4 ms·

> 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

> 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?

djsumdog 9y ago
Yea I was disappointed in this reveal as well. I mean the title isn't "Why Apple's don't have an Intel Inside Sticker" so I guess it's not a click-bait-n-switch. The author seems knowledgeable, having worked in marketing for both companies, and it was an interesting read. But we still don't have any details of what kind of deal was made? Did Apple chose to pay a higher price or did they get a similar discount with only have Intel on the box?
wmf 9y ago
Of course, the contract says you pay a higher price if you don't have the sticker.
- monocasa 9y ago
  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.
ghaff 9y ago
No. You just gave up a bunch of co-marketing dollars. (Probably a bit more complicated than that but basically you left the money associated with the stickers on the table.)
elihu 9y ago
Probably having Apple as a customer mattered a lot to Intel, so they were willing to be flexible. The HPs and Dells of the world are important too, but they can't afford to offend Intel, since they're all in a fierce low-margin competition with a bunch of other vendors that sell basically the same product. If they're at even a slight cost disadvantage, their profits evaporate. Apple had more leverage because they sell a product that's unique that their customers are willing to pay more for, and because they had a plan B if Intel refused to accommodate them.

djsumdog 9y ago

Yea I was disappointed in this reveal as well. I mean the title isn't "Why Apple's don't have an Intel Inside Sticker" so I guess it's not a click-bait-n-switch. The author seems knowledgeable, having worked in marketing for both companies, and it was an interesting read. But we still don't have any details of what kind of deal was made? Did Apple chose to pay a higher price or did they get a similar discount with only have Intel on the box?

wmf 9y ago

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

monocasa 9y ago
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.

ghaff 9y ago

No. You just gave up a bunch of co-marketing dollars. (Probably a bit more complicated than that but basically you left the money associated with the stickers on the table.)

elihu 9y ago

Probably having Apple as a customer mattered a lot to Intel, so they were willing to be flexible. The HPs and Dells of the world are important too, but they can't afford to offend Intel, since they're all in a fierce low-margin competition with a bunch of other vendors that sell basically the same product. If they're at even a slight cost disadvantage, their profits evaporate. Apple had more leverage because they sell a product that's unique that their customers are willing to pay more for, and because they had a plan B if Intel refused to accommodate them.