With shares in Research In Motion shooting up and analysts talking positively about its forthcoming BlackBerry 10 offerings, there seems to be something of a buzz building around RIM's next-generation smartphone platform.

Of course, Research In Motion still has to deliver the goods come January, but the fact that shares in the company have been performing remarkably well lately – combined with and thanks in part to a number of analysts talking up the company’s next-generation BlackBerry 10 platform – will surely be helping executives at the Canadian company sleep better at night.

According to a Reuters report, shares in the BlackBerry maker rose to their highest level in six months on the Toronto Stock Exchange on Thursday, ending the day at C$12. Furthermore, RIM’s stock jumped 17.3 percent on Thursday, marking its biggest gain in percentage terms in over three years. The US market was closed Thursday for Thanksgiving.

Enthusiasm

The enthusiasm for RIM stock came as Kris Thompson, an analyst for National Bank, upped his price target on RIM shares from $12 to $15. This came in the wake of Jefferies & Co analyst Peter Misek – a man who in the past has been critical of RIM – saying in a note to clients earlier this week that “preliminary results from our quarterly handset survey indicate developed market carriers have a much more positive view of BB10 than we expected.”

Thompson, meanwhile, said he had taken note of the “positive sentiment building in the industry” around BB10, adding that he now believes the Ontario-based mobile maker will ship around 35.5 million devices in fiscal 2014, an increase of four million on an earlier estimate.

In recent weeks RIM announced that its new BB10 platform had passed a “critical milestone” with news that it had entered lab testing with more than 50 carriers worldwide. The company also said BB10 had received important security clearance allowing the new handsets, when they become available early next year, to be used by government agencies in the US and Canada.

Buzz

The apparent buzz building around the launch of BB10 is undoubtedly welcome news for RIM. While some of this positivity is of course thanks to the calculated efforts of the company’s PR machine, the fact that analysts are coming out and whistling a happier tune is also a promising sign.

At the same time, however, all the extra expectation serves to pile on the pressure – let’s just hope it’s not setting itself up for a fall of Felix Baumgartner proportions (though you can bet it wouldn’t mind landing back on its feet with the finesse and confidence of the Austrian daredevil skydiver).

We all know that RIM desperately needs its new platform to succeed. Once the market leader in the smartphone business, in recent years consumers have switched to rival devices such as Apple’s iPhone and handsets powered by Google’s Android operating system.

The Canadian mobile maker was accused of resting on its laurels, of failing to innovate, and as a result fell out of favor with consumers and business users alike.

What is computer insurance and is spending the extra cash worth it? Here’s a handy guide to help put things in perspective.

Computer insurance is meant to protect your machine against malfunction, accidents, and (if you’re lucky), theft. Whether it’s in the form of a private insurance policy or a simple warranty, there are many choices to make when deciding whether or not you need to insure your laptop or desktop.

According to Consumer Reports, about one in three laptops and desktops break by their fourth year. Considering most manufacturer’s warranties last about a year, that leaves you with about three years of time when your computer could either sail ahead, problem-free, or be bogged down by hardware issues requiring maintenance.

But should you buy an extended warranty? To try and answer that question, we spoke with Adam Senderson, manager at Computer Overhauls in New York City, who thinks that generally speaking, buyers should purchase a warranty right from the start. However, if you’re buying a lower-end laptop, a warranty may not be worth it since you can just buy another $300 laptop a year or two from then. “If it’s a computer that costs over $750, you should definitely be getting the warranty,” Senderson said. “If it’s less, it’s more of a judgment call.”

Navigating the land of warranties can be difficult. To help you find your way and make the right choice, we’ve taken a look at manufacturer warranties, extended warranties, private insurance, homeowner’s insurance, and detailed what you need to look out for when choosing whether or not to buy insurance for your computer.

Manufacturer’s Warranty

Most products come with at least a one-year manufacturer’s warranty. If they don’t, you’re most likely getting a cheap laptop that will develop problems within the 90-day warranty offered at purchase. The manufacturer’s warranty typically covers most minor malfunctions, hardware support for any defects in the laptop’s material, tech support, mail-in repair service, and the option to return and replace a machine that you receive dead on arrival. Most basic warranty programs are good for replacing malfunctioning hardware, such as a hard drive or keyboard, but will not take responsibility for defects you caused or accidents that are unrelated to the manufacturer’s design and craftsmanship.

You don’t have to make a choice here; this kind of coverage should just come with the product.

Extended Warranty

According to Senderson, the most common repairs he sees are broken screens and liquid damage. In terms of software, “virus infection is quite substantial,” he said.

Generally speaking, Senderson said most PC laptop screen replacements and labor cost can run between $200 and $300, depending on the computer. Did you spill your coffee on your laptop during when you sat down at your desk? Senderson said liquid damage can be fixed for about $150 to $250 – that is, if the motherboard doesn’t need to be replaced.”

When buying a new computer, you’ll be offered the opportunity to buy an extended warranty. This happens 99.9 percent of the time, so be prepared. “You definitely want to find out what the warranty covers,” Senderson said. “Some cover wear and tear, and some cover accidental damage, which is a huge difference.” Before you go to the Apple Store, Best Buy, or Staples, do your research beforehand to see what these extended warranties cover and how much extra it’ll tack onto your bill.

Best Buy: Distributors such as Best Buy and Staples offer their own versions of extended warranties. Best Buy’s Geek Squad has two renewable options: tech support insurance lasting two years for $100; and Geek Squad Protection for two years for $180 (or $100 for one year). The latter includes tech support and accident coverage, as well as a one-time replacement for your battery and charger. Tech support covers virus removal, problems with your operating system, and labor that doesn’t involve physical parts. To gauge whether these insurance options are worth the money, consider this: a virus removal alone without the Geek Squad’s tech support insurance will cost $200.

Staples: Staples offers a renewable two-year Care Protection Plan based on your computer’s retail price. The basic plan, which lacks accident coverage, takes care of backup, virus removal, and hardware failure. The full plan includes the repair or replacement of your computer (whichever is cheaper) in case of physical damage, such as a cracked screen or faulty keys. Coverage ranges from $90 to $170, depending on the price of your computer. Considering virus removal at Staples without insurance, will cost you $160, it may be worth the investment.

By the way, none of these insurance options will help in case of loss or theft.

Apple: The AppleCare protection plan will extend a three-month warranty to three years. Since the least expensive laptop at Apple will cost you right around $1,000, the extra $250 is a small price to pay for hardware coverage and support.

Also of note, some major credit card companies will actually extend your device’s warranty up to an additional year for free if you charge the purchase with their card.

Renters or homeowners insurance

If your limit is high enough, you may be able to insure your computer equipment under your personal property coverage. This insurance may cover the policyholder’s equipment in case of certain damage or loss due to fire, flooding, and power surge. In this case, you should check whether your insurance will cover your computer even if it isn’t at home when it is damaged or lost, because the insurance policy may compensate you only if your computer is stolen from your home and not at a coffee shop or an airport, for example. You will often need to explicitly ask to adjust your policy so that it covers loss and damage outside of your home as well, as the policy will probably not offer this option automatically.

Standalone insurance

If you don’t have renters or homeowners insurance and aren’t interested in either, many insurance companies offer standalone insurance on specific valuables. For a yearly fee, plus a deductible, you can get insurance on your laptop to protect against theft, and any accidental damage like drops and spills. Many policies also cover flood, fire, or power surge damage.

Things to look out for

According to the Federal Trade Commission, consumers shopping for warranties should always get them in writing – talking to a representative over the phone is definitely not enough. The FTC also recommends considering the warranty’s length; make sure to understand what the warranty vows to cover, whether it commits to repairing your computer, replacing it, or giving you a refund, and what parts and repair problems the warranty applies toward. Also, be sure you know who to contact if service is needed, and whether it covers damages caused by the product itself to other products.

Needless to say, if you buy a warranty, always save your receipts in a place you’ll remember, because the company offering it to you may ask for it before service or reimbursement.

So, is insurance worth the money?

You may not like this answer, but it’s really your call on whether you buy the warranty or insurance. If you had to take out a loan to buy your new MacBook Pro, chances are you don’t have the money for repairs. In that case, the three-year Apple Care protection plan would probably be worth it. If you bought a $400 laptop during a Black Friday sale, it’s up to you, and depends on the cost. You may end up buying the warranty and never using it, but if you’re the type of person who’ll be afraid to bring your laptop out of the house in fear that it’ll get damaged or stolen, then for your peace of mind, insurance may be worth it.

However, since most computer problems are due to malware or hard drive problems, you can try your best to prepare your computer for the worst by installing antivirus software and backing up all your files to a cloud service. Either way, it’s a gamble.

Will you be splurging on computer insurance next time you make a big purchase, or will you risk it?

[Image courtesy of RAStudio/Shutterstock]

Apple's stores are leading the retail industry in revenue per square foot, and none of its competitors seem to be able to crack the code.

Apple’s retail stores are practically holy sites to company’s legions of dedicated fans,  but as it turns out, they’re also the envy of the retail world. According to the latest figures from RetailSails, Apple’s stores lead the retail industry in terms of the money they generate per square foot. And for the first time, Apple is in the top 10 for highest overall sales per store.

Just how is Apple able to perform so much better than other consumer electronics retailers and world-renowned brands? And more important, why haven’t any of them been able to duplicate Apple’s magic formula yet?

Diamonds are for suckers

According to RetailSails (PDF), Apple Stores generate more revenue per square foot than stores operated by high-end jewelry retailer Tiffany & Company. That would be impressive in its own right – Tiffany & Co. is the leading retail diamond merchant and came in number two in RetailSails’ metrics. But Apple didn’t just beat Tiffany, it trounced the poor jeweler: RetailSails estimates Apple stores pulled in $6,050 per square foot, compared to $3,017 per square foot for Tiffany & Co. Other retailers didn’t even come close. Number three was lululemon athletica, whose stores generated an estimated $1,936 per square foot. Coach and Michael Kors rounded out the top five with $1,871 and $1,431 per square foot, respectively.

“Apple obviously stands out from the crowd, with sales per square foot double that of the number-two chain and more than six times the figure for Best Buy,” said RetailSails founder Josh Ramer, via email. “By combining premium products and revolutionary retail stores, Apple has not only built the most valuable brand in the world, but also an environment that drives shoppers into its stores – 94 million store visitors in just the latest quarter alone, or 19,000 per store per week.”

Adding insult to injury, Apple’s figures are increasing: In 2011, RetailSails estimated Apple’s store revenue at $5,647 per square foot – up seven percent in the last year. And this in a year that marked considerable tumult for Apple’s retail efforts, with the hiring and firing of John Browett as the head of retail operations.

As a rough gauge of success, sales of about $300 per square foot are considered about average for general retailers in the United States by organizations like the International Council of Shopping Centers – jewelers and specialty apparel retailers generally have higher averages. By that measure, one could argue Apple stores are doing twenty times better than the typical shopping mall retailer.

Apple’s retail success doesn’t end there. For the first time, Apple stores have cracked the top ten for highest sales per store, coming in at number nine with an estimated $51,148,000 earned per location in 2012. That’s still far behind the leader, membership warehouse chain Costco, which RetailSails estimates will pull in $137,170,000 per warehouse in 2012. But Apple is the only consumer electronics retailer in the top ten: The rest are warehouse stores (Sam’s Club, Walmart, Pricemart, BJ’s Wholesale), high-end retailers (Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom) or grocery retailers (Fairway Market, Village Super Market).

It should be noted that RetailSails’ numbers are estimates. Retailers aren’t in the habit of publishing their per-store sales figures, so RetailSails often has to comb through details in earnings calls and investor presentations, press releases, regulatory filings, and even rely on sales information published by competitors – then they try to strip out online and direct-to-consumer sales, franchise revenue, licensing, and other revenue streams to come up with per-store numbers. The company’s 2012 metrics cover more than 200 chains in 15 different product segments. Although its charts are disproportionate (the Electronics Stores bar should be more than twice as long as Luxury, Jewelry, & Accessories Stores, for instance), it provides an idea how other segments are faring:

Apple’s strong points

Why are Apple Stores so successful, particularly when compared to other folks trying to sell consumer electronics?

“In 2001, when Steve Jobs and Ron Johnson first decided to open a store to sell Apple products, they didn’t start with a vision to sell stuff,” said Carmine Gallo, keynote speaker and author of The Apple Experience in a telephone interview. “They decided the vision behind the Apple Store would be to enrich lives.”

That approach is borne through in the steps of service Apple outlines for its store employees:

• Approach customers with a personalized, warm welcome
• Probe politely to understand all the customer’s needs
• Present a solution for the customer to take home today
• Listen for and resolve any issues or concerns
• End with a fond farewell and an invitation to return

It’s easy to notice the clever little acronym, but it’s more important to see what word isn’t mentioned: sell. Apple emphasizes the experience of visiting an Apple store, using Apple products, and letting users see how those products fit into their lives rather than focusing on making as many sales as possible. To that end, Apple store employees are hired more for their personalities than their sales or technical backgrounds, and – unlike many other retailers – they’re not paid on commission. If a staff member at a typical retailer spends an hour with a customer but doesn’t make a sale, that employee will probably get reprimanded. At an Apple store, all that matters is that the customer had a good experience.

It also means Apple store employees focus on products that meet a customers’ needs, rather than pushing items that will ring up the largest sale. Customers ogling a $2,000 iMac might find themselves steered towards a less-expensive model if it’s a better fit; similarly, customers looking at an iPhone or iPad are likely to find Apple employees showing them how the devices can meet their needs rather than scripted selling points. And beyond an initial hello, Apple employees are also willing to let customers try stuff out on their own and make the first move.

Copying Apple isn’t easy

All these things help explain why customers like Apple stores – others include the Genius Bar, Apple’s One-on-One training sessions, and scan-and-go purchasing with the Apple Store App. But do they explain why Apple stores are so profitable per square foot? Given that Apple stores have been around since 2001, why haven’t other retailers been able to copy the experience and try to beat Apple at its own game?

There are a few other factors to consider:

Few products

A typical Apple store carries hundreds of individual products, from iPhones, iPads, and Macs to headphones, software, and accessories. But the selection is very small compared to consumer electronics retailers, let alone mass-market retailers, whose stores often feature thousands or tens of thousands of individual items. Apple’s tightly-focused product line also enables it to focus its retail experience in ways more generalized retailers can’t match.

No wasted space

If you have a one square-foot store and a million-dollar product, you only need sell one item a year to utterly dominate the RetailSails survey. Apple’s retail stores aren’t exactly diminutive: Two of Apple’s London stores are in the 25,000 square-foot range, and Apple’s recently-opened store in Grand Central Station is about 23,000 square feet – all large by modern retail standards. However, many of Apple’s retail stores are comparatively modest in size, occupying more-or-less ordinary (if high-rent) spots in shopping centers. As of August 2012, Apple had 394 retail locations worldwide; according to Apple, 240 of those are in the United States. Compare that to struggling big-box consumer electronics retailer Best Buy, which has more than 1,100 stores in the United States (omitting several hundred Best Buy Mobile outlets). Comparing the scale of Apple’s retail efforts to Best Buy really is a case of apples and oranges, but some of Apple’s astonishing revenue-per-square-foot is due to Apple operating comparatively few square feet.

Less baggage

When Apple opened its first retail stores in 2001, its main product was the Macintosh — even the iPod just barely existed. The Mac had never dominated the PC industry, and Apple’s presence in big-box retailers like CompUSA and Circuit City were generally failed to show Macs in a good light, or even show them working at all. Part of Apple’s intention with opening its own retail stores was to control the presentation of its products and give a positive experience to customers. It had the advantage of starting from scratch; even if customers were familiar with the Macintosh or other Apple products, none of them had previous experience with an Apple retail store. That’s not true of any retailer hoping to copy elements of Apple’s retail formula: Even if they successfully change their existing retail experiences to be something more akin to Apple, it will take some time before customers forgive or forget the echoes of their previous efforts.

The X factor

If there’s one company that has directly tried to challenge Apple’s retail strategy, it’s Microsoft, which has opened its own stores in Apple’s image. And in some cases, in the literal shadow of Apple stores.

Since I happen to live in the vicinity of one of these rare Microsoft stores, I recently wandered in to get some first-hand experience and see how they stack up beside Apple’s own.

Microsoft’s store location is only a few yards from an Apple store, and conspicuously larger, but otherwise the resemblance is startling, down to blue-shirted employees. But it felt vacant, with idle employees and a handful of kids playing with an Xbox Kinect setup. An employee greeted me after I entered, and I said I was curious about the typing experience on the Microsoft Surface. Big smile; the employee enthusiastically led me to one and then proceeded to use it for me, pointing out key elements of Windows RT without letting me touch the device, ask questions, or politely get a word in edgewise. It was a few minutes before we got through the apparently scripted introduction, and I was able to ask if I could test out both the Touch Cover and the Type Cover. The answer was yes, but it was still more than a minute before I actually got to touch a Surface unit. I was able to give the Surface a decent test drive, and I did encounter the slow typing problem in Microsoft Office so many others have written about (but Brent Ozar has a fun video). The Microsoft store employee was witty and answered my questions accurately, but only seemed prepared to ask me if I was already using a tablet.

After I’d finished, I walked down the the Apple Store braced for the worst, because I’ve always found this particular location be overcrowded and noisy. It was. Nonetheless, I was “greeted” immediately, although it was more of a “Hi!,” a nod, and an overwhelmed laugh as the store employee helped a child pick up a dropped toy. Once that was accomplished, I said I was curious about the typing experience on the new iPad mini. “Here, try it!” the greeter said … and just like that handed me an iPad mini. I was less than three feet inside the store, and I’d been there less than 10 seconds. A couple minutes later (child and parent successfully reunited), the employee swung back around, asked what sort of writing I did, if I’d found Pages (Apple’s word processor app for iOS), or if there were particular apps I wanted to try out. I was still barely inside the store.

It turned out my big calloused fingertips didn’t like the iPad mini typing experience any more than being able to out-type the Microsoft Surface. But I know which store made me jump through hoops, and which immediately put the product I’d come to see in my hands.

“What’s easy is mirroring the look of an Apple Store,” said Gallo. “What’s harder is to hire, train, and motivate employees for a transformational customer experience. I hope other retailers improve based on what they’re learning from Apple, but it’s really hard to get the people part right.”

The Samsung Galaxy S III Mini was announced last month, but Samsung didn’t make it clear whether the smaller cousin of the full-size S3 would be made available for the US market. That answer has now been provided courtesy of Amazon, because the online retailer has listed the Samsung smartphone.

The idea with the S3 Mini, in case you’re not so familiar, is to take the form factor of the S3, shrink it down, and reduce the specs for a reduced price. The net result is a Google Android 4.1 smartphone with a 4.0-inch Super AMOLED display, dual core 1GHz processor, 1GB RAM, 8/16GB storage and microSD expansion. There’s a 5-megapixel camera on the back and a VGA camera on the front. Realistically, the specs make it sound like an S II in a shrunken down S III body.

Intel CEO Paul Otellini is retiring in May. Could a change in leadership ironically help the chipmaking giant keep up with mainstream computing?

Intel CEO Paul Otellini surprised the technology industry this week by announcing he would be retiring from the company in May 2013 after helping the company work through a leadership transition. Most industry watchers (and even the company’s chairman Andy Bryant) had expected Otellini to stay on at Intel for several more years. After all, leadership transitions at Intel are rare. The company has had only five CEOs in its 44-year history, and Otellini has been an Intel employee for 40 of those.

Otellini gave no specific reasons for his departure, save to note “it’s time to move on and transfer Intel’s helm to a new generation of leadership.” 

Paul Otellini is generally credited with having kept the company’s nose to the grindstone on semiconductor design and manufacturing – and cornering about 80 percent of the PC market as a result. However, on Otellini’s watch, Intel has also been caught flatfooted by the mobile revolution. And where the PC market is stagnating, mobile is experiencing tremendous growth, mostly without “Intel inside.”

What does Otellini’s departure mean for Intel, and could new leadership bring a new direction to the company? Perhaps one that bring cheaper PCs and a new generation of mobile devices?

Otellini’s successes and shortcomings

Looking at Otellini’s tenure in Intel’s top chair, it’s important to consider Intel’s past. In the early 2000s, Intel found its market leadership challenged by AMD, which, in addition to bringing antitrust complaints, was able to undercut Intel on price just as demand for Intel’s most profitable chips dropped after the dot-com bust.

When Otellini came on board, he introduced the now-famous “tick-tock” model of annual processor updates: the “tocks” bringing advances in microarchitecture, while the “ticks” br0ught advances in manufacturing, essentially, making the “tick” processors smaller and more power-efficient. Otellini bet heavily on semiconductor design and manufacturing plants, and wound up bringing more than 20,000 new hires on board (although he was forced to lay off more than 10,000 other people shortly thereafter).

Otellini also expanded the company’s markets by putting Intel processors into places and products where PCs still had room to make inroads, including “digital home” offerings, enterprise, the health industry, and mobility. However, mobility largely meant notebook computers – not phones or tablets.

On the PC side, it paid off. Intel’s first “tock” were the original Core 2 processors in 2006, which brought a significant leap in processor performance and proved Intel could still develop technology that left competitors in the dust. The designs landed just as the industry was seriously converting to 64-bit architectures. The Core processors were also enough of an advance that they convinced Apple to drop IBM/Motorola PowerPC processors – a huge PR coup for Intel. The “tick” in 2007 shrunk those technologies down to 45nm.

The next “tock” in 2008 brought the first Core i3/i5/i7 processors, while the “tick” in early 2010 shrunk those down to 32nm. In 2011, Intel “tocked” again with Sandy Bridge (which had a $700 million hiccup), then “ticked” earlier this year with Ivy Bridge and a 22nm process. The next “tock,” dubbed Haswell, should land by mid-2013, and the “tick” in 2014 should be Broadwell, the first processor to use a 14nm process. Other chipmakers like AMD, Qualcomm, and Samsung aren’t demonstrating manufacturing and chip design expertise at Intel’s level. Simply put, Intel processor technology truly is leading the market.

These advances also kept investors happy by raking in money. On Otellini’s watch, Intel saw its global revenue jump from $39 billion a year to $54 billion. The company has also paid out some $23.5 billion to investors. Otellini also cleared clouds from the companies horizons by resolving antitrust cases with both AMD and the Federal Trade Commission (with no fines), although it’s still appealing a $1.34 billion antitrust fine from the European Union.

Intel’s biggest problem: fewer PCs, lots more mobile devices

Intel’s technology is solid, but two things happened during Otellini’s tenure that have put Intel on shaky ground: the global economic recession, and the revolution in smartphone and mobile technologies.

A worldwide economic downturn meant both consumers and businesses put buying new PCs on hold, hoping to cut costs by milking their existing systems for an additional year or two, meaning less demand for processors and less growth in the PC market.

Consumers’ and enterprises’ embrace of smartphones and tablets – sometimes as replacements for traditional notebook computers – further crimped demand for PCs and Intel processors. Despite repeatedly trying to make low-power, low-cost processors for mobile devices (like its Atom line and even earlier efforts), Intel chips drive almost no mobile devices. Instead, most phones and tablets are powered by processors based on designs from the UK’s ARM Holdings, and are manufactured by the likes of Samsung and Qualcomm.

How bad is it? With a market cap of about $100 billion, Intel is the world’s biggest chipmaker in terms of revenue. On paper, however, it’s been eclipsed by Qualcomm, with a market cap of $106 billion, surpassing Intel largely due to the strength of its Snapdragon ARM-based processors.

Otellini’s approach to mobile seems to be that design advances from its flagship processors and the Wintel ecosystem will eventually trickle down and also power mobile devices, which is (loosely) the premise behind the Atom line. Despite some progress, such as a version of Android for Intel chips, Intel’s complex microarchitectures are originally designed for PCs. Making them power-efficient and backward-compatible is no small feat.

Intel also puts a premium price on its ability to run x86 software, which initially meant the sales proposition for Intel’s mobile processors amounted to we’re more expensive and use more power than our competition! In contrast, ARM processors are designed to be simple and power-efficient from the word go. While ARM processors aren’t compatible with the x86 world, they are more efficient and less expensive than Intel’s offerings. In fact, Apple is working on its own hand-optimized processor designs rather than relying on Intel, which makes the most advanced processor technology available.

This year, Intel claimed its Medfield line of single-core Atom processors were competitive enough with ARM systems to power smartphones. So far, there have been few takers, with Motorola’s Razr i being the best-known example. Intel’s next dual-core mobile processors, dubbed Clover Trail, are supposed to outshine ARM processors, serve as the heart of devices that can run x86 software, and offer all-day batter life and 30 days of standby time. Clover Trail was supposed to ship this quarter, powering a wide range of tablets and slates running Windows 8. However, Intel has yet to announce a launch date, meaning device makers hoping to ride Windows 8′s launch have now missed the wave.

Can Intel re-invent itself?

Even as the traditional PC market stalls and (eventually) shrinks thanks to widespread use of mobile devices, Otellini’s unexpected resignation could present an opportunity for Intel to reinvent itself and remain a ubiquitous force in mainstream computing. RBC Capital Markets analyst Doug Freedman wrote in a research note that “[a] shift in leadership could be welcome news to investors as Intel could be in greater position to broaden its portfolio into higher growth markets.” But how?

Show ‘em how it’s done – It used to be unthinkable that either pillar of the Wintel ecosystem,  Microsoft or Intel, would try to tell hardware partners like HP, Dell, Acer, Lenovo, or Toshiba what to do. Microsoft broke that rule with its new Surface tablets, choosing to compete directly with its hardware partners to achieve a more Apple-like (or Xbox-like) vertical integration. Intel stepped close to that line with Ultrabooks, laying out basic specs that OEMs had to meet in order for the laptop to officially be called an Ultrabook. If Intel really wants to prove its mobile technology can compete with the likes of Samsung, Qualcomm, and Apple, Intel needs to make its own mobile devices. They could run Android; they could run Windows 8; they could run something entirely new. But if Intel truly wants to be a ubiquitous force in computing for the next couple of decades, it’s going to need a major presence in the mobile market. So far, OEMs aren’t stepping up, so it might be up to Intel to disrupt the mobile market all on its own.

Cut prices – Building multi-billion-dollar chip fabrication plants isn’t cheap, but, in the short-to-medium term, Intel can improve demand for its PC chips by cutting prices. One of the reasons Ultrabooks have so far failed to ignite the PC market is that they’re just too darn expensive – and a lot of that expense is Intel’s processors. Intel threw hundreds of millions of dollars at Ultrabook development but refused to drop or subsidize the cost of its processors, forcing manufacturers to ship pricey Ultrabooks or cut costs on everything but the processor (sometimes resulting in chintzy messes). Cheaper processors mean cheaper PCs, and that means more demand and volume for Intel chips. Plus, it’s a good way to continue to assert superiority over AMD.

Think outside the x86 box – Intel’s x86 architecture has been around for decades, and, ironically, so have the simpler ARM-based designs that are now powering mobile devices. The solution to Intel’s mobile problem is not licensing ARM processors. That’s antithetical to the company’s DNA. The heart of Intel is microprocessor design and manufacturing. Instead of focusing all efforts on extending the x86 ecosystem, Intel could apply some of its world-class brainpower towards the next revolution in microprocessors as well as the manufacturing technologies that will make them possible. Starting from a clean slate with no baggage, Intel is arguably the best-positioned company on the planet to develop the architecture that drives mainstream computing well into the second half of the 21st century. Are we really expecting x86 or ARM to get us there?

So who’s next?

Intel has had only five CEOs in its corporate history, and they’ve all been company veterans promoted from within. Intel plans to look at both internal and outside candidates to fill the CEO position, but current Intel execs most certainly have the inside track. 

The leading internal candidates would seem to be Renee James (currently head of Intel’s software business), Brian Krzanich (COO and manufacturing head), and CFO/strategy chief Stacy Smith. Although Otellini came from the marketing side of the company, Intel has a tendency to favor engineering experience in the top seat. Krzanich may have a bit of a lead in that case, but Intel is not lacking in executive talent.

It’s not clear whether internal candidates steeped in Intel’s current business model will have the ambition and force of personality to divert Intel from the path it’s followed since the 1980s. Intel has known for over a decade that it needs to diversify its business, and it still isn’t there yet. Unless something fundamental changes with the Clover Trail mobile processor offerings – and there’s no indication of that happening – Intel needs to do more than keep on keeping on … and that argues in favor of a CEO from outside the company.