mobile market. And even then, Intel was trading off power for improved performance, even into its most recent Core chips.

That opened the door for yet another Intel competitor, ARM, a technology company that licenses its chip designs to the likes of Qualcomm and Nvidia for use in phones by Apple, Samsung, and Motorola. (That is, virtually all of the smartphones made today.)

Intel had its own shot to enter the phone market with an ARM design, the StrongARM, but squandered its shot in the early 2000s. Eventually, Intel decided to meet the ARM challenge with an x86, Windows-compatible chip, and designed the Atom.

The industry, however, never really expected the Atom to actually succeed in the phone space. Lenovo's announcement of the Atom-powered K800 in 2012 represented Intel's first smartphone design win ever, and it was certainly the equal of any phone at the time. Unfortunately, the K800 never made it to U.S. shores, being designed for China Telecom. More Atom-powered phones have followed, all in Asia. But a handful of design wins in Asia is a lot better than nothing. 

So we know this: Intel can't give up on the Atom, because of the potential market of billions of phones and tablets it hopes to capture. But within the PC market, Intel runs the real risk of cannibalizing the Core.

So What Happens?

People want their television to work like a TV. Sending tweets on Twitter, posting photos on Facebook and browsing the Web are best left to smartphones and tablets. Indeed, more than 40% of U.S. households with Internet-enabled TVs haven't even bothered to hook them up to the Web, according to market researcher NPD Group.

This is not the future TV manufacturers expected.

RIP, Smart TV

In 2010, reimagining TVs as computer hybrids with big screens for the living room seemed to make lots of sense. Why not play games, run applications and surf the Web from the same box that shows movies and programming from a cable or satellite provider? Proponents quickly dubbed the new device the "smart TV."

Intel, sensing a new market for its microprocessors, was a huge supporter, saying the smart TV "could be the most significant change in television history." Yet by end of 2011, Intel had abandoned the smart TV business to focus on smartphones and tablets.

The main problem was that what Samsung, LG big TV makers delivered was a mishmash of applications that had nothing to do with watching TV — the main reason people gather around the big box in the first place. Unsurprisingly, very few consumers wanted to spend more for supposed next-generation television sets that included a bunch of features they didn't want in the first place.

Today, the TV is evolving much differently. Internet video now comes to the set via other devices such as the Apple TV, Roku and Boxee Box. Nearly six in 10 consumers who own an Internet-connected high-definition TV use such services to supplement pay TV subscriptions, NPD says.

As for other once-vaunted "smart TV" activities — reading or posting on Twitter or Facebook, reading digital books or magazines, video calling, shopping or gaming — well, they attract well below 10% of such people.

Second-Screen TV

Video is clearly what people want on their TVs, so pay TV providers have turned their attention to tablet apps. Instead of shipping expensive set-top boxes, service providers want people to use tablets to find movies, see what friends are watching and browse their favorite programming.

The apps will add to the enjoyment of watching TV by providing player stats in a baseball game or actor bios and behind-the-scene clips from the users' favorite shows. These apps could yield be a goldmine of subscriber data that can be fed to advertisers who could then turn around and use the information to target advertising.

Having an app that knows your viewing habits could be useful when you're traveling. Imagine connecting your tablet to the TV in a hotel room and immediately having the same viewing experience you have at home.

"The TV needs to be more like a docking station," Paul Gray, analyst for DisplaySearch, an NPD company, told me. "It needs to play nice with these mobile devices."

Panasonic is one of the first manufacturers to ship televisions capable of communicating wirelessly with a tablet. Rivals will surely follow suit, as manufacturers emphasize seamless integration with mobile devices.

Dumb Monitors Need Not Apply

To call these sets "dumb monitors" would oversimplify things. A lot of good engineering is needed to provide reliable interoperability with any tablet or smartphone, irrespective of whether it runs Android or Apple's iOS.

"I do contest people who say that TV ends up as sort of a big dumb monitor," Gray says. "You actually probably need quite a lot of intelligence, but it's kind of under the hood."

TV manufacturers, however, are still stuck in the same box they've long tried to escape: Their products are mostly all alike and thus hard to differentiate. Shifts in broadcast technology — such as NTSC to HD, and before long, HD to 4K — or screen technology (LCD vs. LED, for instance) enable some innovation, but once things shake out and picture quality is comparable across models, TV sets once again become commodites. That leaves Panasonic, Samsung, Sony and the rest with price cuts and not much more to lure buyers.

Commoditization is the curse of the consumer electronics industry. TV makers will look for ways to add value after the use of second-screen apps become mainstream. The trick will be to avoid another failure like the smart TV.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock

If Intel's future chief executives continue rising through its ranks, then the real news isn't that Intel named Brian Krzanich its sixth CEO. It's that Intel software chief Renee James may be in line to succeed him.

It's hard to escape a back-to-the-future feeling with the Krzanich announcement, which basically represents the company's continued focus on making chips smaller, cheaper and, now, less power-hungry — Intel's traditional secret sauce. Like outgoing CEO Paul Otellini, Krzanich served as chief operating officer and previously held several manufacturing positions across the company since he joined Intel in 1989. 

Intel CEOs generally emerge from the president's office or that of the COO — Krzanich's old job, and one that Intel hasn't filled yet. Intel historically has swapped CEOs when they've turned 60; Krzanich, 52, will have eight more years before a successor takes over.

Last November, when Otellini unexpectedly declared his intention to step down later this month, chairman Andy Bryant took the unusual step of naming what some saw as four possibilities to replace him: Krzanich, James, Dadi Perlmutter, the head of Intel's chip business; and Arvind Sodhani, head of the company's internal VC unit, Intel Capital.

The Rise Of Intel Software

Of the four, only James represents something strikingly new for Intel. In a company traditionally dominated by old, balding white engineers, James has been the face of Intel's software business since joining the company via its acquisition of Bell Technologies in 1988.

Although she holds business degrees from the University of Oregon, that's not necessarily a black mark; Otellini himself was an economics major. But James also served as chief of staff for former chief executive Andy Grove, giving her the stamp of legitimacy. James even carries a red pen — a notorious Grove trademark — as a reminder of her roots.

James was instrumental in three major acquisitions: Intel's 2007 acquisition of physics middleware developer Havok for an undisclosed amount, the 2009 acquisition of embedded software company Wind River for about $884 million; and Intel's $7.68 billion purchase of security giant McAfee in 2011. Intel contributes to the Linux kernel, developed its own Hadoop implementation, co-developed the Tizen mobile OS with Samsung, and writes its own software compilers for its microprocessors.

"I can see a day where a future Intel CEO could have extensive software experience," Patrick Moorhead, a former executive of Intel rival AMD and now an independent analyst, said. About 70 percent of a smartphone's research and development costs now derive from software, Moorhead said.

Wait A Second. Software? Intel? Really?

Can software really mean that much to Intel? After all, this is a company that owns over 80 percent of both the PC microprocessor market, about as much in the server market, and is busy trying to make inroads into phones, tablets, and low-power convertible Windows tablets. 

Sure. Moorhead, for instance, argues that Intel's strategy is to combine chips and software in a way that make each indispensable to the other. Rolling your own software and fabricating your own silicon can allow a company to optimize their combined performance in ways that other manufacturers can't match. In a business sense, selling the software and silicon together also allows customers to save money and simplify their own development efforts.

Put that way, Krzanich's appointment as chief executive, with James just below him on the executive ladder, makes sense. Intel's not about to try a RIM/BlackBerry-styled double chief executive, but for a number of years, Intel operated out of a two-in-the-box strategy, where responsibilities for certain divisions were shared not by one, but by two executives.

For Now, Krzanich Minds The Store

Manufacturing prowess remains key to Intel. When the company ships its next-generation "Haswell" processor this June, the chip's smallest features will be just 22 nanometers wide, putting it a full generation ahead of AMD's expected "Piledriver" chip. Smaller chips with finer "linewidths" are traditionally more powerful; now that the focus has turned to mobile, Intel can reduce the power those chips consume instead.

Which isn't to say Intel doesn't have a lot of catching up to do. It has fallen badly behind in producing processors for smartphones and tablets, in an eerie repeat of the way it was initially late to the notebook PC market. 

Krzanich's job will be to turn that around. Ideally, Intel needs to design the best chips it can, shrink them down as small as possible, and then them them with optimized software to maximize their potential.

James' appointment is as much reward as recognition of her strategic role. In 2009, soon after the Wind River acquisition, the notoriously grouchy Grove was asked to characterize Intel's history in software. “The results have been very consistent,” Grove, then 73 and retired, told The Oregonian. “They amounted to nothing.” Now, they're everything.

Intel has named a new chief executive officer. The chipmaker has dubbed former chief operating officer Brian Krzanich as its new leader, replacing Paul Otellini who announced that he would retire from the company last November. 

Krzanich has been at Intel for more than 30 years, starting in 1982. He was promoted to COO in January 2012 and has been operating as executive vice president since Nov. 2012. He started at Intel as an engineer and worked his way up through the ranks before becoming head of Intel's worldwide manufacturing in 2010. In that position Krzanich was responsible for all of Intel's factories and chip manufacturing worldwide.

The move to promote Krzanich mirrors that of Otellini himself. Otellini had worked at Intel for 32 years before becoming CEO in 2005, replacing Craig Barret. At the time was seen as an odd choice for Intel as the company had historically promoted senior executives who had been trained as engineers. Otellini was trained as a businessman with a degree in economics and a Master's in Business Administration. Krzanich comes from an engineering background and has served as an Intel plant manager before his ascension to the executive ranks.

Let's say the rumors are true, and that Microsoft does in fact bring back the Start button and a boot-to-desktop option to address longstanding user complaints. Can that fix what's ailing Windows 8? 

Perhaps, eventually — but Microsoft is still treating the symptom rather than the disease. The problem is the PC itself, not the operating system that runs it. And that's what Microsoft (and, secondarily, its Wintel partner Intel) really needs to transform.

At this point, it seems clear that the tiled, touch friendly Start screen and the lack of a boot option to the familiar "desktop" interface scared off some people who might otherwise have upgraded to Windows 8. Instead, those PC users stuck with their familiar Windows 7 or Windows XP interface, or powered down their PCs altogether and turned to their phones or tablets.

Wintel Panic

All of which has the onetime Wintel duopoly in a bit of a panic. Microsoft needs an OS that will delight consumers. It's so far failed in that, so it's apparently retrofitting Windows 8 for folks who need more handholding to move to the new OS. Similarly, Microsoft needs a robust apps environment, so it's looking to entice developers to its Windows Store. That's not going so well, either.

Intel, meanwhile, continues to push down the cost of its microprocessors to a point where Windows tablets running on its Core microprocessors can compete with the Android and iOS markets. By the holiday season, Intel executives said, we should see Core-based laptops at between $499 to $599, with new, more powerful Atom options in the $200 price range.

Put those together, and here's what needs to happen.

1. Downplay The Start Screen

If Microsoft brings back the boot-to-desktop option, the company faces an interesting marketing dilemma: Should it still promote the tiled Start screen that turns off at least some of its customers? No. That doesn't mean that Microsoft should change the Windows 8 interface — the Start screen was designed as a tablet interface, and should remain so. But Microsoft should make the Start screen the face of the Surface tablet, and make the Windows desktop the face of its Windows 8 advertising for PCs.

2. Gently Push New Users To The Desktop 

Clearly, a portion of Microsoft's customer base has been traumatized by its initial reaction to Windows 8. There's a real risk that these users may never return to the Windows fold.

But gently managing a boot-to-desktop option may mitigate some of that. Boot-to-desktop should be presented as one of the first options in the Windows installation, perhaps accompanied by something like this: "Would you like Windows 8 to boot to the Windows Desktop? The Windows desktop provides a familiar environment for users of Windows XP and Windows 7."

From there, let them explore and do as they wish. If the Start Screen is as compelling as Microsoft seems to think, at least some users will eventually move over of their own volition.

3. Solve The Blah Windows Apps Problem

One of the bigger problems with the Start screen that Microsoft so far hasn't been able to address is that most of the applications featured there are basically uninspiring (Fresh Paint excluded). With Windows XP and Windows 7, those applications were tucked away behind the Start button, where users were free to ignore them. With the Windows 8 Start screen, they're out there for the world to see and grow disillusioned with. And it's not immediately clear how booting to the desktop's empty expanse will be much of an improvement.

But by making the Windows 8 Desktop the focus, Microsoft's advertising, at least, can encompass the broad expanse of Windows apps out there. Mix and match! Steal a page from Apple. Highlight the flashiest apps, whether they be from the Windows 8 world or even from Windows 7. Legacy OS support is a feature, too. And free advertising for Adobe, EA, or some other developer can only engender goodwill.

4. Make Windows Shine On Tablets — Cheaply

Microsoft also desperately needs a successful mobile strategy. And the only real way to to do that is to offer more for less.

In other words, if Microsoft wants to leverage Windows in the mobile space, it needs to really leverage Windows. The Windows RT version of Surface failed in part because it was a crippled version of Windows 8; it's time to retire it. The Surface with Windows Pro, by contrast, could be a hit if its price falls far enough. And if Microsoft pushes hard to convince buyers that they can accomplish a whole lot more with a full-fledged Windows tablet than they can with competing products.

Microsoft needs to show that a Windows tablet — derivative of the Surface, or one based on the new quad-core "Bay Trail" chips — can offer desktop PC-class performance at tablet prices. We know tablets are mobile. Microsoft Stores need to feature a Windows tablet or convertible running the flashiest piece of software it can, on a conventional desktop monitor, with the price tag prominently displayed. The message: all this for $299??!! Why would I ever want an Android tablet?

5. Find A Mobile Apps Tiger Team

Tucking your Android or iOS phone in your pocket is an unconscious decision. And as more game developers choosing to write for iOS and Android, fewer are around to focus on Windows. There's another key advantage for iOS and Android, too: chances are that you can play the same game on your iPad and iPhone, or your Android phone and tablet. You can't often say the same for Windows Phone and Surface.

If users can't share apps, files, and other documents between the PC, notebook, tablet and phone, they're going to start looking elsewhere. Microsoft's realized this with its core apps, including Office and the Xbox. Netflix traverses the range of Microsoft's platforms, but that's about it.

There is no easy fix here. If Microsoft can't develop the apps it needs itself, it's going to have to go out and buy them. This is the Nintendo problem, writ large. Without AAA third-party software, Microsoft will have to go it alone. 

Delaying The Inevitable

IDC's right; the PC is dying. It's inevitable, and Microsoft is merely rearranging desk chairs on the Titanic. But in this case, there's a chance the ship could make harbor before it sinks.

Notebooks will eventually give way to tablets, whether or not they have a keyboard attached to them. Microsoft won the desktop, and it won the notebook. Now it needs to win tablets. If it shows weakness now, it will be buried. 

Can Microsoft throw enough money at these problems to fix them? It may have to. It can patch Windows 8, and Intel can help keep prices falling. But the apps and mobile problems require more extensive surgery, and the time to act is now.

Image Source: Flickr/yoshimov

As Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Lenovo, and other manufacturers nervously place bets on the PC, server, and tablet markets, they're playing more and more with Intel's chips. And that means one thing: Intel stands to win no matter what.

Intel yesterday reported a 25% profit decline on revenue of $12.6 billion, which the company blamed on the general blahs plaguing the PC market. But two numbers stood out: a 6.6% drop in PC microprocessor revenue, and a 7.5%  increase in revenue from data centers.

Playing Both Ends — Maybe All Three

What does this mean? At the moment, PC sales are in free fall as consumers rush toward tablets. But as customers snap up mobile devices, tapping into cloud-hosted apps, demand for the servers that power those data centers increases.

Meanwhile, Intel is moving farther into phones, tablets, and networking, where further profits beckon. The bottom line is this: if consumers chase mobile apps, Intel will be there, powering cloud data centers. If they stick to the PC, or shift to new lightweight ultrabooks, Intel stands to benefit thanks to its 80+ percent market share. And if Intel can convince more phone and tablet makers to buy into its chip offerings, it'll win there, too — though that's much more of a gamble at the moment.

Intel CFO Stacy Smith told analysts that the company's second-half outlook looks stronger than expected because of two things: a stronger macroeconomic environment, which would boost overall spending, plus Intel's presence in PCs, servers, phones and tablets. 

To that, Intel chief executive Paul Otellini added a third component: price. "We have a certain spec for ultrabooks, and that is the product that Stacy said is going to be centered at as low as $599 with some [products] to $499," Otellini said. "If you look at touch-enabled Intel based notebooks that are ultrathin and light using non-Core processors, those prices are going to be down to as low as $200 probably."

Intel's Hole Card: Mastery Of Moore's Law

Otellini, who will retire in May, can fairly be criticized for not investing in tablets and other mobile devices earlier. But from an operational standpoint, Intel is winning. The company continues to leverage its core asset: manufacturing, creating a ripple effect that continues to carry the company into new markets.

In May, Intel will launch "Haswell," its next-generation 22-nm chip. Rival AMD is a generation behind, at 32 nm. This forces AMD to out-engineer Intel — again — in terms of chip design to keep up, and AMD arguably hasn't done that. "This leadership in materials science and manufacturing technology is the foundation on which our future success will be based, arming us with the world’s lowest power and lowest cost transistors," Otellini said, and he's right.

Normally, a drop in PC consumption, and thus lower manufacturing demand, would imply a decline in revenues. Not so. Smith said that Intel simply pulled older manufacturing equipment and accelerated a shift toward its next milestone, 14-nm manufacturing, and saved $1 billion in capital costs in the process. It also struck a "foundry" deal with Altera, in which it agreed to manufacture Altera chips on unused Intel equipment. If demand picks up, Intel can simply turn on production lines again.

Mobile and Tablets Still Hold Potential

After fumbling its StrongARM technology in 1997 — the processor architecture which now powers basically every phone on the planet — Intel shocked many by announcing X86 phone designs with Lenovo and other Asian manufacturers in 2012. Is Intel poised to take over the phone market? Absolutely not. But simply demonstrating the capability makes it a company to watch, and its reach may slowly grow over time.

So far, the "Clover Trail" Atom chip Intel debuted last fall for a new generation of convertible Windows tablets has barely left a ripple, hampered as it was by poor computing performance and a general disdain for Windows 8. In phones, however, Intel is combining Clover Trail with an applications processor and an LTE baseband chip into what's known as a system-on-a-chip, a tidy all-in-one package. First-quarter tablet volume doubled, and Intel expects it to double again — from a little to a little more than a little, one might expect. Still, it's a start.

Tablets, though, could be Intel's future. In the second half of the year, Intel plans to launch "Bay Trail," a quad-core Atom chip. (Intel brands its PC processors using the "Core" name; the non-Core chip Otellini referred to inside the $200 PCs is almost certainly Bay Trail.) If that's true, a $200 Windows-based tablet almost moves into impulse-buy territory. 

What Intel's irresistible progress in manufacturing technology means is that it almost doesn't matter whether Clover Trail or Bay Trail are successful. Intel should enable the combination of performance, power, and/or price that should offer Windows tablets some true competition to Android and iOS. Will ARM be able to keep ahead? If we're talking $200 price points, how much will it matter?

Meanwhile, Intel's hold on the enterprise market remains secure, as the vast majority of servers are powered by Intel X86 chips. Here, too, ARM chips have declared war, claiming that their low power offers a more cost-effective solution to Intel's power-hungry Xeon chips. Intel has deployed "Centeron," an optimized Atom chip for servers, in response. And software-defined networking, which steals some of the intelligence from a network router or switch and puts it inside a server, benefits Intel, too.

What Intel does best, though, is double down and double again, using manufacturing to make up for any shortfalls in design that its competition might otherwise exploit. It might not be the most elegant solution, but so far it's proving brutally effective.

Image source: Intel

Intel, the chip giant, is buying Mashery, a seven-year-old company in San Francisco that specializes in linking together Web-based software and services, a company spokesperson confirmed to ReadWrite.

Mashery's 125 employees are learning of the acquisition through a companywide email sent this morning. Intel expects to offer the "majority" of employees jobs when the deal closes, which is expected to happen in the second quarter. The group will remain in its current location and join Intel's two-year-old Services Division. Terms were not disclosed, but the deal is not material to Intel's financial results.

Big Implications For Intel's Core Business

The implications of the deal are huge: it signals Intel's recognition that the central processing unit is no longer a silicon chip. It is the network.

Mashery, a company ReadWrite has long covered closely, specializes in managing application programming interfaces, or APIs. APIs are the lingua franca of the Internet, the systems through which machines communicate with other machines according to preset rules. For example, Facebook's platform, which websites and apps rely on to add social features, is a set of APIs. Foursquare uses APIs to let other apps access its location database and other features, allowing Instagram and Evernote users to add a place to a photo or a note.

The same techniques that connect consumer apps, it turns out, also work well within large businesses. Comcast, for example, uses Mashery's API management service to allow programmers to access internal systems. That's a far more sensible way to create internal software than the alternative, which involves doing a lot of one-off integrations at considerable time and expense.

Smaller companies often find it difficult to set up systems that grant developers access to these software interfaces. Likewise, enterprises don't generally want to build their own API-management systems. Recently, that has become a bigger and bigger business for Mashery.

Moving Beyond Chips

Intel is in the midst of a shift away from just selling chips to selling software and services. This change, while little-noticed, has been long in the making. Intel bought McAfee for $7.7 billion in 2010, putting it into the security-software business. In 2005, Intel bought a smaller company, Sarvega, which specialized in XML gateways. (XML, or extensible markup language, is a broad descriptor of a file format commonly used in APIs; an XML gateway transports files to make APIs possible.)

Intel first partnered with Mashery in November of 2012, pairing Mashery's API-management tools with its own security offerings. By bringing Mashery in-house, Intel has a more complete and credible offering in cloud-computing infrastructure. (Most cloud-software services communicate with other services via APIs.)

Ideally, Intel might sell the chips inside the servers running the software programs that communicate via these APIs, too. (It has a substantial business selling such chips.) But what's more important is the notion that Intel has a product offering that speaks to innovative startups, not just struggling PC manufacturers.

Mashery has raised a total of $35 million from investors, most recently $10 million last year in a deal that valued the company at $60 million. An experienced startup founder familiar with the terms of the deal says that investors are "happy" with the outcome.

The deal's not expected to be material to Intel's results, but industry norms suggest that Intel likely paid two to three times Mashery's most recent valuation—a range of $120 million to $180 million. (A Mashery spokesperson declined to comment on the company's fundraising or the deal's terms.)

Over the past dozen years or so, Intel has repeatedly demonstrated that it has a tin ear when it comes to consumer electronics. Despite a long trail of failure, the tenacious chipmaker keeps coming back with one bad idea after another.

Its latest scheme has Intel going toe-to-toe with... wait for it... Comcast, Time Warner Cable and DirecTV. Yes, Intel — Intel! — plans to launch an online pay-TV service delivered through its own set-top box.

This isn't a new idea. Apple, Google and Microsoft have also wanted to reshape television in a similar way, but have yet to convince Time Warner, NBC Universal and Viacom to license their TV shows and movies in a way that would give Internet TV a fighting chance. Go figure. And so none of them have moved forward.

A Desperate Intel

Intel, however, is plowing ahead. Why? Because it's desperate to break into new markets as sales of PCs, the majority of which are powered by Intel microprocessors, continue to deteriorate. The meteoric rise of smartphones and tablets that eroded the PC business blindsided Intel, which has had little success in supplying chips to these new markets. In the fourth quarter ended in December, Intel net income fell 27% year to year and revenue was down 3%.

The speed with which the PC market is vaporizing has made Intel willing to take on a lot of risk. According to Bloomberg, Intel is making progress in talks with media companies. But what that means isn't clear.

As a smaller operator, Intel would likely pay more for TV channels and movies than incumbent cable, satellite and telecommunications companies, which spend almost $38 billion a year licensing TV channels according to the Wall Street Journal. Media companies have no incentive to anger current licensees — much less cut into their potential profits — by agreeing to any terms that would give Intel an advantage.

So Intel will be paying more to go to market with a service that looks, well, a lot like what its larger rivals are already selling — only, maybe, less so. In addition, Intel would be dependent on  broadband services to deliver its pay TV services. This could be a problem if cable and telecoms decided to ratchet down their data caps.

Intel's set-top box could offer unique whiz-bang features, such as a camera  for video-conferencing and personalizing content based on facial recognition. But that won't be enough, since people watch TV for the programming, not what's inside the set-top box.

Intel Outside

Intel's history is a study in how not to combine technology with entertainment. Each of its attempts follows the same lame pattern: Intel hypes its plans at the Consumer Electronics Show, then programs its executives to continue slinging marketing BS in interviews with the press. Eventually, the whole venture falls apart, usually with in a year or so.

To wit:

• In 2010, Intel launched chips and big plans for partnering with manufacturers to build the "smart TV,"  which was really nothing more than a set that would let users run apps and tap into the Internet while watching programs. The problem: no one wanted to play with apps on their TV. So Intel pulled the plug in 2011.

• In 2006, Intel embarked on another would-be game changer, Viiv. This chipset for Windows PCs running Microsoft's Media Center was going to turn PCs into entertainment hub — along the way, moving the battle with viruses, software updates and computer crashes to the living room. The Intel hype machine churned into high gear, at least until the first Viiv PCs came out.

  As The Washington Post reported,  the typical Viiv box offered little more than a "smattering of free Web video clips and discounts on online music, movie and game rentals — plus a nifty rainbow-hued Viiv sticker on the front of the computer." By 2008, Viiv was dead.

• In 2001, Intel was pondering slower-than-expected demand for its Pentium 4 chips and a modest 10% growth in its core microprocessor business. So the company decided to jump into the market for digital music players with a $300 gadget to take on the leading models from Sony, Philips and the Rio division of Sonicblue.

  Unexpectedly, though, Apple released the iPod later that year and wiped out all its competitors. Including Intel.

Despite its money and army of smart people, Intel simply doesn't get the consumer electronics market, and likely never will. The company is very good at building the innards of PCs, including chips, memory and motherboards, but has shown little talent for doing much else.

Rather than launch pay-TV services that will take the company in a direction far beyond its expertise, Intel has to get much better at picking market winners. Missing out on the smartphone and tablet craze was a huge blunder. While making up for that miss, Intel needs to watch for what's next and move quickly. Launching a pay-TV service just makes the company seem desperate to try anything.

Image courtesy of ShutterStock

Earlier pieces in this series on "BYOD Grows Up" have explained how bring-your-own-device policies can be productivity enhancers, employee morale boosters and even, counterintuitively, security enhancers (because new policies can allow IT departments to push through long-overdue upgrades).

But enough with the logical arguments. Let's have a look at the hard numbers behind the BYOD trend, as laid out in this handy infographic jointly produced by Intel and ReadWrite. Be sure to let us know what you think in comments. 

Read more in the series "BYOD Grows Up":

• Why Processor Choice Matters To BYOD
• Yes, It IS Possible To Have A Secure BYOD Program
• 10 Tips to Make BYOD A Success In Your Enterprise
• Why Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Is So Hot Right Now

If you were to guess how many people logged in to Facebook in a single minute, what would you say? 10,000? 100,000? According to a new infographic posted by Intel, it's a staggering 277,000 logins every minute, even as six million Facebook pages are getting viewed in that same period.

The scale of the Internet is something that most of us have trouble understanding, because the numbers are so staggeringly big. That's why infographics like the one Intel put together last year are so helpful — by breaking down the Internet into what happens in one minute, the numbers are at least a little more manageable.

(See also: Peta, Exa, Yotta And Beyond: Big Data Reaches Cosmic Proportions [Infographic])

And it will do nothing but grow. By 2015, Intel estimates, the number of Internet connections will double that of the world's population.

Get out the popcorn and take a look at the infographic for more figures that will stretch your perception of what can happen in a single minute. (Click the image for a full-size version.)

[Update: The infographic referenced was produced in 2012, not 2013, and the article has been updated to reflect that.]

Images courtesy of Intel.

In 2010, Apple captivated PC users with the release of the iPad. The thin and light tablet with exceptional battery life, ease of use and attractive design became the must-have mobile device for many corporate executives and employees. With nothing comparable in the Windows PC world, Apple had the business market to itself.

But Apple is a consumer electronics company at heart; so future iPad models remained devoid of features that were needed to meet corporate requirements for security, deployment, manageability, up-time, support and training. In the meantime, Microsoft, Intel and PC manufacturers picked themselves up and plotted their comeback. After three hard years, PC makers have finally released Windows tablets that tech analyst firm Moor Insights & Strategy says will likely reverse Apple's gains in the corporate market.

Apple's Party Is Over

"Enterprise tablets now exist that provide the best of both worlds between end user and IT, which puts the Apple in a precarious position of needing to add more robust enterprise features," Moor says in a white paper released Monday. "Until that point, Moor Insights & Strategy recommends enterprises re-evaluate their iPad pilot and deployments."

In other words, the enterprise party is over for Apple's tablets.

The new Windows tablets that finally get it right when it comes to meeting the needs of corporations and their employees are the Hewlett-Packard ElitePad 900, the Dell Latitude 10 and the Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet 2. Moor makes a convincing argument as to why it believes these three devices will steer companies away from the iPad.

What's In the New Windows Tablets

Two crucial components are Microsoft's Windows 8 and Intel's Atom processor Z2760. The former provides a touch-based interface that's a key element of any tablet's appeal, while the former delivers the performance and battery life. In fact, a comparison review by AnandTech found that battery life with the Z2760 surpassed the iPad 4 when Web browsing.

Because Intel has built a competitive chip based on the X86 instruction set, the three tablets can run the latest touch-enabled apps for Windows 8, as well as Windows 7 apps. Among the most important app is Microsoft Office, the enterprise standard for office productivity. Office doesn't run on the iPad, and Apple's productivity tools are not regarded as being on par with Microsoft's.

There's also more baseline expandability with the Windows tablets. Depending on the vendor, the devices can come with a dock, USB, miniHDMI and microSD. Add other optional manufacturer-supported accessories and the iPad is left in the dust.

Other pluses include playing nicely with Active Directory, Microsoft's directory service for authenticating and authorizing users and computers in a Windows network. The tablets, through the Atom processor, also offer Intel security, which includes Secure Boot and the firmware-based Platform Trust Technology.

Overall, the fourth-generation iPad provides roughly a half-dozen enterprise features, while the Windows tablets have more than a dozen. Most important, those features are already in use in corporations, so there's no need to evaluate them before deployment, train IT staff or purchase new tools.

What this ultimately means is the Windows tablets will be less expensive when considering the total cost owning and managing the devices. In addition, they are more durable and as nicely designed as the new iPads, and have larger displays. The resolutions are less, but still more than adequate for businesses.

Some Disagreement

How much of a head start Apple has in the enterprise is tough to determine, since the company won't say how many iPads have been sold to businesses. However, a running tally of the top 100 iPad rollouts kept by SAP show that nearly 70 are K-12 schools, where Apple has always done well. Nevertheless, there are some notable names on the list, including the U.S. Air Force, United Airlines, British Airways, General Electric and the Walt Disney Company.

Not everyone agrees with Moor. Jack Gold, principal analyst for J. Gold Associates, believes the market momentum is still behind the iPad. Units within an organization, not the IT department, will often choose the tablet they want to use and many want the iPad.

"The iPad, and Android (tablets), will have a place as long as users demand it," Gold said. "And the Win8 devices will find a niche, particularly in those organizations that have company-owned assets that IT fully controls."

While Gold has a point, the advantages the latest Windows tablets have are too numerous for corporations to ignore.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia.

The Hadoop market is getting interesting. Last year it was a death match between startups vying to own the heart of the project. Today it's a veritable smorgasbord of big-brand vendors getting involved to ensure they claim a big piece of the Big Data pie. Unlike American youth athletics, not everyone will get to take home a trophy.

Hadoop plays a key role in the burgeoning Big Data market, and represents a $13 billion market by 2017, according to Markets and Markets. (IDC pegs the market much, much lower at $812.8 million in 2016, but its numbers don't seem credible to me as they don't even seem to include Cloudera's sales.) Given that Big Data is hot, and Hadoop's data processing engine sits at its core, there's going to be a lot of money trading hands for Hadoop-related products and services.

Not everyone is going to collect.

SiliconAngle's John Furrier has challenged me on this, arguing that Hadoop is "not a winner take all market." While I, too, can see multiple winners in Hadoop, just as there have been in Linux (e.g., Red Hat dominates license/services revenue, but IBM, HP, and others make arguably more with related hardware, complementary software products, and professional services), markets don't tend toward entropy. They trend toward consolidation.

Today, the Hadoop ecosystem increasingly represents entropy:

• Cloudera, Hortonworks, and MapR remain the early favorites, but with very different approaches. Hortonworks positions itself as the 100% open source player; Cloudera somewhat does the same, but adds in complementary, proprietary bits, mostly around managing Hadoop, to add value to Hadoop (and its top line revenue); and MapR provides a hybrid open source/proprietary Hadoop distribution that swaps out HDFS for its proprietary NFS storage layer.
• EMC Greenplum has been involved with Hadoop for several years, and is set to release a new distribution of Hadoop called Pivotal HD. I've labeled Pivotal HD proprietary, but EMC's Hadoop team has taken issue with this characterization, arguing that PivotalHD is 100% open source, with complementary functionality (like HAWQ) available as add-ons. Point well taken, and I apologize for my misunderstanding. I was wrong, perhaps not surprisingly getting confused by Pivotal HD's product page, which says little about open source. But what seems clear is that customers won't be confused by EMC's value proposition: Hadoop with an advanced SQL query engine to make it easier and more powerful to use.
• Intel just got into the game with its own Hadoop distribution. Basically, you can think of it as Hadoop on (Intel Xeon™ processor, Intel SSD, and Intel 10GbE networking.hardware) steroids.
• For those who don't want to run Hadoop within the datacenter, Amazon offers Amazon Elastic MapReduce (EMR). As of April 2012, EMR was powering over 1 million Hadoop clusters. Presumably this number is much bigger today.
• Many, many others including IBM BigInsights, a range of startups, and more.

Will all of these companies make serious bank on Hadoop? No. Will some of them? Sure.

Ultimately, the winners in Hadoop will be those that invest most heavily in its success, as they will be perceived as the companies best positioned to help would-be customers succeed with Hadoop's complexities. But how they invest is up for discussion. Code to Apache Hadoop? Value-adding extensions?

Success isn't about open source purity, as Gartner's Merv Adrian posits: it's about making customers successful. As we saw with Linux, where Red Hat is both the top contributor to the Linux kernel and the company that harvests the most revenue from distributing Linux, contributing code is a great way to signal to the market that you're a leader and capable of getting code fixes to support customers. Code matters.

But code contributions are not the only way to demonstrate leadership and attract customers. Ultimately, companies that make it easier to get value from Hadoop will win big. There may be more than one such company. Indeed, there almost certainly will be. 

But there won't be 20 of them. Or even 10. Enterprise IT is simply not going to be able to manage a polyglot Hadoop distribution ecosystem. That's not the way markets work. No one wants to be "long tail" vendor, and customers don't want to buy from them, either, as Hugh MacLeod humorously points out on Gaping Void:

Source: GapingVoidArt. Used with permission.

The Hadoop market over the next year is going to be hugely interesting. And bloody.

Image courtesy of Ehab Othman / Shutterstock.

When IT managers build a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) plan, chip architecture usually isn't high on their list of considerations. At first glance, it's easy to see why. After all, processors work or they don't – there isn't a lot of support to be done, right?

But there's more here than meets the eye. Thinking about the silicon that powers your supported devices can pay off big, providing better performance, security and manageability. It might even keep your legal department happy. 

Simplicity First

There are plenty of exciting consumer devices to catch your employees' eyes, each with its own combination of processor, operating system and form factor. The task of a BYOD program is not necessarily to support all of them, but to choose the devices that best match customer needs, security concerns, business demands and available resources. 

New devices introduce risk and complexity to every aspect of your ecosystem, from provisioning and training to security and support. The more varied the range of devices you allow, the greater the stress on your operations. The keys to meeting your goals are platform simplicity and consistency. Choosing to minimize deviation simplifies administration and allows IT to leverage as much existing infrastructure as possible. That choice starts with the processor.

The Processor Market

Intel and ARM Holdings are the two primary competitors in the mobile chipset market. Intel's high-performing Core-series processors power the majority of laptops, Ultrabooks and notebooks, and its low-power Atom processors are gaining market share in tablets, smartphones and hybrid devices. ARM-based chips – most commonly found in tablets and smartphones – have recently begun to appear in laptops and hybrid devices.

Intel and ARM take very different approaches to chip production. ARM licenses its designs to semiconductor manufacturers, which then fabricate their own processors based on those designs. This flexibility is attractive to hardware companies, and allows ARM-based chips to power a wide assortment of devices, from appliances to servers.

The downside of that flexibility is inconsistency among ARM-based designs. Samsung and AMD both manufacture ARM-based chips, but their processors are substantially different. Intel follows a different business model, designing and producing all of its own silicon. This approach establishes a baseline across multiple manufacturers. This consistency is the reason Intel-powered Apple MacBooks are capable of running Windows natively, for example. 

Application And OS Support

Businesses run on applications, and processor choice can impact how (or whether) those applications run. The most obvious example is as basic as the operating system itself - most notably in Microsoft Windows.

When it launched Windows 8, Microsoft decided to support ARM-based chips for the first time. Windows RT, an operating system targeted at lower-cost consumer devices, like the Microsoft Surface, is the company's first ARM-based OS.

While RT shares many of the same features as Windows 8 and Windows 8 Pro, it is not fully compatible with the entire Windows ecosystem. On its website, Microsoft outlines the major differences between RT and its other operating systems. For a consumer starting from scratch, Windows RT and applications available through the Windows Store may be more than enough. For enteprise IT managers, though, the differences become more troubling.

The most significant IT concern is the lack of support for "legacy" applications. Windows RT simply cannot run applications designed for previous versions of Windows. Depending on your existing investment in Windows apps and their business necessity, this can be an annoyance - or an absolute showstopper.

Other missing features, like Remote Desktop and Domain Join, may be less essential, but still add to the support burden for RT devices and could complicate efforts to create a simple, comprehensive management solution. In an all-Intel, Windows 8 environment, IT managers can leverage time-tested, existing management applications to extend their reach without writing custom software. As soon as one RT device is added to the mix, custom coding is required.

Not all consequences of a heterogeneous environment are technical. Employee-owned devices are already notorious for violating enterprise software licenses. When classes of employee devices come stocked with different software than your other devices, your existing license agreements may not provide coverage. For example, Windows RT comes pre-loaded with Office Home & Student 2013 RT Preview. Unless a business anticipated supporting that device and took the necessary legal steps, using that program in a business setting could violate the software's licensing provisions.

Hardware-Based Assistance

Chipsets rarely fail, for good reason. Once it's pressed and placed into a computer, a processor is essentially untouchable by applications, the operating system, or overzealous users. That's why hardware is the perfect place to store low-level security, management, and networking features.

All Intel processors are built with management in mind, allowing administrators to reach below the operating system level for additional security and accessibility. For example, all current Intel Core processors support remote device locking through Intel Anti-Theft (AT) Technology. Unlike pure software Mobile Device Management (MDM) solutions, this approach will work even if a device is corrupted or rooted.

Newer third-generation Intel Core vPro processors (found in newer enterprise and small-business laptops, Ultrabooks and even some tablets) add two-factor PKI-based authentication with Intel Identity Protection Technology, and pre-boot system integrity verification through Intel Trusted Execution Technology (TXT). By using devices themselves as authentication tokens, IT can remove a layer of complexity and cost created by third-party tokens.

Intel builds on this hardware foundation with tightly integrated software. For example, on the security front, McAfee DeepSAFE leverages vPro's TXT to install security monitoring software below the operating system, while Deep Command provides endpoint management tools for AT and other low-level features.

In some cases, security or management software can run only on complementary processors. In other situations, those processors simply run the software better. For example, Intel has tuned its newer Core processors to support the AES-NI instruction set, which speeds encryption products like McAfee Endpoint Encryption to near real-time. Other compatible systems can certainly run the same program, but processors without AES-NI support could incur up to a 10X slowdown.

The processor is the heart of any device. It may not be the flashiest part of your BYOD strategy, but it's the foundation. A bit of time considering processor choice during your planning phase can save a lot of money and headaches down the road.

Top two images courtesy of Shutterstock.

Securing a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) program means more than hoping endpoint authentication will keep out the bad guys. 

BYOD security is a big deal. In 2012, Intel surveyed 3,000 IT decision makers and 1,300 end users from Australia, Germany, South Korea and the United States to better understand their BYOD challenges. In three of the four countries, IT Managers considered a lack of security features the most important factor inhibiting device adoption. German IT managers ranked it second, after only government compliance.

BYOD may be inevitable, but the security concerns around it are well-founded. Some of IT's top BYOD security issues are beyond the ability of software-management tools to handle alone. These include

• Unlicensed Software: Owner-installed applications on personal devices can violate enterprise license agreements, and others could compromise the integrity of your network.
• Unsecured Third-Party Connections: All smartphones and most tablets can connect to unsecured wireless networks, offering an unmonitored back channel.
• Malware: Devices can become infected outside the firewall through non-work usage.
• Rooted Devices: By gaining root access to mobile devices, users can bypass security restrictions and, in some cases, install rogue apps.
• Lost, Stolen, Or Damaged Devices: When devices disappear or go out of service unexpectedly, businesses can lose access to critical data. Furthermore, in addition to compromising local data, stolen devices can expose the entire network.

Each device class and user type brings unique security challenges. To address them all, IT needs to leverage software and hardware solutions to lock down and manage devices while simultaneously securing the data itself. Here are three steps to help make the BYOD environment as secure as it can be.

1: Educate Employees

Curbing dangerous behavior is the first step toward reducing risk. Personal device management policies and procedures help reduce your company's risk with very low cost and complexity. In a review of its own, internal BYOD program, Intel noted three types of employee education necessary to minimize risk:

• User Training: Training end users about the content and ramifications of the employee service agreement and sharing best practices for data protection inside and outside of the office.
• Security-Desk Training: Training the Help Desk to answer questions quickly, efficiently, and within the allowable legal scope created by the program.
• Developer Training: Training developers to build secure data access and storage into their application code.

With its favorable cost-benefit ratio, education is low-hanging fruit. In the IT manager survey referenced earlier, managers from all four participating countries that had begun securing their BYOD systems had most commonly implemented device management rules and an employee code of conduct. Employee education is a rewarding place to start, but – based on the fact that security concerns persist – it is obviously not a standalone solution.

2. Secure Your Data

Tomorrow's devices could be completely different, future applications may handle data in entirely new ways and users will always find ways to use devices inappropriately. Future-proofing your network against the unknown requires a shift from protecting devices to protecting the data they use. Encrypting and backing up data is essential, but IT should also consider other, complementary methods of making sensitive information less accessible.

One popular software-based security method gaining steam in BYOD environments is the Virtual Hosted Desktop (VHD). VHD (sometimes known as Virtual Desktop Infrastructure, or VDI) creates a complete desktop image that includes an operating system, all applications and settings. The hosted desktop can be accessed from any compatible machine, and processing and storage take place on a central server. With enough network bandwidth and powerful hardware, this type of virtualized environment can combine acceptable performance with high-levels of security.

For high-security environments in which manageability and recovery trump everything else, it is often the default computing paradigm. But for most BYOD workers, VHD's drawbacks usually outweigh its advantages. VHD cannot take full advantage of all the features of local hardware, and it performs poorly on marginal networks – a major issue for remote workers. Furthermore, the desktop paradigm may break down on non-PC devices, limiting the available audience.

Example showing multiple containers on a single device. Containerization is way to address VHD's issues by placing native applications inside a safe zone on a device. A virtual machine manager (VMM) abstracts the container from the client hardware, boosting performance and reducing server strain by allowing client-side execution - while still improving security by isolating the container from certain functions, such as wireless network connections, USB ports or device cameras. Some virtual containers contain an entire operating system and productivity application suite, while others are purpose-built, single-function virtual devices that provide services like compliance monitoring or highly secure applications.

IT can create or purchase containerized applications for every platform, including smartphones, providing a much broader client base than VHD. Containerized applications also run at or close to the speed of fully native applications, and caching lets users continue working through network disruptions. However, containerization can compound development and administrative burdens, and since containerized apps require client-side storage, they are inherently less secure than fully virtualized solutions.

3. Use Your Hardware 

Selecting the right subset of hardware to support will bolster software-based security measures while lowering management costs. For example, if a company chooses to support a variety of Intel-based devices, IT could implement a 100% Windows-based environment. This would reduce the cost of developing and securing applications for different platforms while allowing IT to leverage Windows' existing security infrastructure, virtualization tools and anti-malware. And it would still allow employees a wide choice of devices to meet their individual needs.

On an application level, properly chosen hardware can augment your management tools. Mobile Device Management (MDM) software can identify devices that are out of compliance, but it has limited reach into rooted, broken, hacked or otherwise compromised systems.

Chipset-level security technologies like Intel VPro (found in 3rd-generation Intel Core processors) allow MDM to reach underneath a managed device's operating system, performing remote wipes and pre-boot virus scans, regardless of the device's status. By providing access below the operating system, VPro allows administrators to correct problems by loading software patches and virus definitions, and its integrated support for Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) allows IT to use the devices themselves to authenticate users, removing the need for third-party software tokens or hardware-based authentication devices. Intel Anti-Theft technology extends security features such as remote, OS-independent device locking and unlocking to earlier processors, as well as newer, VPro-compatible chipsets.

Finally, selecting the right hardware can make other software options more viable. For example, VHD's biggest drawback is performance. Hardware that accelerates common virtualization tasks can mitigate that sluggishness, making the security of VHD more acceptable to users.

Securing BYOD will always be a challenge, but with the right planning and proper device selection, IT can make users' hardware work for the cause, rather than against it.

Lead image courtesy of Shutterstock.

Intel has gutted the HTML5 mobile-app development firm appMobi, acquiring its tools and related staff – but not the startup itself. The move is part of Intel's bid to build out its own suite of developer tools for mobile applications.

According to documents obtained by ReadWrite (see below), appMobi will turn into a pure play cloud services provider, offering developers backend service support for HTML5 mobile applications. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

ReadWrite's 2012 Most Promising Company

ReadWrite named appMobi “the most promising company of 2012” for its work on creating HTML5 solutions for mobile application developers. The company aimed to rethink how developers can use HTML5 for audio and video as well as accelerating performance for Android and iOS. It created Mobius, a mobile video standard that aimed to kill Flash (which ended up dying in mobile anyway) and helped create innovative ways for HTML5 developers to monetize their products. 

appMobi’s most innovative (and controversial) product came in the form of jqMobi, a HTML5/JavaScript framework designed to give mobile developers a mobile-ready JQuery. The company created a proof-of-concept, fully HTML5 game called BoomTown to show game developers that, yes, fully functional mobile games can be built using a mobile browser as a backbone.

Tools And Migration

Specifically, the tools that Intel is acquiring from appMobi include the XDK IDE (Integrated Developer Environment), PhoneGap XDK, GameDev XDK, jqMobi and jqUI developer frameworks, directCanvas HTML5 acceleration, the Mobius Web browser along with testing and debugging tools.

The tools most important to Intel will be the jqMobi and directCanvas products which give developers environments to build HTML5 applications and to accelerate them on mobile devices. 

Developers that are currently using appMobi's tools will not be effected by the move to Intel except for a one time re-registration to Intel's systems. The HTML5 tools will continue to remain free to use through Intel. 

Ultimately, this will be a smart move for Intel as it tries to validate its presence in the mobile development space. By acquiring a robust set of HTML5 tools it can give developers the option of creating cross-platform apps that will work in any environment on any device and (most importantly) any computer chip. 

Here's appMobi's email to developers on the Intel move, followed by a FAQ also produced by the company:

Four years ago, Intel executives stood on stage with representatives from, Yahoo, Comcast, Disney and Sony, with endorsements from CBS and device manufacturers like Motorola, promising to revolutionize the television. They failed. 

This week, Intel disclosed that it had launched a new division, dubbed Intel Media, that would set out to give it another try with an Internet television service and set-top box to be released later this year. Erik Huggers, vice president and general manager of Intel Media, spoke at the All Things Digital "Dive into Media" conference on Tuesday, where he confirmed long-standing rumors that his company plans to enter the streaming market with a complex new service. An Intel spokesman added that the box, with a "very unique" user interface, is currently being tested by Intel employees.

Why Will Intel's TV Plans Work This Time?

Why will Intel succeed this time? The smart money says that it won't.

Huggers described Intel's goal as an "all-in-one solution," providing live television, on-demand, plus what he called "proper" catchup television, modeled on the BBC iPlayer: which offers every second of BBC programming, including radio and television, for seven days after it airs.

The box would also ship with a camera, presumably similar to the Kinect peripheral for the Xbox, that will identify who's watching and provide targeted ads. The creepy camera won't scare off viewers, Huggers promised, and the targeted advertising will apparently pay for some of the content deals that Intel will provide.

Not only will Intel be providing a streaming box - naturally equipped with an Intel chip - but the streaming box will also come with a kind of cable hybrid subscription service, of which there are not many details at the moment. It's likely that customers will get the streaming mainstays - Netflix, at least, plus services like Hulu and possibly Amazon. But Huggers also said that his company has been working with content providers to offer programming not offered through the usual non-cable services.

Playing Nice With Big Content Providers?

"We are working with everyone right now, and we are confident that by the time we launch, we'll have a very compelling product," Huggers said.

That's unlikely, though. So far, Huggers hasn't identified who is responsible for the company's content licensing efforts.

At the All Things D event, Huggers said that his marketing chief is a woman who helped launch Apple's "iProducts," plus he has executives with experience from Netflix and the BBC on board. But so far, he hasn't put forward a point person on content.

History proves that Intel hasn't had much traction in this area.

The Yahoo-Intel partnership began life as the "Yahoo Widgets Channel" - which debuted on TVs from Samsung, Sony and Vizio. But the widgets, little mini-apps that provided bare-bones interfaces to services like Netflix and sites like HGTV, quickly faded into obscurity. Today, Yahoo Widgets have been replaced by the more consumer-friendly "Apps." Yes, Yahoo has a Web app store, but its connected TV platform doesn't. On the other hand, it has struck deals with the National Geographic Channel and Showtime for "broadcast interactivity," sort of a second-screen experience actually on the TV screen, like Google TV - another platform that has struggled for relevance. It was telling that Huggers also referred demeaningly to the problems that his son had in using the television remotes to load up Netflix - not only was there no mention of the Yahoo partnership, but apparently current solutions weren't good enough.

Here's another thing to consider: in Sept. 2010, Google hired Robert Kyncl, Netflix's content chief, to be its emissary to the studios. It took until May 2011 for Google to add 3,000 movies to rent, including "blockbusters" like Oscar winner The King's Speech. It took even longer to bring Google Play up to speed with other online services. The point is that negotiating content deals can be a long and painful process - and that's just to keep up with the Joneses, much less break new ground.

Huggers did tease the possibility of a la carte programming - being able to purchase a subscription to ABC, ESPN, Syfy and nothing else, for example - before pulling it back. "I believe that if bundles are... bundled correctly, they add tremendous value," he said, referring to the "curation" that presumably broadcasters provide.

But Intel's offering, on the surface, doesn't appear to be any cheaper than what anyone else is offering. "It's not a value play, it's a quality play where we'll create a superior experience for the end user," Huggers said with respect to the cost comparison between Intel's offering and traditional cable.

But with that said, it's hard to see at the moment what will differentiate Intel's offering from everything else, especially as Sony and Microsoft gear up to bring their respective next-gen consoles to living rooms this coming holiday season. Meanwhile, Roku has the value streaming-box market sewn up. Products like Simple.tv, which offer recording of live over-the-air television, mixed with streaming offer one solution that Intel could emulate.

In this space, it doesn't matter who makes the box, or the components within them. Only content is king. And if Intel doesn't realize this, it might as well pack up and head home.

"Rome wasn't built in a day," Huggers said this week. True. But if it's not going to save you that much money compared with cable, won't play the latest games and/or live sports, and will simply plug in all your subscription streaming services like any other player, an Intel box doesn't sound like a very desirable device - and hardly a game-changer.

Additional reporting by Nick Statt.

Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) is more than a fad. It's a movement toward a different kind of enterprise computing. BYOD requires a lot of planning and work, but businesses that embrace the change can find new efficiencies and actually increase security. Here are 10 tested tips to make your transition as smooth and productive as possible: 

1. Engage Stakeholders In Discovery

The biggest benefit of BYOD is a happier, more productive workforce. But that can't happen if your workers don't support the process. To get everyone on board, start with these four steps:

• Identify Stakeholders: Create a manageable-but-representative committee of key influencers from all relevant departments. Be sure to include the CEO or a designated representative so you have buy-in and visible support from the top.
• Identify Targets: Using your committee, create and prioritize a list of necessary applications and desired use cases for personal devices.
• Take A Pulse: IT will ultimately decide which devices to support, but a quick poll of your committee (or your entire workforce, if that's possible) can identify promising places to start the evaluation.
• Work With Legal & HR: Throughout the process, you'll need to work with your Legal and Human Resources departments to build your policies, service and support agreements and other procedures. Having a representative on the committee will help you identify potential complications before they become problems.

2. Think TCO, Not ROI

BYOD will not usually show cost-savings up-front. Don't plan on offsetting development costs with hardware savings, as personal devices will typically supplement your existing work devices, rather than replace them. That also means you should think twice before offering device stipends to employees.

Properly implemented BYOD can expand your device footprint at close to zero cost. In 2010, Intel implemented a personal device program. Three years later, it supports nearly 25,000 employee-owned smartphones, eliminating unsecured devices, increasing job satisfaction, and adding nearly an hour of productivity per employee, per day, with little to no increase in IT Service Desk calls. With no net impact to Intel's ongoing costs, initial investments in a well-designed BYOD program have been well worth it.

3. Think Users, Not Devices

Traditional IT operations focus on maintaining and securing the PC device image, including the operating system, applications, data and personal settings. In a BYOD environment full of disparate devices, this strategy crumbles. On a conceptual level, the goal of a BYOD program should be a security model that follows the user across multiple device classes in a variety of situations. On a practical level, that requires a shift from securing device images to securing data, at rest and in transit. 

4. Create BYOD Policies

Even if you don't have plans to use personally identifiable information gleaned from your users' personal devices, it's a good idea to document your plans in a privacy policy. If you do plan to use such information, be very clear about how you plan to do so, how and where you plan to store the data, and when and how you will dispose of it. Your legal department will help you create the policy, and your HR representative will help implement procedures to keep your employees apprised of changes.

You should enlist the help of both departments in the creation of your usage policy, which will outline safe usage practices and prohibit any behavior that could put the company at risk. This policy will inform the content of the education program detailed in Step #9.

5. Evaluate Operating Systems First, Then Devices

Giving users choices doesn't mean you have to support everything. In fact, if you're going to get the most out of your BYOD system, you shouldn't support everything.

Since devices change constantly and new form factors are continuing to emerge, beginning the selection with specific devices can be tricky and expensive. IT should first evaluate which operating systems it chooses to support, and work toward device support based on that decision. Selecting a dominant, uniform operating system (OS) environment can allow IT to leverage existing security and performance benefits. For example, most businesses use Intel-based Windows systems for their desktop and laptop systems. Extending that combination to other device types can help IT leverage existing security features (for example, Secure SMB, used by Windows 2012 and Windows 8), share common applications, and reduce support and training costs.

Within the subset of devices that support a chosen OS, IT should then select models with the most management-friendly hardware. For example, Intel Core vPro processors found in business-level laptops, Ultrabooks and other devices provide chipset-level device locking, auditing, and wiping. Embedded management features can increase security and eliminate the need to build or integrate redundant systems in software. 

6. Maximize Commonalities

Commonalities provide efficiencies. Wherever possible, strive to use the smallest possible number of tools. Sharing applications, hardware and vendors will save additional costs and minimize the number of integration points in your system. In descending order, IT should look to:

• Shared Platforms: A common operating system and hardware configuration (for example, Intel-based processors running Windows 8) produces an almost identical support and maintenance case, even across multiple form factors. In situations where duplicating hardware is impossible, look for compatible systems from the same vendors, if possible. For example, a smartphone running Windows Phone 8 on an Intel Atom processor will still be able to share many of the same applications and remote management tools as Windows 8-based Ultrabooks running Intel Core processors.
• Mobile Application Management: MAM tools such as Microsoft ActiveSync can provide secure synchronization between servers and non-Windows devices, allowing users to access corporate assets through their native applications, while still enforcing your internal business and security rules. While these tools don't provide the full set of options available in a shared platform, this type of synchronization can allow participation of other device types, if necessary.
• Virtualization: With proper hardware, virtualization can provide a level playing field across many classes of devices and a number of disparate operating systems. It is not a panacea, since many form factors cannot support virtualization, and performance can suffer versus native environments, but it can be an effective method to pull other devices into the fold.

7. Address Compliance

Properly implemented BYOD can actually help businesses enhance their compliance efforts. Poorly implemented BYOD can destroy them. The key to BYOD compliance is understanding the weaknesses and exploiting the strengths of each device. For example, a smartphone's unsecured 3G or 4G connection could be considered a liability, but with properly implemented Mobile Device Management (MDM) locking down that feature and allowing access to the filesystem, the phone could be as secure as any PC on the network. Low-level hardware functionality that provides system control below the operating system layer is extremely helpful, as it allows IT to manage, wipe and potentially recover sensitive data from hardware that has fallen out of compliance or may not be properly functioning.

8. Evaluate Management And Deployment Tools

Once you've selected supported devices and platforms, you can begin building your tools. Each project will require a different blend of security controls, but at a minimum, IT should evaluate:

• Two-factor authentication
• Secure storage using encryption
• Secure policy settings and restrictions
• Secure data transmission to and from the network
• Remote wipe capabilities (where possible)
• Server-side virus protection
• Mobile Device Management (MDM) software to secure monitor, manage and support mobile devices over the network

Wherever possible, IT should leverage hardware-embedded options for greater reliability and enhanced security. For example, Intel Core vPro processors' embedded PKI tokens eliminate the need for third-party devices or software.

9. Create An Employee Education Program

Employees understand their own devices and your corporate network, but they may be unaware of how to manage the union of the two. It's important to provide initial and ongoing education on new security risks and the proper conduct required to minimize them. For example, an employee's child may use work tablets in off-hours to view videos. In this case, simple steps, such as creating user profiles on the device and avoiding password-sharing can dramatically reduce the likelihood of accidental data loss.

10. Assess Feedback

User needs and consumer hardware continue to evolve, and so should your BYOD program. You won't get everything done in your first iteration, and you'll want to engage your user committee to review hits and misses to plan Phase Two. Having everyone involved keeps everyone accountable, and it ensures that IT will be seen as a critical business partner - not a roadblock.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock and Microsoft.com.

Since the invention of the laptop, employees have been trying to bring their personal devices to work. And ever since that first employee-owned laptop crossed the corporate threshold, the IT department has almost always said "No way you're bringing that un-supported, un-secure, un-productive consumer machine into my nice clean business network."

Until recently, the idea that you might Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) to work has filled IT folks with fears of:   

• Rootkits and other malware
• New operating systems to support
• Proprietary, insecure applications
• No remote management
• Incompatibility with enterprise security and encryption

For the vast majority of businesses, securing, managing, and supporting user-sourced devices just wasn't worth the potential upside. In some heavily regulated environments, it wasn't even a possibility.

BYOD Grows Up

But times have changed. As shifting cultural norms and new devices have increased employee pressure for BYOD, the industry has finally responded with the tools IT needs to safely open its doors to personal devices.

Let's not kid ourselves. BYOD is still a major undertaking. But over the past few years, companies like Intel have made huge improvements to consumer technologies that make BYOD a very real, manageable possibility. Low-level hardware enhancements have extended the reach of operating systems and device-management applications, making it possible for IT to maintain order while still letting users have the machines they want.

With a bit of planning and work, IT can now allow employees to use many of the personal devices they actually enjoy - without sacrificing security or causing too much disruption. Here's a look at some of the most important factors turning BYOD from an IT pain-in-the-neck into an opportunity.

The Case for BYOD

BYOD isn't just about "cool" anymore. For many workers, it's a necessity.

Many Gen X and Millennial workers and customers prefer video chat, social networks, and text messages to email. They expect near-constant availability and immediate responses, and even office-based employees are doing more remote work at off-hours. Businesses support this, expecting workers to be available at all times, yet most employers issue only a desktop or laptop PC. That disconnect is precisely why groups like Field Sales tend to bypass established procedures, and it's dangerous for everyone involved.

The mobile device landscape changes every day. Tablets, Ultrabooks, and an evolving line of hybrid devices fill the gap between laptops and smartphones. With constant media coverage of consumer technology rivaling or surpassing the capabilities of enterprise hardware and software, many employees are convinced that they, not IT, can identify the best tools for their jobs. Modern workers know exactly what they want, but traditional enterprise provisioning and purchasing systems often can't keep up. Managing employee devices can bridge that gap and rein in rogue behavior before it starts.

The Hardware Industry Responds

Simply put, consumer mobile devices have gotten better during the last few years, and IT doesn’t have a good reason to dismiss them anymore.

Consumer devices have long outperformed equally priced business machines, but they've usually sacrificed stability, reliability and security to do so. In the last few years, though, the hardware industry has made up a lot of that ground. 

Features that used to require specialized, custom hardware are now supported in off-the-shelf devices. Mobile device processors now offer low-level features that protect against malware and reduce the complexity of implementing a secure environment. For example, all current Intel Core processors support remote device locking through Intel Anti-Theft Technology. Newer Intel Core vPro processors (found in newer enterprise and small-business laptops, Ultrabooks and even some tablets) add two-factor PKI-based authentication with Intel Identity Protection Technology, and pre-boot system integrity verification through Intel Trusted Execution Technology. These features offload a large amount of the complexity needed to build and maintain a secure system. And since they're embedded at the chipset - applications, malware and nosy users can't alter them.

Software Reduces Complexity

Consumer operating systems have matured, too. For example, we've moved beyond the days of the single enterprise smartphone or tablet operating system. There are now several viable options for each device class, allowing IT departments to base their choices on synergies across multiple platforms, the ease of integration with other devices and total cost of ownership (TCO) calculations.

As the mobile device market has exploded with new manufacturers and form factors, operating system vendors have provided platform consistency. For example, it's now completely plausible for an enterprise to run Windows across all of its servers, desktops, tablets, smartphones, and hybrid devices, while still retaining user choice. A common OS allows IT to share applications from desktops to smartphones, lower training and management costs, and extend the security and performance advantages of a shared infrastructure without having to sacrifice device variety. 

At the same time, its easier than ever to mix operating systems as needed.

The BYOD Payoff

Of course, writing a BYOD policy and building the systems and procedures to support it still takes work. Is it justified?

If you’re willing to expand your thinking beyond this year’s balance sheet, the answer can be a definite “yes.”

Quantifying return on investment for BYOD implementations can be tough. IT should not plan to recoup the costs of a BYOD project through immediate hardware or staff savings. On the other hand, BYOD can create happier, more productive workers and a more secure workplace. 

According to an internal review of Intel's own BYOD program, BYOD creates a huge boost in employee productivity. In 2011, the 17,000 Intel employees bringing personal devices to work reported an average productivity increase of 57 minutes per day. That helps create a halo for IT, positioning the department as a productivity enabler instead of a roadblock, which can help smart CIOs collect political capital for other projects.

While it may sound counterintuitive, a properly implemented BYOD program can actually increase enterprise security by locking down corporate assets and forcing overdue security updates. In the case study above, Intel assigned higher security scores to employee-owned mobile devices than to many of its internal PCs, since all of the mobile devices were subject to rigorous compliance monitoring.

BYOD is here because it needs to be, and because IT finally has the tools to make it make sense.

Hybrid image courtesy of Microsoft. Other images courtesy of Shutterstock.

PC shipments dropped 6.4% in the fourth quarter of 2012, while tablet sales rose 75.3% in those three months. The two latest numbers from research firm IDC, taken together, confirm what now seems to be an inevitable trend in personal computing: Tablets are now driving the computer market, while PCs have to be content to follow. If these trends continue, in fact, it won't be that long before tablets outsell PCs overall - just over a year or so, in fact.

IDC reported Thursday that the tablet market shot up at an almost unbelievable rate during the fourth quarter, as iPads and other tablets apparently became the gift to give and receive this holiday season.

Sun Setting On the PC?

Tablet sales not only spiked more than 75% from a year ago, to 52.5 million units, they grew 74.3% from the third quarter of 2012 - implying that some catalyst drove fourth-quarter sales in particular. IDC concluded that that spark was the Apple iPad mini, whose sales of 22.9 million units caused Apple tablet shipments to spike by 48.1%. However, the rising tide of Android tablets rose slightly higher over Apple's head, as Cupertino's market share dropped from 46.4% in the third quarter to 43.6%.

In a report released this month, IDC concluded that the "advancement of computing no longer starts and ends with the personal computer," an acknowledgement of the now-accepted belief that the PC is has lost its primacy: that the personal computer is following the smartphone and tablet, rather than driving it.

One question is how much of Microsoft's legacy in the PC is affecting sales of its Surface tablets. IDC reported that Microsoft sold fewer than 900,000 Surface RTs, the cheaper, ARM-based tablet that was released before the Surface Pro hits stores next month. 

Microsoft Surface "Failed To Gain Much Ground"

"There is no question that Microsoft is in this tablet race to compete for the long haul," Ryan Reith, program manager for the Mobile Device Tracker program at IDC, said in a statement Thursday. "However, devices based upon its new Windows 8 and Windows RT operating systems failed to gain much ground during their launch quarter, and reaction to the company's Surface with Windows RT tablet was muted at best. We believe that Microsoft and its partners need to quickly adjust to the market realities of smaller screens and lower prices. In the long run, consumers may grow to believe that high-end computing tablets with desktop operating systems are worth a higher premium than other tablets, but until then [prices] on Windows 8 and Windows RT devices need to come down to drive higher volumes."

For comparison, 900,000 tablets sold doesn't even match the Barnes & Noble Nook, which finished fifth with 1 million tablets sold. IDC estimated that the Nook sold 1.9% of all tablets sold, leaving Microsoft with about 1.7% of the total market. That's bad news for Barnes & Noble, whose sales dipped from 1.4 million units a year ago, and an indication that Amazon is clearly  winning the war between the two online book giants.

Still, it's all small potatoes compared to the leaders: Apple (22.9 million units, 43.6% market share), Samsung (7.9 million units, 15.1% market share), Amazon (6.0 million units, 11.5%) and Asus (1.0 million units, 1.9%). You can see how each vendor has fared in IDC's interactive historical chart, below. 

Apple, Google and Intel are being sued for striking a secret agreement among themselves not to poach employees from each other. Which is, um, how should we put this? Not kosher? "Likely illegal," is how Ed Colligan, former CEO of Palm, described it when they asked him to join the devil's bargain. Because, yeah. Turns out it's frowned upon when companies collude to keep workers from making as much money as they can.

The pact now may come back to haunt these companies as employees are suing them over lost wages. The damages could run into the hundreds of millions.

But the best part, as always, is the treasure trove of documents coming out in discovery. The best ones are the ones that show Apple CEO Steve Jobs throwing temper tantrums and threatening lawsuits when competitors hire away his engineers.  (The Verge has a great rundown with lots of documents.)

The best one, reproduced below, is a threatening letter Jobs wrote to Colligan in 2007. Jobs was furious because Jon Rubinstein, a former top engineering exec at Apple (he led development of the iPod) had joined Palm to create a new smartphone platform and was recruiting talent out of Apple. Never mind that Ruby, as he's known, had left Apple more than a year before, and was semi-retired and living in Mexico when Palm lured him off the beach to come run their team. Jobs viewed Ruby as a traitor. Because, apparently once you've worked at Apple you can never compete with Apple, ever again. Who knew?

Thermonuclear, Part One

In a statement he provided for the lawsuit, Colligan says that in August 2007 Jobs called him and said that if Palm did not strike a no-hire pact with Apple, Apple would sue Palm for patent infringement. 

Wait, patents? Apple was going to use patents as a weapon? Who'da thunk it? 

Colligan told Jobs to get stuffed, and reminded him that Palm, a longtime phone maker, had patents of its own. Jobs fired back with the following letter reminding Colligan of the "asymmetry in the financial resources of our respective companies," which when translated into English means, We have way more money than you do and can tie you up in court forever and destroy you financially. Check it out:

Apple fanblogger John Gruber seems to think this letter is just the coolest thing ever, a "stone cold" message that shows "the man did not beat around the bush."

But wait a minute. Let's look at what happened here.

1. Jobs proposed something to Palm that was "not only wrong," but also "likely illegal," as Colligan put it.
2. Colligan refused to do something illegal.
3. As punishment, Jobs threatened to drag Palm into years of bogus patent lawsuits. He was perfectly willing to use (abuse?) the court system to hurt a rival.

And we're supposed to see Jobs as some kind of hero?

Keep in mind that the real victims of what Jobs was proposing are front-line engineers whose incomes would be constrained because their bosses had struck a deal not to poach from one another. This was rich guys making deals to screw their engineers and boost their own profits.

This was Saint Steven of Cupertino.

Worse, Jobs was stupid enough to put this all into writing. Forgive me for being less than impressed.

And forgive me for thinking that this casts Apple's crazy legal war against Samsung in a new light. Maybe isn't all about "principles," as Tim Cook likes to say. Do you reckon the CEO at Samsung has threatening letters just like this one somewhere in his files? 

Behind The Scenes

As it happens, back in 2007 when this was taking place I knew some of the parties involved and they were regaling me with stories about how Jobs losing his nut over Palm. The paper trail that is coming to light now barely touches the surface of what Jobs was doing.

The stories I heard involved epic temper tantrums, angry phone calls, screaming matches, people from Palm being summoned to Jobs's office at Apple and shouted at, threatened, insulted, belittled, by a grown man acting like a spoiled 5-year-old. 

And why? Just because Steve Jobs thought he should have the smartphone market all to himself.

Just, wow. 

Image courtesy of Reuters.