Newsmaker: Paying a price to be No. 1

(continued from previous page)

you voice over IP and get you off of my 3G (third-generation) network, I don't have to expand my 3G network as fast. So it's a service savings. There has been an interesting trade-off in a lot of these instances. I still think the really interesting app is when you have a device that is not just Wi-Fi enabled, but 3G is built in, and ultrawideband and Bluetooth and WiMax (are) built in, and it self-configures.

So what would Intel do to help drive that? Would you have a marketing campaign like the Centrino (wireless) campaign?
Yes. We would have a marketing campaign, an investment campaign from Intel capital; you would see us provide the cost-effective, power-efficient solutions to make that happen. We're obviously playing in the Wi-Fi, wireless, ultrawideband, 3G, WiMax space.

And who puts that $200 WiMax box in residences?
It's a service provider. It's a business. Could be anyone from the metropolitan area to a broadband service provider. There are a lot of service providers looking at this, and it will be a combination of the disruptive service providers and the existing service providers supplying this.

You have talked about the U.S. not doing enough in jobs and education and infrastructure. Even if there was a concerted effort to boost education, how does that stem the offshoring of jobs?
Life is competitive. If you have the highest standard of living in the world, the only way you justify it is by having the most productive society in the world. The only way to be the most productive society in the world is to lead in new areas of technology, new areas of value-added. The only way to do that is to invest in R&D. It's no big secret. So there is going to be intense competition for new jobs. The only way to abate that in fact is you have an advantage in new fields. And the only way to do that is invest in R&R. I don't know any other answer. The numbers show you. The U.S. graduates 50,000 engineers each year. China graduates 300,000, India graduates 200,000, Russia graduates 140,000. So where is the U.S. going to be in (the) greater scheme of things if it is just a numbers game? You lose. The only way to win is if you have the best ideas, the most innovative products, and the only way to do that is with R&D investment, basic R&D investment.

I'm publicly listed as a Bush supporter...I've also contributed to Joe Lieberman's campaign, because Lieberman was the only one who was talking about these issues

If you have a better answer, tell me, and I'll go shout it from the rooftops. I don't know of another answer. We're not going to be successful by supporting the textile industry. Look at what (we've) done in the last few years. We've supported the textile industry, we protect the Florida tomato growers from competition, we protect ourselves from soft timber from Canada. And we have steel tariffs and agricultural subsidies. Which of those five areas is the industry of the 21st century?

I wouldn't trade places with AMD--ever. They are a good competitor; they make us better; we make them better. Together, we make better profits for the world. That's competition, that's good. But the only way we are able to stay in that fray is because we invest a lot in R&D and so does AMD. The United States is not keeping track with that. Nearly 25 years of flat dollars in physical science in basic research. I'm not saying that the government ought to support Intel. I'm saying the government ought to support that basic R&D at a university level for the benefit of the United States.

My point is, even if they did, the Chinese and others are already ahead of us.
You can only catch up by running faster. The problem is, we're not having this debate (nationwide). The government hasn't moved.

So who are you voting for?
I've already voted. I'm publicly listed as a Bush supporter. I contributed to his campaign. I've also contributed to Joe Lieberman's campaign, because Lieberman was the only one who was talking about these issues.  

CNET News.com's Jai Singh and ZDNet's Dan Farber contributed to this report.

More Newsmakers

Intel doesn't "get" the internet either

Often we hear, "Microsoft didn't get the internet when it first came out." Well, from the comments of Mr. Intel, I figure the same it true in spades of Intel.

Research from Universities? You mean like the first "browser" coming from nowhere, as in, like the University of Minnesota? Come on, man, the UofM barely exists in academia. And the "gopher" project's prominence is almost a miracle. Thank the greed of Silicon Valley's VC's for that.

The internet has taken over the prominence in research and if that doesn't make any sense to you, then, you didn't understand thing one about why it was invented by a CERN Scientist in the first place.

So I figure that Mr. Intel should go back to trying to invent Dick Tracy's watch, because that's the only way I see for Intel to remain relevant to the future.

"I'll have two RFID, GPS watches to go, with a short order of WIFI."

Lol. No wonder Mr. Intel is retiring.

Terence Crocker
Computing Scientist