I'd note a few things.
First, Intel is far from being just an MPU company, so your statement that they probably don't need that many marketing people is somewhat erroneous. They need people who are continually in touch with a variety of industries and customers.
Second, marketing covers a lot of territory. The most obvious (and probably least important) is in advertising and branding. I think this, more than anything else is what Barrett's statement, which was mentioned elsewhere, is all about. You can only get so much bang for the buck in advertising a product that most consumers won't even touch directly. Intel has done a lot to help support OEM advertising, but even that is tapering off as we move into uncharted waters.
Even within those several large customers, there are multiple product lines and multiple products in use. You'd be surprised how tough it can be to cover a company like HP or IBM with all their different products, geographies and unique needs. It's not huge, but it is bigger than many people realize. Intel, for better or worse, have put themselve in the position where they are necessarily involved in just about any PC product designed anywhere. That means lots of Tech Sales Engineers and others need to be involved in discussions all over.
I thin that your overall statement is correct. Intel can do with LESS than many other companies in other fields. And that has been my experience in working for and with them. However, I question those who think none of the above is a reasonable policy. Good marketing has been part of the Intel mix as far back as the 60s and is likely to remain so.
mg |
