Doesn't these two statements describe best how Apple and Intel succeeded or failed in mobile?<p>Apple: "[..] John Sculley, the chief executive of Apple Computer Inc., who says these personal communicators could be 'the mother of all markets.'"<p>Intel: "[..] Andrew Grove, the chairman of the Intel Corporation, [..] He says the idea of a wireless personal communicator in every pocket is 'a pipe dream driven by greed.'"
It's crazy how accurate this article was. How far along were mobile phones during 1992?<p>Also,<p>> Once in the meeting, the executive could take notes on the device, and even order pizza for the group using a combination of custom electronic forms and wireless fax<p>Close enough :P
> At the other end is Andrew Grove, the chairman of the Intel Corporation, the huge chip maker based in Santa Clara, Calif. He says the idea of a wireless personal communicator in every pocket is "a pipe dream driven by greed."<p>Well, Intel never really made a mark in the smartphone era too. Atom processors were a dud.
On one hand, this is, as others have noted in this comment page, astonishingly prescient.<p>On the other hand, Andrew Seybold was right in that it took 15 years for the iPhone to arrive.<p>There was one "island of stability" with the amazing Palm & Psion devices (which weren't really "connected" devices), and then a discontinuous jump to the iPhone and its descendants.<p>A sobering thought on the speed of technology uptake.