How serious? Does $2.2 billion and 15 percent EBIT profits sound serious to you? It does to me, and also to Deutsche Bank analyst Chris Whitmore.

Having slogged through Oracle’s 72-page document dump with a better eye for detail than mine, Whitmore noticed a line in a January 2010 email from Dave Donatelli, now head of HP’s Enterprise Group (specifically Exhibit 17, for those who want to scroll through and find it) saying that HP’s Business Criticial Server business combined with its Technology Services business, which includes the support and services associated with the Integrity line of servers that uses the Intel-made Itanium chip, was at that time larger on a revenue basis than HP’s personal computer business.

The same document, he says, showed that at the time, HP’s “owned operating profit” for the combined hardware, software and services tied to the business of selling and supporting Itanium servers was about $2.2 billion. All in, HP derives — or at least at that time derived — about 15 percent of its profits on an EBIT basis from Itanium and related businesses.

No wonder, then, that HP considered Oracle’s March 2011 decision to stop creating software that runs on the Itanium chip so earth-shattering that it hauled the software giant into court last June. That case is expected to head to trial any day now.

The disclosure is the clearest sign yet of how much HP stands to lose if its Business Critical Server business can’t recover. It has always been known to be a highly profitable business; exactly how profitable was a closely guarded HP secret. But sales of Business Critical hardware have been on the decline. In 2009, sales of BCS hardware were $2.6 billion. In 2011, they had fallen by 19 percent to $2.1 billion. And in the quarter ended Jan. 31, sales were $405 million, down 27 percent from the same period in 2011.

The uncertainty about Itanium’s future is one of the many reasons that Whitmore has been particularly bearish on HP’s turnaround prospects: “Given the growing uncertainty around the long-term viability of Itanium, we expect customer defections to continue, if not accelerate in future periods,” he wrote in a research note to clients, issued yesterday.

However, much as HP lawyers would like to argue that Oracle’s motivation is to help bolster long-flagging sales of its new Sun Microsystems hardware unit, Whitmore argues that the main benefactor is IBM: “While Oracle is responsible for shining a bright light on Itanium’s precarious future, it is probably doing IBM the biggest favor. … We expect IBM to be the greatest beneficiary of Itanium defections and view Power [IBM's server chip] as the market consolidator and eventual standard in the UNIX/RISC server market over the medium to longer term.”

And even if HP prevails in its suit, Whitmore isn’t seeing much benefit: “Regardless of the outcome of this particular suit, we expect HP-UX customers to continue fleeing what is increasingly looking like a dead platform — creating a major headwind for HP’s medium-term earnings.” Ouch.

They’re not quite as juicy — Oracle has always had the better flair for the dramatic in this case — but in releasing them, HP clearly intends to paint Oracle, the new owner of Sun Microsystems, as out to hurt HP by kicking it straight in the teeth by damaging its Business Critical Server operation.

The first of the batch is an instant message exchange between some Oracle sales guys, who happen to use salty language in relation to HP. (Sorry about that.)

The second appears to show that Mark Hurd, while still CEO of HP, was informed about Intel being both aggressive and excited about a forthcoming version of the Itanium chip, which would seem to run contrary to the argument Oracle has made that Intel was prepping for the Itanium line’s end of life, while allowing HP to lie about it to its server customers. In the message, Martin Fink, who figured so prominently in Oracle’s document dump today, writes to Hurd: “I’m not sure what exactly this means, but I have rarely seen Intel so agressive on anything to do with Itanium EVER, and they are working very hard to get this moving forward.”

Another, from February 2011, appears to show Oracle unwilling to release a security software patch for a version of one of its applications that runs on HP-UX and therefore on an Itanium-based server. Another from the same day is an email from Oracle CEO Larry Ellison to Thomas Kurian, senior vice president of Oracle’s server technologies, asking if support documents had been updated to specify “no more one-off patches for Itanium.” The date is key because Oracle first announced that it would no longer support Itanium systems on March 23 of that year. It should surprise no one that the top echelons of Oracle management knew this announcement was coming.

The next is an email showing HP getting ready for a big strategy launch. “Kinetic” was HP’s internal name for a strategy that leveraged all of HP’s IP that enabled mission-critical products into a cohesive whole. Plans for Kinetic included extending HP-UX and Integrity, HP’s line of Itanium-based servers, indefinitely, as well as bringing up X86 chips, like Intel’s more mainstream Xeon, under the “mission critical” umbrella. As HP sees it, this was the plan all along.
 
Finally the last one is another IM exchange between Oracle sales execs. Toward the end, one of them complains about being forced to sell Sun hardware that is described as a “pig with lipstick at best.” Again as HP sees it, once Oracle owned Sun it had every motivation to do whatever it could to hurt HP, including ducking out of previously contracted commitments.

As I did with the Oracle dump this morning, I collated everything into a single PDF. I think I got everything in chronological order this time. Read for yourselves!

HP-Itanium-docs.pdf

The documents were released as part of a new offensive by Oracle to ratchet up the pressure on HP and take its case to the marketplace — that HP and Intel had already planned to bring an end to the Itanium chip’s life, and that HP lied to its customers about the chip’s long-term future.

HP has long denied Oracle’s contention, and has tried to portray this as Oracle’s failure to live up to its end of a contract.

In an open letter to affected customers, Oracle said it was releasing the documents in order to allow customers to “make your own decision” on the matter:

Dear Customer:

A little over a year ago we announced that we would no longer be developing new versions of Oracle’s database and other products on the Intel Itanium platform due to our strongly held belief of Itanium’s imminent end of life. We ensured our Itanium customers would have an easy transition to the platform of their choice by committing to 10 years of support for existing Oracle software running on Itanium.

Hewlett Packard strongly disagreed with our characterization of Itanium’s future and launched an immediate campaign designed, in their words, to foment “customer outrage.”

At this time, there are many documents that have been disclosed through litigation that describe the true state of Itanium in Hewlett-Packard’s own words. Rather than us interpreting this situation for you, we thought we would give you access to the public HP documents so you can make your own decision regarding your investments in Itanium technology.

After reading these documents we are confident that you will agree with our decision, taken with the best interest of our joint customers in mind.

Sincerely,
Jeb Dasteel, Senior Vice President and Chief Customer Officer
Oracle

Bloomberg Businessweek got its hands on some of these trial exhibits, but in its posts this morning — and presumably in the tech section of this week’s magazine — stuck to a fairly limited set of highlights. And in fact there’s not so much that’s surprising, if you read my story on the unredacted version of Oracle’s cross-complaint from January.

Basically, the new documents add more color and a lot more tension to the state of the HP-Intel relationship over the production of the Itanium chip. It also lends a lot of weight to Oracle’s narrative heading into that trial: That HP relied heavily on profits earned from multiyear sales and support contracts with customers who bought its Integrity servers that run Intel’s exotic and expensive Itanium chip. In support of that, it paid Intel nearly a half-billion dollars to keep the chip alive, despite the fact that, outside of HP, there was no other single vendor using Itanium chips.

In the emails, Intel, for its part, certainly looks like it wants out of the business of making the chip, but is willing to accept HP’s money to keep churning them out. Asked at one point what would happen if HP didn’t pay a certain amount to Intel, Intel would — in the words of Martin Fink, then-head of HP’s Business Critical Server business — shut down the teams producing certain chips that were in the process of being designed, and slap “high fives all around.”

On its face, there’s nothing inherently wrong with HP paying Intel to keep making a particular chip. HP had customers willing to buy these servers, and it made money supporting them, so paying Intel to keep them coming — remember, HP for all intents and purposes, is the only vendor buying this chip — was more or less a cost of doing business.

However, Oracle’s argument has been that HP refused to play straight with the wider marketplace, insisting that Itanium would be around for many generations to come. Even Intel itself insisted that was true last year, when Oracle first announced that it would stop making new applications that support the chip, which of course led HP to sue last June.

AllThingsD has compiled all of these documents into a single 75-page document; you can read the entire collection below. They’re ordered by exhibit number rather than chronological order. I’ll probably have more to say as I go through them.

HP just sent a statement:

“Intel has provided unequivocal and repeated statements to the marketplace that Itanium is not at an end of life. The undeniable fact is there is committed support for Itanium that extends out toward the end of this decade. Statements that Itanium was at or near an end of life are false. With the unsealing of court filings, the public can see the undisputed facts of Intel’s Itanium roadmap clearly showing a long and sustained future for Itanium.”

An Intel spokesman had no comment, saying it is not a party to the lawsuit.

Update: So let me try to curate these documents a bit. They cover a time period beginning in August 2007, and go through to April 2011. In the first, (Ex. 6) Fink writes to another HP exec and says, “Intel dropped a bomb on us last night” during a meeting that included talk of “canceling Poulsen,” a future version of the Itanium chip that was on internal road maps. Poulson, for the record, is Intel’s code name for a 32 nanometer version of Itanium that was to be released sometime this year. The response: “Call Pat G,” referring to Pat Gelsinger, the once very senior Intel executive who was at one time widely considered to be a possible successor to current CEO Paul Otellini, but is now the COO at EMC, and likely to be its next CEO. Fink’s response: “I did, spent an hour … This was a high tension call.” Intel was worried that an HP server was being built using a competitor’s chip, presumably one from Advanced Micro Devices.

From there, skip forward to Exhibit 43. The email to Fink from Scott Stallard, now a retired HP exec, details a discussion with Intel’s Tom Kilroy, then VP of its enterprise business. The message to Intel: “Don’t possibly signal to the world” the end of the Itanium road map.

The next document is notes from a meeting between Intel and HP led by Otellini and then-HP CEO Mark Hurd in September of 2007. According to those notes, Intel’s Kilroy concedes that the then-current core used to build the Itanium chip has reached its end of life, and that there are two paths forward, one expensive, the other painful — a “crash landing.” Otellini then says that Intel can’t continue to lose money on the product. Hurd goes on to say that HP had by that time sold a combined $9 billion worth of Itanium-based servers, and that it “would be hard to walk away from those customers.”

Otellini then says, according to the notes, that “we need to address the inevitable on the future of Itanium.” Both sides then agree that over the next several years they’d like to glide toward using Intel’s more plentiful and more mainstream Xeon server chips, and essentially keep Itanium alive until 2013. Intel then proposed a new business model that would turn Intel essentially into a contractor for HP. Its goal would be not so much to make money on the Itanium business, but to stop losing money on it. Hurd agrees to take a serious look at the numbers.

Next in line is Exhibit 55, in which Stallard outlines the November 2007 Intel proposal to HP. The key point: HP would pay Intel $488 million over five years to keep building Itanium chips. It includes provisions for an annual “true up,” where Intel gets paid for any difference between its costs and what HP has already paid it for that year. Stallard writes: “So you ask, why should that be that we are forced to true up Intel to break-even? lt is because Tom [Kilroy] says Paul [Otellini] has been consistent on one thing all along, that if we do any other scenario than Tukvale (e.g. shut down the business early) then “Intel can’t lose any (more) money on this thing.’”

Next is Exhibit 15, a PowerPoint deck outlining the strategic rationale for HP to consider buying Sun Microsystems. Key phrase: HP-UX, its version of Unix developed specifically for Itanium servers, “is on a death march” because of Itanium’s inevitable demise. The slide also shows HP’s worries concerning a scenario in which IBM acquires Sun. The key phrase there: Such a deal “Isolates and exposes HP-UX as 3rd tier player, accelerates our decline (product/service) as customers look to consolidate vendors.”

We all know what happened instead: Oracle acquired Sun in 2010 and, in a stroke, took over its server business, giving Oracle an obvious motivation to cut its support for Itanium and hurt its new rival HP in the process. I’ve hit a few high points here, but I think you can get the gist from a careful reading of the documents below.

Update: I’ve re-uploaded the exhibits to Scribd in more logical order, so you don’t have to skip around. Sorry if that was confusing before.

Oracle Itanium Exhibits Chronological

Due out this summer, the Vaio E Series 15 and 17 laptops offer revamped designs and technology to speed boot-up times after the computer has been in sleep mode. The new models join the previously announced Vaio E Series 14, but bring with them the option of larger displays — the Vaio E Series 15 sports a 15.5-inch screen; the Series 17 has a 17.3-inch screen.

The laptops feature a wraparound design with rounded corners, and will be available in white, black or silver. Each of the new models has a large trackpad; some include a backlit keyboard.

A feature called Rapid Wake + Eco promises to have your laptop up and running in seconds after it has gone into sleep mode. The Vaio E Series 15 and 17 also offer a built-in Webcam and technology to boost speaker volume. If you want to watch movies from your laptop, there’s an option to add a Blu-ray disc drive.

In general, the E Series is designed for everyday tasks and is built with families and students in mind, so if you’re looking for something a little more portable and powerful, Sony’s Vaio S Series would be a better fit — and it just so happens that there are two new members in that family, too.

The Vaio S Series 15 and 17 laptops offer a 13.3-inch display and a 15.5-inch display, respectively, and are made from lightweight materials including magnesium, aluminum and carbon fiber. The Series 15 weighs less than 4.4 pounds, and also has the benefit of an HD display with wide viewing angles.

A smaller size doesn’t mean less power, though, as both the S Series 15 and 17 will get a boost from the latest processor from Intel, called Ivy Bridge. Sony will also offer optional accessories, such as a docking station and an extended battery.

Like the E Series, the S Series models are expected to ship this summer, but pricing and specific release dates for all the laptops have not been announced at this time. Current E Series models run in the $500 to $600 range, while laptops in the S Series cost between $725 and $1,500.

New documents in the case came public yesterday, essentially spelling out Judge James Kleinberg’s ruling from May 1 in turning back Oracle’s motion for summary judgement. It’s not a terribly big deal, because both sides asked for summary judgement and failed to get it, as happens nearly all of the time in cases that get this far.

One key piece of their dispute arises from the fact that when they settled another lawsuit in 2010, stemming from Oracle’s hiring of former HP CEO Mark Hurd, there was, as HP argues, a provision included requiring Oracle to continue making software that supports servers running Intel’s exotic Itanium chip. A good deal of the fighting between the companies at trial is going to revolve around this point, and whether or not that agreement is enforceable or even exists. What that provision called for, essentially, was for Oracle to continue supporting Itanium as it had previously.

A key paragraph in the judge’s ruling:

“In the Court’s view, it is not unreasonable to interpret the Reaffirmation Provision as imposing a prospective obligation on Oracle to continue to offer products for HP’s platforms; the plain language is readily susceptible to that interpretation. If the prior, existing obligation before [Mark] Hurd’s hiring involved a clear and consistent practice in which Oracle offered its product suite on all HP platforms without written porting agreements or payments, then the Court sees no inherent contradiction in ‘reaffirming’ that this arrangement will continue going forward.”

Both sides in this case never miss an opportunity to poke each other in the eye with public statements. HP struck first last night:

“HP is pleased that the Court ruled that the language in the HP/Oracle agreement can be interpreted to require Oracle to continue porting its software products to the HP Integrity platform, as Oracle did for years before the agreement. As the ruling states, Oracle’s interpretation would make the agreement ‘illusory’ and ‘should be rejected.’ We look forward to trial, where the details of Oracle’s deliberate, anti-customer business strategy to drive hardware sales from Itanium to inferior Sun servers will be revealed.”

But it’s important to remember that HP lost its motion for summary judgement, too. Also, didn’t HP convince the judge that the Itanium provision of the Hurd settlement agreement means exactly what it thinks it does? At least that’s how Oracle attorney Dan Wall saw it, in a statement sent to AllThingsD this morning.

“HP cannot be happy with this decision. The Court did not accept HP’s interpretation of the Hurd settlement agreement; in fact, it rejected out of hand the most recent version of HP’s argument, which equated the contract with terms HP proposed, but Oracle rejected. HP’s lawsuit, like Itanium itself, is living on borrowed time and will never succeed.”

Anyway, the 29-page judge’s opinion that kicked off this latest pretrial PR salvo is below:

endorse_80790_203163_A

Nvidia said it expects sales in the second quarter to come in between $990 million and $1.05 billion, well ahead of the the $976 million analysts had forecast.

And the cheerful forecast came on top of earnings that also beat expectations. Sales in the first quarter fell to $925 million from $962 million a year earlier, which, despite the drop, was better than the $916 million consensus.

Nvidia’s profits were $60 million, or 10 cents on a per-share basis, which was also a drop from 22 cents in the year-ago period. A rather hefty fall at that, but it was in line with expectations.

It looks like Nvidia is scoring some important wins in the desktop space, now that Windows 8 — which supports variants of ARM-based chips and not just x86-type chips from Intel and Advanced Micro Devices — is coming. Also, notebook graphics chips are growing. Nvidia also landed a version of its Tegra chip inside a phone from HTC that launched with 22 carriers in Europe and Asia.

The two companies had asked the judge essentially to throw out the other side’s complaint and rule in their favor in a pair of dueling filings last month, and made arguments to that effect in late March. Now being heard in a California State Superior Court, the case is going to trial, with no hope for a settlement, Reuters reported.

It all started up in late 2010, when in reaching a settlement of a lawsuit concerning Mark Hurd’s taking a job as co-president of Oracle, HP asked Oracle to include some language that it argues committed it to continue to build software that would support Intel’s exotic Itanium server chip. That chip, you may remember, was, for all intents and purposes, a market failure, and HP was the only vendor worth mentioning that ever made a go of selling servers using it.

In March of last year, Oracle said it would cease developing versions of its software that would work on Itanium-based systems, and argued that Intel had plans to end manufacturing of the Itanium chip. HP was outraged, and Intel said it had no such plans. Oracle was in earnest. HP got its Itanium customers to publicly lobby Oracle to reverse the decision. It didn’t work. So HP sued Oracle last June.

The pretrial arguments have been colorful. Oracle accused HP of being sneaky when it negotiated the Hurd settlement. It later compared HP’s ongoing reliance on Itanium to the movie “Weekend At Bernie’s,” the corpse in the analogy being the Itanium chip, kept alive by HP funding. For HP, the argument is a simple one: Is there an enforceable agreement between it and Oracle, or not?

Oracle argues, among other things, that there is no such agreement in place, and even if there were, HP was, at the time of the agreement, about to hire Léo Apotheker and Ray Lane as its CEO and chairman, two people who, for various reasons, Oracle thoroughly distrusts. Also, Oracle says, for HP, the Itanium business is all about the billions in support and service fees it charges its customers, fees without which HP is “strategically screwed.” And by the way, the uncertainty around Itanium servers is starting to hurt HP for real.

(Image is of this T-shirt)

Created by: Paralegal.net

He calls it “the highest-performing handset on the market, as far as we can tell.” It has taken a few years to get to this point, but there’s a two-billion-unit addressable market to be carved out.

In the video below, Otellini also talks about the competitive threat — though he seems not to consider it much of a threat at all — coming from Microsoft’s Windows 8 and its variant that will support chips running the ARM architecture. How much market share does he expect to lose? None. Intel’s chips can offer the same performance and power efficiency that ARM chips do, while being 100 percent compatible with existing PC software. See the full interview below:

HP sued Oracle over what it says is an agreement to continue to create software that will run on HP systems running Intel’s Itanium chip, an agreement that HP argues was struck as part of the settlement that ended a suit stemming from former HP CEO Mark Hurd’s joining Oracle in 2010. Oracle, for its part, has argued that Intel plans to phase out the Itanium chip, a specialized server chip that never saw any real success in the marketplace, in order to focus more on its mainstream Xeon line of server chips and has only been producing them because HP has been paying it to do so.

The pair lobbed dueling filings at each other yesterday. In Oracle’s filing, which is the first of the pair embedded below, its lawyers accuse HP of trying to have the court write the contract it says it never agreed to in the first place: “HP has now been forced to admit that the fuzzy, feel-good language in the Reaffirmation Provision would fail as a porting contract on its own — unless the Court supplies numerous detailed terms inferred from the parties’ course of dealing.”

In the second of the two filings embedded below, HP makes the point that Hurd, once HP’s CEO and now Oracle’s co-president, had previously worked with Intel on Itanium-related matters. The key quote from the introduction:

“When asked point blank at his deposition whether it was misleading for HP not to publicly disclose the ICA [Itanium Collaboration Agreement], Oracle’s Co-President stated definitively: “No.” Thus, to prevail on its false advertising claims, Oracle must establish that its own Co-President was responsible for a fraudulent scheme while he was the CEO at HP, and that Mr. Hurd perjured himself at deposition. Although, and somewhat incredibly, Oracle recently stated on the record in response to this Court’s question that Mr. Hurd was part and parcel of this alleged scheme and pattern of lying, Oracle has no evidence to support this claim against Mr. Hurd. In any case, the fact that Oracle is even going down this path against its current Co-President reveals the absurdity of its entire claim.

Here, you can read them in the original, Oracle’s first:

Oracle Reply Msa 1599529

And now HP’s filing:

HP Reply in Support of Cross Claim MSJ

In a ruling that came down late Wednesday (see the opinion below), Judge Lucy Koh ruled that the existence of agreements between the various companies not to “cold call” employees of the other supports a “plausible inference” that the agreements were signed off at the highest levels by senior executives of each company.

Plaintiffs in the case, all former software engineers who have worked for the various companies, have claimed that the late Apple CEO Steve Jobs, negotiating with Ed Colligan, the former CEO of Palm (now a unit of Hewlett-Packard), talked directly about the matter. Their complaint quotes Jobs as telling Colligan, “We must do whatever we can” to stop cold-calling efforts between the two companies.

The companies being sued are Apple, Intel, Adobe, Google, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, a unit of Walt Disney. The complaint alleges that the companies conspired to make it harder for employees to move to different jobs between the companies, thus limiting their ability to earn higher salaries. The companies had sought to get the case thrown out.

You can read Judge Koh’s opinion below.

Poaching Case Ruling

The company has signed Shawn Henry, the FBI’s former executive assistant director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Service Branch, as the new president of its services subsidiary, CrowdStrike Services. Henry is a 24-year FBI veteran who led some of the Bureau’s biggest cybercrime cases.

Crowdstrike was launched by two veterans of McAfee, the security software concern that’s now a unit of chip giant Intel: George Kurtz, McAfee’s former CTO, and Dmitri Alperovitch, its former Vice President of Threat Research.

Not a great deal has yet been disclosed about Crowdstrike’s approach to security, but in the February 22 blog post announcing the launch of the company, Kurtz explained that, having seen the results of investigations into several high-profile cyber attacks, the current state of security practice is akin to the old French Maginot Line that was intended to keep out the Germans.

Kurtz argued that once you know your enemy — the party that’s attacking you — the key to success in stopping their attacks on your digital assets is to raise the cost of the human-powered portions of their attacks. “The only way to accomplish that is by forcing them to change the way they conduct the human-led parts of their intrusions, such as reconnaissance, lateral movement, identification of valuable assets, and exfiltration,” Kurtz wrote.

Henry did a short video announcing his move, and I embedded it below.

However, some deductive reasoning suggests that it will be Lava, a little-known Indian company that Intel announced in February as one of its early customers.

Lenovo and France Telecom’s Orange also plan devices this quarter, but both of those companies have announced dates for later in the quarter. Lenovo’s first Intel phone is coming in May, while Orange’s is expected in June.

Intel is hoping to make a dent in a market that until now has been dominated by the likes of Qualcomm, Texas Instruments and Nvidia.

“We have ambitions to not be a minor player here,” CEO Paul Otellini said back in February.

Part of Intel’s strategy has been to create a near-complete reference design that aspiring players — like Lava — can use to quickly get into the smartphone game.

Intel also announced a longer-term partnership with Motorola Mobility, though it has yet to convince most big-name phone makers to adopt its chips.

First and foremost, non-GAAP quarterly profits are down by about 13 percent from the year-ago period, while sales were up by less than 1 percent.

Even so, the results beat the expectations of analysts: Per-share earnings were 56 cents versus the consensus expectation of 50 cents. And sales at $12.9 billion beat the consensus by about $600 million. Not exactly a blow-out quarter by any means, but Intel’s first fiscal quarter is always seasonally slow.

What’s probably bugging Intel shareholders who are selling it off after hours is the results of the PC Client group that sells chips into the personal computer sector. While Gartner just reported quarterly PC shipments that were better than expected (results which last week helped goose shares of Hewlett-Packard), Intel saw sales into PCs decline by almost 2 percent year on year to $8.45 billion. Sales in the data center group fell slightly to $2.45 billion.

Geographically, Intel saw its sales rise in Asia by 1 percent and fall in the Americas by 6 percent, while Europe increased by 8 percent.

Another thing that has investors worried a bit is probably the operating expenses line. They rose by about 20 percent to nearly $4.5 billion. The main boost seems to have been in research and development, on which Intel spent $485 million more than it did last year.

The conference call is set to begin shortly. Expect lots of questions from analysts about what’s going on and what Intel’s outlook really is.

Earlier:
2:03 pm: And the call is under way. CEO Paul Otellini is speaking. “Our committment to long term research and development is paying off.” Examples: We are ramping our 22-nanometer process and moving to tri-gate manufacturing. Basically, Intel is pushing the envelope on its manufacturing technology. “That’s allowing us to do things others can’t, like improve our Atom processors at twice the rate of Moore’s Law. … Our lead over the rest of the industry continues to grow.”

Otellini on Ultrabooks: With more than 21 designs already shipping and more than 100 designs in the pipeline, we’re very happy with the results. We expect Ultrabooks to reach mainstream price points. By the holiday season, he expects touch interfaces to give the experience of the tablet with the functionality of a notebook.

Otellini: China is the second-largest server market in the world.

Otellini: McAfee posted best first-quarter bookings in its history. Oops, Otellini called something a Day-Zero attack, when he meant Zero-Day.

Otellini: First Intel-based smartphone is coming this week.

Now CFO Stacy Smith is speaking. First-quarter results were slightly better than expectations. “Our business was impacted by the hard drive shortage. We believe it did not impact actual sales of PCs in the quarter.”

Smith: As hard disk drive shipments recover, we’ll see the beginning of an inventory replenishment this quarter.

Smith: We will be ramping up Ivy Bridge production and three factories.

Smith: Spending was in line with expectations. He expects spending as a percentage of revenue to come down in the second half.

Smith: Inventory grew by $400 million with nearly all that growth attributed to Ivy Bridge.

Smith: Against the backdrop of the hard drive shortage and weak macroeconomic conditions, our execution remained strong.

2:12 pm: Time for Q&A

2:13 pm: Question about unit costs.

Smith: It was consistent with what we expected. We have three new 22-nanometer factories. At the start of that ramp, the first products absorb the cost of the factories. Costs peak in the second quarter and come down as the ramp continues.

Question from Sanford Bernstein: Asking about the hard drive shortage impact. Have we seen all the snapback from hard drives coming back or is there potential for more seasonal growth?

Smith: Q2 is consistent with underlying demand. Inventory replenishment begins in Q2. We saw significant reduction in inventory in Q4 and then more in Q1. What you see in Q3 is where you really start to see the worldwide replenishment. They will replenish with Ivy Bridge, and a good Q4 with lots of catalysts driving the market.

And now a question on gross margins. It looks like they’re a little lower on some unit costs. Is this some evidence that the initial ramp of Ivy Bridge saw a push-out?

Smith: If you remember, we shifted the Ivy Bridge launch by three weeks. That was to make sure we had enough inventory. Ivy Bridge explains the good news in Q1 and the Q2 forecasts.

Question from McQuarie: A question about desktop and notebook.

Smith: We don’t forecast at that level of granularity. In general, what you see is that notebooks are growing on a unit basis. Emerging markets are growing and that’s a desktop market. We continue to actually see notebook demand growth.

Otellini: The first Ivy Bridge chips we’re shipping are quad cores, which are going into desktops. The dual core mainstream chips are going into notebooks.

2:22 pm: Question from UBS about Ultrabooks. Can you talk about where you help customers make changes in the bill of materials? I want to know, were you able to help them?

Otellini: The Ultrabook fund hasn’t kicked in to where it is achieving BOM reductions. Some of that is later this year. The biggest change is quite frankly competition. Asus is now shipping a very low profile hard drive in an ultrabook. The biggest change is trying to intercept the Windows 8 launch with sufficient quantities of Ultrabooks with a touch-enabled Ultrabook. Used to be a touch screen added $100 to the bill of materials, but now that is coming down considerably.

2:27 pm: Question from Longbow Research. Give us some insight into the mix you expect in terms of corporate versus consumer.

Smith: We dont get into that. For Q1 our mix was quite healthy. Generally what we see is relative strength based on Ivy Bridge, and then some price competition at the lower end of the market.

Otellini: Typically, the enterprise notebooks tend to be about a third of the businees. But more and more businesses are allowing employees to bring any kind of computer they want into the office. We have some ideas about improving the security and manageability of those devices over time, while still offering the choice.

2:30 pm: Question from Bank of America: Longer term to emerging markets go toward Ultrabooks or tablets?

Otellini: I don’t think anyone in the world knows the answer to that question. In the tablet world, people now buy them as complementary device and they already have PCs. What I’m excited about is the convenience and touch of a tablet with the productivity and the utility of a keyboard in an Ultrabook device.

(Personally, I have to agree here. I get a lot more done on a MacBook Air, which I think is really the first Ultrabook, than I ever did on an iPad. But that’s me.)

2:34 pm: Question from FBR: Can you help us understand what your capacity growth looks like? What do you expect utilization rates to be? (Basically, how busy are the factories going to be?)

Smith: We expect utilization rates to be high through the year. We expect some capacity growth, though probably not as much as you might expect.

Question from Citi: As you talking to potential customers in handset? What matters to them? Roadmap, or the fact that you will have capacity available?

Otellini: The roadmap is the best door-opener we have. … As customers look at the roadmap they want to find ways to differentiate from what’s out there, and services they can charge for.

2:40 pm: Deutsche Bank guy talked way to fast for me to get his question.

2:44 pm: J.P. Morgan asks about the possibility of getting Apple’s iPhone business.

Otellini: Anything is possible.

Another question from J.P. Morgan, this one about geographic regions.

Otellini: We don’t see anything fundamentally different from before. We are going into a year with a new version of Microsoft Windows, and that has been strong for the industry before. Also, we’ll be debuting Touch. Add it all up and the battle for consumer dollars isn’t going to be like it was last year.

Question from Goldman Sachs, asking about the cash position coming down a bit. How low do you feel comfortable with?

Smith: Be careful about free cash flow in Q1 relative. It’s depressed relative to hard drives. Second, remember there are a few big payments in Q1. In terms of cash balances, we don’t peg a specific number out there. In Q1, we’re comfortable with our balance. It’s been bouncing around this level for awhile.

Missed who this question is from: You talked early about manufacturing leadership. Can you update on 14-nanometer ramp? When will you come to market?

Otellini: We’ll give you more granularity in May. Generally its every other year.

And we’re done. Thanks for joining.

The results beat the consensus view of analysts who had expected Intel to report per-share earnings of 50 cents on sales of $12.84 billion.

The company also said it expects to see sales in the range of $13.1 billion and $13.7 billion and gross margin of about 62 percent in the quarter ended June. This compares with a street consensus of 55 cents a share at $13.43 billion in sales.

Intel’s statement is below. The company will hold a conference call shortly to discuss the results with analysts.

SANTA CLARA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–

Intel Corporation today reported quarterly revenue of $12.9 billion, operating income of $3.8 billion, net income of $2.7 billion and EPS of $0.53. The company generated approximately $3.0 billion in cash from operations, paid dividends of $1.0 billion and used $1.5 billion to repurchase stock.

“The first quarter was a solid start to what’s expected to be another growth year for Intel,” said Paul Otellini, Intel president and CEO. “In the second quarter we’ll see the first Intel-based smartphones in the market, ship products based on 22nm tri-gate technology in high volume, and accelerate the ramp of our best server product ever, providing a tremendous foundation for growth in 2012 and beyond.”

Business Outlook

Intel’s Business Outlook does not include the potential impact of any mergers, acquisitions, divestitures or other business combinations that may be completed after April 17.

Q2 2012 (GAAP, unless otherwise stated)

Revenue: $13.6 billion, plus or minus $500 million.
Gross margin percentage: 62 percent and 63 percent Non-GAAP (excluding amortization of acquisition-related intangibles), both plus or minus a couple of percentage points.
R&D plus MG&A spending: approximately $4.6 billion.
Amortization of acquisition-related intangibles: approximately $80 million.
Impact of equity investments and interest and other: loss of approximately $20 million.
Depreciation: approximately $1.6 billion.

Full-Year 2012 (GAAP, unless otherwise stated)

Gross margin percentage: 64 percent and 65 percent Non-GAAP (excluding amortization of acquisition-related intangibles), both plus or minus a few percentage points, unchanged.
Spending (R&D plus MG&A): $18.3 billion, plus or minus $200 million, unchanged.
Amortization of acquisition-related intangibles: approximately $300 million, unchanged.
Depreciation: $6.4 billion, plus or minus $100 million, down $100 million from prior expectations.
Tax Rate: approximately 28 percent down from prior expectations of 29 percent.
Full-year capital spending: $12.5 billion, plus or minus $400 million, unchanged.

For additional information regarding Intel’s results and Business Outlook, please see the CFO commentary at: www.intc.com/results.cfm.

It’s also the first of several chip stocks to report in the coming days. Sterne Agee analyst Vijay Rakesh summarized a few to watch in a research note to clients today.

Generally, he says to expect semiconductor companies to report results that range from in line with expectations to slightly up, and the outlook for the June quarter should improve.

One reason for that: PC sales estimates came in higher than expected from both Gartner and IDC last week. “We believe improving shipments were primarily a result of restocking rather than end-market demand. We believe both AMD and Intel should deliver in line to modestly better” results for the quarter ended March, he writes. Of the two, he says, AMD could deliver more upside on its results when it reports earnings on April 19 because its consensus estimates are low. Analysts expect it to report earnings of 9 cents a share on $1.56 billion in sales.

Intel, its strength already established, has higher expectations more consistent with its recent performance. The consensus of analysts calls for it to report 50 cents of per-share earnings on $12.84 billion in sales.

A supply chain disruption in hard drives that for a few months messed with the PC industry is coming to an end. But sales of Ultrabooks aren’t impressing anyone, Rakesh says. “Ultrabook sell-through is weak primarily on higher retail pricing versus mainstream notebooks. There are only 15 Ultrabooks on Best Buy versus 280 Notebooks listed,” he writes.

In the server space, Intel’s Romley chip is ramping up to full capacity, but he expects the competition from AMD to increase in coming months. One reason: AMD’s acquisition earlier this year of micro-server vendor SeaMicro.

One more chip company he likes among those reporting this week: Qualcomm. Rakesh says it has strong tailwinds, including Apple’s expected iPhone5, the latest iPad and wins with phones and tablets at Samsung.

It goes back to March 2006, when BlackBerry phone maker RIM agreed to pay a whopping $612.5 million to settle a mobile email patent infringement case with patent-holding company NTP. This comes to $6 for each BlackBerry ever sold. So-called patent trolls, those that own patents but don’t sell products or services, are a pain in the side of those that do.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

One early customer is Rob Legato, the visual effects supervisor who won an Academy Award for his work on the Martin Scorsese-directed hit motion picture “Hugo.” Legato will be talking about ioFX with Fusion-io chief scientist and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak at a conference in Las Vegas next week.

Fusion does some cool stuff with flash memory. Here’s the part where I roll out the old metaphor that has served me so well: In pretty much any computer, you can think of the processor as a fast-moving, highly efficient, type-A personality, constantly in a hurry, and always waiting impatiently for the rest of the system to give it more work to do. The slowpoke in the deal is the hard drive, which, though it’s already spinning at a super fast rate, just can’t get data to the processor fast enough. So the processor sits around, tapping its foot and looking at its watch, waiting for the other parts of the system that feed it data to work to keep up.

In high-performance computing, where there’s more data to be crunched than in most average computing situations, this is sort of a big deal. You want the processor to be as busy as possible — mainly because the systems are so expensive, and you want to get your money’s worth out of them — but also because jobs get done faster.

So Fusion-io’s stock in trade is a series of insert cards that bring flash memory right up next to the processor. The flash chips grab great big armloads of data and hold on to it, handing it off to the processor in a way that keeps it happy and busy and not impatiently waiting — at least not so much.

We’ve seen the technology brought to bear at places like Credit Suisse, which added Fusion’s flash cards to its trading systems. And its technology is also used in data centers belonging to Facebook and Apple.

On top of that, Fusion has relationships with all the big server vendors: Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Dell and SuperMicro all sell systems with Fusion-io on board.

Workstations are essentially heavily tricked-out PCs that are used primarily in two professions: Animation and special-effects work for movies and TV and computer-assisted design and modeling, used by folks who design buildings and cars and planes and pretty much anything else you can think of. They have the same problem that servers have — agitated processors constantly waiting for the rest of the system to catch up with them.

At this point, none of the workstation vendors are offering the card as an option, but if you’ve got a professional workstation — like, say, an Apple Mac Pro, which has three PCI Express slots — you might add one of these cards and speed up your work. In the meantime, the company is working with workstation vendors to get the ioFX insert cards certified. My guess is there will be more than a few visual artists who won’t bother to wait.

Fusion-io shares are up almost 11 percent — or $2.64 — to $27.30, as of 11 am ET; not so much on this news — workstations are kind of a low-volume market — but on an analyst report from Piper Jaffray suggesting that Cisco Systems may be close to a deal to add Fusion-io’s flash technology to its Unified Computing System platform.

The report goes on to suggest that Cisco could, over the next three or four quarters, become one of Fusion’s bigger customers, along with Facebook and Apple, and could account for more than 10 percent of Fusion’s business — which could, in turn, lead to a doubling of revenue this year. For the record, sales were $197.2 million in Fusion’s fiscal 2011. Do the math.

It turns out they did nothing of the kind. In fact, PC sales grew by almost 2 percent in the first quarter of 2012. Perhaps that’s not saying much. Last year, you’ll remember, was nothing less than the second-worst year for sales in the history of the PC industry after 2001 — except at Apple, which, no surprise, turned in its best year for Mac sales ever. Perhaps it might have been more realistic to predict a bounce-off-the-bottom moment.

Anyhow, here’s what Gartner saw and what its analysts think about it:

Europe and the Middle East did better than expected and grew by almost 7 percent. Asia was below expectations and emerging markets slowed down generally.

Also, the hard drive supply problem brought on by the floods in Thailand didn’t cause nearly as many problems as some had expected. As Gartner’s Mikako Kitagawa put it: “In general, the hard-disk drive supply shortage had a limited impact on PC supply during 1Q12. There was a moderate impact on selected markets, such as low-end consumer notebooks and the white-box market in selected regions. Still, low PC demand was able to mask the tight hard drive supply overall.”

So who led the market? Look at the tables. Worldwide market is first:

Lenovo grew the most, boosting its shipments by more than 28 percent, and was strong in the EMEA market, where growth was higher than expected generally. Dell underperformed, Gartner says, and saw declines in Asia year over year.

And now the U.S. market:

Overall, as you can see, the market declined by 3.5 percent. Dell’s share fell by nearly 4 percent, while HP and Apple grew. Acer’s share fell by an eye-popping 25 percent and change.

Not a bounce, at least not as far as the U.S. is concerned.

Obviously, that’s not the part that surprises me. But here is the bit that did: When you add up all those expenses over a server’s lifetime, labor costs amount to about 70 percent of the total, according to IBM. If you had asked me, I would have guessed the cost of power would outweigh the cost of ongoing labor. Silly me.

I talked with IBM’s Steve Mills about this earlier this week. He’s Big Blue’s senior vice president and group executive for Software and Systems. It’s not uncommon, he says, for a company to take weeks or even a month between a server’s arrival and its deployment.

IBM today announced a hardware system it calls PureSystems that can cut that deployment time to hours and reduce the lifetime labor cost associated with the server by about one-third.

Basically what IBM is doing here is bringing to bear its expertise in services. Having done so well running IT services for a few thousand different companies, it has learned a thing or two about efficiency.

And it makes perfect sense when you consider that much of IBM’s $107 billion in revenue is derived from its services business. Now it’s taking some of that learning and applying it to its hardware and software business, which accounts for about 40 percent of sales.

The key feature, Mills told me, is something called the Flex Systems Manager, which is some IBM-made software that automates a lot of the set-up and maintenance work that traditionally has to be done more or less manually by one or a team of IT managers. “The purpose of the code is to do discovery. … Can I locate every piece of hardware in the frame? What are the rules for configuring it? Can I locate all the software I need and what are the rules for configuring that?” Mills told me.

All that data has been gathered into a single screen that makes the relevant information available at a glance. Mills says the system can be up and running within four hours of arriving at a company’s loading dock. That’s a bold claim.

It’s all based around patterns that IBM has seen over and over again for different types of deployments and configuration options. See them often enough and you can develop software scripts that take a great deal of the manual labor out of the process.

Sometimes companies have their own unique or wonky business processes that even someone as experienced as IBM hasn’t seen before. If that’s the case, a company can craft its own pattern and translate that into software that can automate a process that’s unique to its business or internal rules.

IBM has also teamed up with 125 independent software vendors or ISVs to develop their own patterns that clients can quickly download in order to get up and running. (IBM put out a video on that, which I’ve taken the liberty of embedding below.)

It’s also pretty diverse from a computing standpoint. IBM being IBM, the system has different hardware options, including processors from Intel or its own Power line of chips. There are also three OS options: Windows, Linux and AIX, IBM’s proprietary flavor of Unix. There’s also a wide choice of virtual machine managers: VMWare, KVM, Microsoft’s HyperV and IBM’s own PowerVM.

In the end, the point is to allow a company’s employees to spend more time working on their key lines of business and less time making the computers run properly, which is at its most basic level the IT shop’s highest mission.

The chipmaker has already sold 7 million of its rugged Classmate PCs, and now it is taking aim at tablets. On Monday, it announced the Studybook, a 7-inch tablet capable of running either Windows 7 or Android.

Intel’s tablet packs a multitouch LCD screen, front and rear cameras, light sensor and, of course, an Intel Atom processor. Other features include 1 gigabyte of memory and up to 32GB of solid-state storage.

And, since it’s aimed at students, it’s designed to be dust- and water-resistant, and able to withstand a pretty good-sized drop.

Intel isn’t alone in going after this market, of course. In addition to the traditional PC and tablet makers, the One Laptop Per Child project has taken aim at the same area. OLPC also got its start in rugged laptops, and is moving on to tablets.

Speaking at an event put on by Wealthfront that I also covered here, Quattrone noted that he worked on his first IPO way back in 1982.

Going back even further to 1971, if someone had invested a dollar in Intel’s IPO, it would be worth $1,480 today, Quattrone said. To put that into perspective (or whatever’s the opposite of perspective!), if Facebook goes public at a $100 billion market cap that grows 20 percent per year for 40 years, the company would then be worth an unimaginable $146 trillion.

Quattrone noted the importance of the LinkedIn IPO experience in stabilizing market expectations, though he said the valuations of today’s late-stage venture capital round make him nervous.

He admonished would-be public CEOs, “Don’t go public before you can be public,” and, “Respect public investors and treat them as partners and important constituents.”

The tireless Silicon Valley social butterfly Robert Scoble attended the Wealthfront event, and posted video from it here.

The Quattrone part goes until about 26 minutes into the video, after which comes a pretty interesting panel of venture capitalists (which I suppose should get a NSFW warning, because there were F-bombs involved).

Well, today we heard from another bank, and its opinions about Intel’s Romley chip and what it means for data center spending couldn’t be more different. Chris Whitmore, an analyst with Deutsche Bank Market Research, published a note to clients today, arguing that Romley will indeed spur a new round of spending in corporate data centers, and that it will have an equally strong secondary effect on the fortunes of enterprise storage companies, specifically EMC and NetApp.

One of the things that Romley will encourage, Whitmore writes, is a growth in the density of virtual machines running in each server. (Remember that, more often than not, a physical server is virtualized or subdivided into many virtual servers, allowing each machine to act like several machines.) More virtual machines allows you to consolidate your physical machines and add more in the same footprint if you want, which in turn means more computing work getting done overall. Whitmore estimates that, in general, data centers will boost their workloads by 20 to 25 percent by the end of next year.

Roughly 26 percent of Romley chip purchases will be used in these virtualized environments, Whitmore estimates. And that tends to spur demand for storage to support the virtual machines. In fact, the growth of terabytes worth of storage products shipped mirrors closely the unit growth of servers. (See the graphic, below, which I screen-grabbed from the report; click to see it bigger.) In short, it’s good news for NetApp and EMC. Whitmore says both are taking share from other vendors, including IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Dell, with sales growing at north of 20 percent a year — a growth rate that’s higher than that of the overall market, which grew 14 percent last year. He rates shares of both EMC and NetApp a “buy,” with price targets of $35 and $60, respectively.

Great news for EMC and NetApp, but what does it mean for Intel? Whitmore says to expect a mixed bag. Companies wanting to boost their use of virtual machines will be buyers. Companies that aren’t into virtualization so much, maybe not. “We believe our estimate of x86 servers shipped into virtual environments growing from 21 percent in 2011 to 26 percent in 2013 could prove conservative,” Whitmore writes. “As a result, although we expect Romley to have a relatively muted impact on overall server unit demand, we do expect it to drive another leg of virtual machine growth.”