
Steve Jobs and the Missing “Intel Inside” Sticker - drawkbox
http://kensegall.com/2017/06/steve-jobs-and-the-missing-intel-inside-sticker/
======
sblank
The Intel Inside campaign wasn't just a consumer branding strategy. First and
foremost it was a predatory marketing campaign that turned into exclusionary
behavior. PC firms that used Intel chips and put Intel Inside on their PC's
were given funds to use in advertising and were reimbursed for "marketing
expenses". In reality these marketing funds were actually a subsidy/discount
(some would say kickback) on Intel chips. As Intel's power grew they would
only give the PC manufacturers rebates if they would buy 95% of their
Microprocessors from Intel. If they used AMD or other microprocessors - all
the Intel rebates would disappear. By the end of the 1990s, Intel had spent
more than $7 billion on the Intel Inside campaign and had 2,700 PC firms
locked up. By 2001 these rebates were running $1.5 billion a year.

Intel was sued in Japan (for offering money to NEC, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Sony,
and Hitachi,) in the EU (for paying German retailers to sell Intel PC's only)
and in the U.S. for predatory (pricing), exclusionary behavior, and the abuse
of a dominant position (HP, Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Gateway and Hitachi.) The
legal record is pretty clear that Intel used payments, marketing loyalty
rebates and threats to persuade computer manufacturers, including Dell and
Hewlett-Packard (HP), to limit their use of AMD processors. U.S. antitrust
authorities have focused on whether the loyalty rebates used by Intel were a
predatory device in violation of the Sherman Act. The European Commission (EC)
brought similar charges and imposed a 1.06 billion Euros fine on Intel for
abuse of a dominant position.

The sum of these efforts not only killed competitors but it killed innovation
in microprocessor design outside of Intel for decades.

Ironically Intel's lack of innovation in the 21st century is a direct result
of its 20th century policy of being a monopolist.

~~~
flomo
Not to disagree with your point about monopolism, but "Intel Inside" came
about in that weird period of PC history where IBM had been dethroned, but
nobody had taken charge. PC companies were manufacturing "clones" of
increasingly outdated systems, and the pain-points were numerous and obvious.
It really was a "unique branding opportunity" for someone to step-up and
define the post-IBM PC market.

Which Intel did. They were largely the one who turned primitive PC ATs + 57
different hacks into the modern PC platform. APIC PCI USB etc. (AMD gets
credit for 64-bit largely because Intel refused to do so.) "Intel Inside"
wasn't just marketing kickbacks, it was a badly-needed standardization
program.

~~~
nolok
> AMD gets credit for 64-bit largely because Intel refused to do so

Yeah, no. Amd64 was made at a time where AMD was on top of its game, they
released to the general public first while intel64 still wasn't ready, and
microsoft annonced both that 1. windows was going to support amd64, and 2.
windows was not going to support two different instruction sets for x86_64,
effectively forcing Intel to implement the amd set which they still need to
licence to this day.

Calling it "Intel let AMD get the credit because they couldn't be bothered" is
either a lack of information over what happened or a nice rewrite of history,
back then Intel was already feeling the effect of monopoly without competition
which made them late on everything and pushing their pentium4 against the
upcoming athlon 64 monster.

~~~
detaro
I think there is a reasonable argument that Intel "refused" to create a cheap
64bit competitor to IA-64, which they tried to push "serious" users (server
business) to. When the shoe dropped that only pushing Itanium wasn't going to
work, AMD already was ahead on the 64bit extension to x86.

~~~
nolok
No there isn't and this is history rewriting, even if you genuinely believe
this could be this is not what happened at all.

First it's pretty clear, seeing how Intel played their game with the x86
licence, they would never have voluntarily made themselves depend on AMD
licensing them x86_64 for the next decades like they are now.

Second, back then Intel was very seriously asking / pressuring microsoft into
not supporting amd64 extension and wait for intel64 to be released instead.
But intel64 was late and delayed, pentium 4 kept hitting brick walls while
Athlon started reigning supreme, opteron was starting to be noticed on the
server side, and IA-64 was not getting outside of niche territory. Meanwhile
linux started making some real pressure on the server andbusiness demands
meant microsoft needed to show a windows that supported 64 bits on commodity
hardware, asap. Amd64 was ready and the chip using it were cheap and
powerfull, so microsoft made their choice.

~~~
detaro
I'm still not sure what part exactly you see as inaccurate. The notion that
Intel didn't work on x86_64 early enough? The assumption that if Intel had an
x86_64 product first it would have had a chance against AMDs?

------
habitue
I guess I thought this might actually tell the story of how Apple negotiated
not to have the Intel inside sticker. Instead it just states that the sticker
wasn't there and goes "we can only guess"

~~~
ams6110
IIRC the Intel Inside sticker got OEMs a better price on the CPU. Apple
probably agreed to pay the higher price and not have their sleek hardware
cases sullied by the presence of a (gasp) _sticker_.

Or perhaps there was enough incentive for Intel to get rid of the last
remaining PowerPC platform in end-user computing. Certainly in volume alone
Apple doesn't represent a very significant supplier of Intel-based computers.

~~~
Spooky23
Apple has more market power than you think -- they focus on a few models,
those models sell like hot cakes and Apple pays for guarantees to get
inventory. For Intel that means their factories keep pumping out chips like
clockwork and inventory is low.

Dell or HP sells more units, but in 300 or more SKUs each. Apple is different
enough to get better terms.

~~~
myrandomcomment
This. Intel does not make money from the CPU in the broader sense, they make
money by running their production lines at full tilt and getting paid for what
comes off them.

------
ryandrake
I just had a look at a newish Lenovo sitting next to me and it's packed with
gaudy logos stuck to the inside hand-rests:

* Intel Inside

* AMD Radeon graphics

* Energy Star

* 2x JBL speakers (two mentions of JBL, one's not even a sticker)

* Dolby Digital Plus

...and a few others that depict generic features of the laptop (Do I really
need a sticker to tell me I have a webcam on this thing?) Honestly it just
looks tacky, like a Nascar car. I'll peel them off some time but yuck, totally
tasteless.

~~~
nightski
Such a weird comment on a Hacker site (at the top too). Hackers used to care a
lot less about status and appearances, and more about doing cool shit. It's
unfortunate that changed.

~~~
macintux
It's entirely possible to care about doing cool shit tastefully.

~~~
nightski
Taste clouds the mind. It introduces preconceptions, encourages judgement, and
makes it harder to see the true value in something. Thankfully, many hackers
were not dismissed due to their lack of "taste".

Just take the Lenovo laptop for example. I don't know which model it is, but
some models are incredibly practical. They have very long battery life,
beautiful keyboards, and are built like a tank. But no, let's focus on the
stickers.

~~~
icebraining
_Just take the Lenovo laptop for example. I don 't know which model it is, but
some models are incredibly practical. They have very long battery life,
beautiful keyboards, and are built like a tank._

Which is presumably why the previous poster has one sitting next to him.

 _But no, let 's focus on the stickers._

It is the focus of this thread. Why would you even open it if you're not
interested in discussing them?

~~~
ryandrake
Exactly. I got the laptop because it's an excellent work horse, has specs
suitable for what I need it for (programming), and runs Debian like a champ.
The point, which I probably failed to get across, is that I find it funny how
Lenovo put so much care into making a kickass laptop, then proceeded to
carelessly slap a whole bunch of stickers all over it. Obviously the stickers
can be removed but it seems like such a lapse in design quality for an
otherwise very good laptop.

------
noonespecial
Steve was right. It really set the MacBooks apart when all of the other
computers were literally festooned with a dozen cartoonish stickers all over
making them look like cheap toys.

Worse still, as you used the computers in real life, all of those stickers
degraded into a gluey mess that got all over everything when you touched them.

I still have flashbacks of using a heatgun and alcohol wipes to un-sticker 2
dozen new HP laptops before rolling them out. Ugh.

~~~
Theodores
I collect those stickers and intend to use them mischievously. Chromebook? i7
sticker with a tiling window manager and you instantly have what appears to be
a hacker grade laptop. Fancy i7 machine? Celeron, obviously.

This I do not do due to the shortage of genuine stickers. Maybe I will fix
someone's computer one day. I will just add the sticker and they will feel it
go faster.

------
profmonocle
Something I'm more curious about is how they got out of putting carrier
branding on the iPhone. As others have said, the Intel Inside program wasn't
mandatory. But from what little I've heard about this, AT&T was very reluctant
to concede this when the iPhone debuted. I wonder what concessions Apple had
to make, and if the initial exclusivity had anything to do with it.

~~~
addicted
People forget this but Apple didn't sign a contract with AT&T. They signed one
with Cingular, which happened to be bought by AT&T right then.

They got extremely lucky negotiating a contract with a smaller carrier, which
then transformed into one with a bigger one.

~~~
djsumdog
Was it Cingular that got that very first Edge iPhone? Man that was so long
ago, but that does sound right. IIRC Cingular was part of AT&T originally,
then split off, and then was re-absorbed. Eventually SBS bought AT&T, a couple
of Bells and other carriers and renamed itself to AT&T.

------
justboxing
> I approached him with my biggest concern: “Please tell me we won’t have to
> put the Intel Inside logo on our Macs.”

> With a big grin, Steve looked me in the eye and said, “Trust me, I made sure
> that’s in the contract.”

Isn't that all there is to it? If you don't want an "Intel Inside" sticker
slapped on your computer, you negotiate it in the Contract.

Was Intel that aggressive that they wouldn't sell the chip unless you slapped
their sticker on your computers?? What am I missing?

~~~
wmf
Of course, the contract says you pay a higher price if you don't have the
sticker.

~~~
monocasa
Or some other consideration; it doesn't have to be monetary.

For instance, maybe the fact that they heavily refer to the architecture
switch as "Intel" vs. "PowerPC" instead of "x86" vs. "PowerPC" was enough to
assuage Intel from a marketing standpoint.

------
remir
Apple switching to x86 was great publicity for Intel. It was a big deal.
People, blogs, mass media talked about it a lot.

Because of this, I'm sure Steve negotiated a good price on those chips without
Apple needing to be part of the "Intel Inside" program to get cheaper CPUs.

------
robin_reala
Dell tried this with their Adamo line but couldn’t go as far as removing it
entirely; they ended up laser engraving it onto the bottom so it wouldn’t be
as gaudy: [https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/First-Look/Dell-
Adamo/719/1#s38...](https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/First-Look/Dell-
Adamo/719/1#s3824)

------
empressplay
This article is not quite correct about why Apple switched to Intel. IBM was
unable to provide a G5 chip suitable for laptop use. That's the whole reason
in a nutshell.

~~~
my123
Apple knew about the P.A. Semi PWRficient, which was a beast beyond Intel
chips by a large margin.

~~~
wtallis
The PWRficient processors started shipping a year after Intel's 64-bit mobile
processor (Core 2). If PA Semi had delivered those chips two years earlier,
Apple would probably have used them and put off the Intel switch.

------
ginger123
Did Ken Segall work in Apple during the time of iMac ? According to his
linkedin Profile he was a consultant for Apple between 2005 - 2008. iMac was
introduced in 1998.

~~~
drawkbox
Probably during the Intel iMacs which came out in 2006ish, thus the reason he
discusses the switchover from PowerPC to Intel.

The move to Intel in 2006ish really was a genius move and game-changer just
before iPhone launched. At agencies and game studios suddenly Apple was it for
both designers and developers wanting a pretty *nix. Just in time for the new
gaming/app platform 1-2 years later once the SDK launched.

------
phmagic
Apple has similar strict guidelines for Made for iPod devices.

------
ridiculous_fish
Google cache link:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nsLB1cG...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nsLB1cGJhukJ:kensegall.com/2017/06/steve-
jobs-and-the-missing-intel-inside-sticker/)

------
quicklime
Am I the only one who thinks that the three ads mentioned in the article
(Snail, Burning Bunny, Steamroller) are incredibly tacky?

The Apple ad from that era that people love and remember is Richard Dreyfus'
Crazy Ones, and the author even thinks that they "upgraded to Jeff Goldblum".

~~~
__david__
I like them as ads. I still have the pentium snail somewhere in my desktop
pictures folders. I don't mind negative ads at all when they're clever (and
come from the underdog).

------
khazhou
Just to save folks some time, this doesn't give any details of how Steve got
away with not putting on the sticker. Just says he said "trust me I'll make
sure that won't happen " and then he negotiated it.

------
vacri
This is a very long-winded way to say "We tried one tactic, they didn't take
the bait, so we suckered them by buying their product". It's painted as an
Apple victory because there's no sticker on the laptop, but not as an Intel
victory, despite Apple switching to their chips. Weird.

~~~
mcphage
> It's painted as an Apple victory

It's painted as "Apple and Intel both won, without Apple having to give up
something they cared about"

------
hungerstrike
PCs were faster than Macs in 1997 and they still are.

------
olivermarks
Jobs was a genius at finding and employing the best ad agencies/talent and
letting them work their magic. It is a large part of his mystique

