Intel knows nothing about Apple's future plans and has never mentioned them. Here, in a tight turn and rather predictably, the official position of Santa Clara on the leak of yesterday caused by Hannes Schwaderer, head of his German branch, who during a meeting held in Monaco had leaked an interest in Cupertino for Atom in order to use it for a product now imminent and described as an 'iPhonone', probably a tablet.
The Schwaderer denial rebounds from Intel's PR offices, questioned by several American sites that in the wake of the noise caused by the voice are trying to find out more. According to what we read on Fortune, the indiscretion about a Tablet-iPhone basically originated from a bad automatic translation that led to the flowering of conjectures. The device would have been named by the German executive exclusively as an example of a typical MID, the abbreviation that Intel uses to indicate precisely compact devices with access to the Web. Intel, say the company's PR, knows nothing else about the products future of other manufacturers, for this reason it has nothing to declare about it.
In reality the excuse appears rather weak and this for several reasons. The main that Schwaderer did not just mention, as Intel claims, a generic interest in Atom from some companies including Apple, but, as we read in the article, makes precise statements about the type of product for which it was intended, complete with some technical and dimensional specifications. There has been talk of an iPhone larger than the current one, complete with a screen resolution of 720 × 480 pixels. Specifications that suggest a tablet that has been rumored for some time and that could not have simply been invented there for the.
For other confirmations on when said during the event come from other journalists present at the Munich event yesterday who confirmed and reported the report published by ZDNet; for example, among these is Daniel Waadt editor of PC Games Hardware magazine.
In short, it seems really difficult to believe that there has been a generalized misunderstanding; it is more credible, if you want to support the thesis of the misunderstanding, that at the origin of everything there can be an example that is not entirely apt and that the manager of Intel has seasoned everything with some voices collected here and there, perhaps even from internal sources to the Intel itself and carelessly launched by way of example.
Of course, the whole structure of history runs the risk of being not credible if the final statement of Intel's response to the ZDNet.de report is taken as a paradigm. Intel cannot know anything about the new future products of the manufacturers who work closely with Santa Clara for the integration of Intel processors into new systems. We can exclude this without fear of denials especially in the case of Apple: MacBook Air and the new iMacs would never have existed without a mutual collaboration between the processor giant and Cupertino.