Justin Long is No Longer a Mac in New Intel Ads
- Paul Thurrott
- Mar 17, 2021
-
173
Intel is finally stepping up its campaign against Apple Silicon with a new series of ads promoting PCs that star Justin Long of “I’m a Mac” fame.
“Hello, I’m a M…” Mr. Long says at the beginning of each of the ads. “… Justin. Just a real person doing a real comparison between Mac and PC.”
Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
Each of the ads focuses on a key aspect of Intel’s new PR blitz.
In the first video, Long compares the diverse PC ecosystem of choice with what you get on the Mac: “Gray … and grayer.” The second video examines multitouch displays, in which the Mac has “a little baby bar” and Siri misunderstands something Long says and delivers a ridiculous search result. The third video again focuses on the versatility of the PC market, this time with regards to 2-in-1s that can switch between laptop and tablet modes, as compared to the Apple ecosystem where you need multiple devices, peripherals, and dongles to achieve the same.
In the fourth video, Long uncovers another soft underbelly of the Mac, its inability to play modern and popular games; “No one really games on a Mac,” a PC gamer intones. And then the Mac embarrassment wraps up in the fifth video with a look at multiple monitor support, which the Mac lacks.
They’re funny because they’re true.
Conversation 173 comments
-
prebengh
Log in to Reply<p>How is your Macbook Pro M1 vs Razerbook 13 review going?</p>
-
jimchamplin
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Used to be, the Powerbook line led the way in design and utility. By design I mean industrial design, not product appearance. Somewhere along the way, Apple forgot how to design a good product, as thinness, aesthetics, and “less ports” became obsessions.</p><p><br></p><p>Because when you spend $4000 on a computer to get things done, what you want is to spend more on dongles as well as worry about how long it will be before something on the board goes out because it wasn’t engineered to say… isolate high voltage from delicate data lines.</p>
-
jdawgnoonan
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618568">In reply to jimchamplin:</a></em></blockquote><p>Thanks Jony Ive. </p>
-
ianbetteridge
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618568">In reply to jimchamplin:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>So in the past 24 hours I’ve used four different computers: A MacBook Pro 16; a Razer Blade 15; a Surface Pro X; and the iPad Pro I’m typing this on. What can I say? I like having lots of computers. </p><p><br></p><p>The Razer has lots of ports. How many do I use? One: the USB port my mouse plugs into. Two if you count the power port, which I have to use because Razer in its wisdom decided that it couldn’t let anyone paying a large amount of money charge via USB C unless they opened to pay an even larger amount of money for the “Advanced” model, because charging via USB C is a technically complicated thing apparently. And no, Razer isn’t alone in this kind of shenanigans: Somewhere around the house there’s a very nice, thin and light HP laptop which features USB-C only, but will only charge from the “official” HP charger. oh, and it won’t charge via all the USB-C ports, only some of them.</p><p><br></p><p>But I digress. Really, my point is this: I’ve been using Mac laptops for years, and PCs too, and the number of times I’ve actually *used* any of the plethora of ports I have available on the Windows devices is tiny. Apple knows this, as do PC makers, because they survey the heck out of customers all the time. For the kind of people who come to sites like Paul’s, of course by and large lots of ports matter: but we’re the edge cases. For most people it’s much less of an issue. </p>
-
jgraebner
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618761">In reply to ianbetteridge:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think this is kind of missing the point of these ads. Yes, most people probably don't need every single port to be on a portable computer. For a lot of people, though, there are one or two specific ports that they do need. For someone that does a lot of on-site presentations, a full-sized HDMI port would likely be a requirement. For a photographer, an SD card slot would likely be important.</p><p><br></p><p>Even your own examples are your specific needs. You apparently use a wired mouse, so you need the USB port for that. Also, by your needs, it appears that charging via USB-C is important to you.</p><p><br></p><p>The point of the ad is that with Intel-based PCs, you have choices from a lot of different manufacturers and can find a device that has the set of ports that meet your needs. With a Mac, your only choice of manufacturer is Apple and you are limited to the feature sets of the models that they choose to offer. </p><p><br></p><p>The ads are about choice. They aren't saying that everyone needs the specific features being described, but instead that you can find Intel (really Windows) machines that meet whatever your specific needs happen to be while Macs are limited to what Apple chooses to offer. </p>
-
darkgrayknight
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Yep, these are funny because they are true.</p>
-
crunchyfrog
Log in to Reply<p>These ads are pointless as neither Mac nor PC users will change what they use and Justin Long should be ashamed for besmirching the memory of one of the best ad campaigns in the computer industry. Yes, Apple made fun of PC's in those ads but at least they were creative and fun to watch. These ads are neither.</p>
-
Keith Howe
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618578">In reply to crunchyfrog:</a></em></blockquote><p>Might have been a counter attack to John Hodgman reprising his PC role when Apple announced the M1.</p><p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/10/21558977/apple-pc-guy-classic-m1-performance-john-hodgman" target="_blank">Apple brings back the PC guy to boast about M1 performance – The Verge</a></p>
-
crunchyfrog
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#618582"><em>In reply to KHowe:</em></a><em> That's a good point, I had totally forgotten about that one. It was weak as well though but at least Hodgman was still a PC.</em></blockquote><p><br></p>
-
scovious
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618578">In reply to crunchyfrog:</a></em></blockquote><p>I disagree, they are fun to watch. It's good to see some informed advertising for PCs since Microsoft won't bother. </p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618591">In reply to scovious:</a></em></blockquote><p>The thing is, it would make a lot more sense for this type of ad if it <em>was </em>Microsoft who did them, as each advert is essentially "look how much more variety of devices you can get running Windows". Or again maybe if one of the vendors of such devices, like Acer, Dell or HP, did them.</p><p><br></p><p>But for Intel it's an odd choice, as none of the things they highlight require an Intel CPU. I could go-out tomorrow and get say a green-coloured, 2-in-1 device, but with an AMD CPU.</p><p><br></p><p>But not one of the things their four adverts raised specifically requires an Intel CPU.</p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618578">In reply to crunchyfrog:</a></em></blockquote><p>The opposite of pointless – the campaign clearly points out the benefits of Windows PCs versus Apple PCs. Consumers need to know.</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618595">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"[…] the campaign clearly points out the benefits of Windows PCs versus Apple PCs. Consumers need to know."</em></p><p><br></p><p>It certainly does show differences between "Windows devices" and "Apple devices", yes.</p><p><br></p><p>Sadly what none of them do is explain why any of those "Windows devices" must specifically have an Intel CPU inside, rather-than an AMD CPU.</p><p><br></p><p>So… they still feel pointless as <em>Intel </em>ads. Had Microsoft made them, fair-enough.</p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618627">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>Well it is Intel highlighting the benefits of their platform. If AMD would like to do it then that is up to them ;-)</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618636">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>I can't tell if you're seriously just trolling here or just can't understand.</p><p><br></p><p>An example of Intel accurately giving a benefit of their CPU, at present, might be "if you buy an M1 device, you're limited to 16GB of RAM. Need more? Choose a Mac powered by Intel".</p><p><br></p><p>However I still fail to see how "Hey look, you can't get a Mac 2-in-1 device, 'cause Apple don't want to make one as then you won't need to buy an iPad too. So you'll have to get one of these devices instead — oh, but don't go for one with an AMD CPU. Sure, it'll do all the same stuff, and it runs the same Windows 10, but just don't, okay, 'cause… well, y'know, reasons" is a great pitch?</p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618595">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>Supposedly laptops are 80% of the pc market. Intel used to own the market, now they have to compete with apple and a resurgent AMD. Risc on one side, cisc on the other.</p><p><br></p><p>the M1 chip is now the superior chip for laptops. Intel is trying to hide this with this ad. It’s a desperate You neeeed me!! ploy.</p><p><br></p><p>when general users discover a $1000 apple laptop will be cooler, quieter, more powerful and run longer on a battery the disruption will begin.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyStop repeating the same misinformation. Please.
M1 laptops offer advantages over older Macs, for sure. But M1 laptops do not get better battery life than Intel-based premium PCs, nor are they “more powerful.” Maybe the issue was Apple, not the chipsets.
Regardless, Intel still owns over 80 percent of the market. Laptop or otherwise. We’ll check back in a year and see what happened.
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#619653"><em>In reply to paul-thurrott:</em></a></blockquote><p>I guess before we argue the vague PC vs Mac… maybe you would recommend the best all around Windows laptop that can serve as the PC standard bearer against the Macbook Air M1? i.e. price point (entry-level so I would say maybe $1,300 or below, long battery life @ 300 nits on a good resolution screen doing, reasonably fast SSD, and a competitive performance). </p><p><br></p><p>Comparing the Macbook Air, which is the entry level machine, against one chip for battery, then another for performance – is not a real situation (you are not going to have replaceable CPUs). The Macbook Air after all only slots in as the entry-level model – and all other slots are really in the eye of the beholder since it is still vapourware. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyYou’re missing the point. There’s no one laptop/ultrabook/2-in-1 that meets that goal. There are many choices.
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#620076">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>OK, I am getting a feeling that you are just being defensive to 'Greg Green' at this point with your reaction, yet inability to identify what you would have him compare the M1 (and the class of machines it is meant for) chip. I was truly thinking you might have a machine in mind when you basically said his comments about the M1 <strong>chip</strong> (i.e. not machine) being misleading. He was not talking about the machines that use the chip, he was talking about the M1 CHIP being superior for <strong>laptops…</strong></p><p><br></p><p>So he was not talking about 2-in-1 computers since if you have bought into that configuration and that configuration only – you are already by default going to only buy that configuration – no matter how crappy the <strong>chip </strong>is inside. </p><p><br></p><p>The choice of machine was to highlight the comparison between chips by choosing the best standard bearer to judge it against. Sorry, but I found this response to be… disappointing… I was expecting to have something to back up the comments that you made in response – something that those that favour Macs over PCs (I sort of hate that since Macs are PCs as well — just not Windows), but you provided no foundation for your response that I may have overlooked. </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberWhat I am is tired of people highjacking articles by posting multiple comments that just amount to the same nonsense over and over again.
-
simont
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Those ads were entertaining. Now they just need the PC guy in one of them to say something about I win :)</p>
-
rmlounsbury
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618579">In reply to simont:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>It would be exceedingly awesome if they brought in John Hodgman having him just stand there with a smug smile after the Intel logo drop. </p>
-
jchampeau
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618597">In reply to rmlounsbury:</a></em></blockquote><p>100%!</p>
-
jdawgnoonan
Log in to Reply<p>Man, finally some great ads for PCs. These are great. </p>
-
cavalier_eternal
Log in to Reply<p><br></p><p><br></p><p>The only messaging I’m getting from this is Intel is truly rattled by Apple Silicon but for the life of me, I can’t figure out why. It is truly baffling, in a good quarter Apple doesn’t get 10% of PC market share and does anybody really think that Apple Silicon is going to change that? There is literally no threat to Intel other than Apple transitioning away is mildly embarrassing from a PR standpoint but that is going to be short lived at best.</p><p><br></p><p> It’s even stranger given that the iMac, MacBook Pro, Mac mini, Mac Pro all have Intel options. There you go PC makers, it doesn’t matter if you are an Intel customer and use their chips, they will try to do damage to you if you do something they don’t like. Heck of a partner. </p><p><br></p><p>And, why did they got the less likable of the two characters from the I’m a Mac commercials. Everybody liked John Hodgman more, even Mac users. There is a reason Apple brought him back for the M1 release and didn’t bother with Justin Long. </p><p><br></p><p>All in all, I’m perplexed. </p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618586">In reply to cavalier_eternal:</a></em></blockquote><p>Intel does not have competitive chips at this point…. they have had to play games by doing different comparisons using different chips for different benchmarks – because they are losing…. </p>
-
cavalier_eternal
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618605">In reply to bkkcanuck:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>I’m not sure if you are including AMD in the not having competitive chips or simply mean Apple Silicon. I’ll assume the latter since that is what the topic of the article is. </p><p><br></p><p>Let’s put aside any debate about what the real world performance difference is and assume Apple Silicon is just better. So what? How is that competition for Intel? Apple doesn’t sell them to other PC makers. The only place they would lose out to Apple Silicon is in Macs. And Apple doesn’t compete for volume in the PC space and there is no reason to think they have any intention on doing so. While the move will likely keep Mac users happy with the platform there is little indication that people are going to flock to Macs. I’d wager the average selling price for a PC is lower than the starting price for a Mac. Most consumers buy on price and Apple just doesn’t have interest in playing there. </p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618640">In reply to cavalier_eternal:</a></em></blockquote><p>Most consumers also don't understand CPUs and that alone won't drive anyone to suddenly get a Mac device, no. I expect to see a boom in sales of the M1 devices, as current Apple users finally decide to replace their existing, aging Mac devices, but anyone who thinks this will suddenly create a mass of converts is deluded.</p><p><br></p><p>And as I've posted above, no games-console since the original Xbox has used an Intel CPU. Surely more games-consoles are sold every-year than devices running macOS, so maybe Intel should try and conqueror that and not leave it to (thesedays) ARM and AMD?</p>
-
cavalier_eternal
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618642">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>I agree that there will likely be an uptick in upgrades but given how Apple is spreading out the rolling of out Apple Silicon I don’t know that it will show up as a larger boom but I could totally be wrong on that. </p><p><br></p><p>I think your point about most consumers not knowing much about CPUs is accurate and in fact Intel is kind of counting on it. With the exception of dual monitor support, literally all of their points about why Macs are not as good as PC apply to Intel powered Macs. So it’s a tacit admission that none of PC benefits are due to to Intel. Which just makes the whole thing even stranger. </p><p><br></p><p>I honestly who these ads are geared to, the audience isn’t Mac users so who is it? The only people I have seen get really excited about these are people that have a strong preference for PCs. So are they the audience and why are they trying to convince them to stay when they weren’t going anywhere in the first place? This ad campaign just doesn’t make a whole lot to sense. </p><p><br></p><p>A final unrelated thought, at the rollout of the M1 processors Cook said Apple still had Intel machines that Apple was going to release. I’m curious is this changes Apple’s plans? Also, there have been those that have speculated that this whole Apple Silicon thing may not pan out and Apple will have to return to Intel. While I think that was unlikely I’m pretty sure that if Apple has to move back it will be to AMD. Intel has burned the bridge. </p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618640">In reply to cavalier_eternal:</a></em></blockquote><p>It was Intel advertising in comparison to Apple (M1). The Ryzen question is still in play, Intel however is not in the race at this point. When it comes down to it the laptop market makes 67% of the market, the desktop market is less than a third of the market. If you include Tablets, the desktop market is an even smaller slice. If Apple were to dethrone the PC market when it comes to laptops, the desktop market would follow (not including the server market in the equation as it is a different beast). If the M1x or M2x significantly outperforms in user experience in laptops, then it could lead to a shift in the overall market. Two companies I worked for – did not have Macs as an option when I worked there… but now allow users to chose which platform to use… on average those companies are 80% Mac based last time I asked…. (they are not small companies) [The current company I contract unfortunately does not have the same options]. At this point the Ryzen chips though more powerful than Intel are not competitive when it comes to TDP…. if they cannot solve that – Apple silicon will take market share in the laptop space over the next few years – and that is something Microsoft cannot afford to happen. (IMHO)</p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618640">In reply to cavalier_eternal:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think it’ll all be about battery life. Some professions are tied to os specific software, but general users can use anything, they just usually choose windows when they have to.</p><p><br></p><p>but the M1 series of chips will run faster, quieter, cooler, and longer than intel chips. At some point if apple laptop users are getting twice the battery life as intel laptop users, it may change some minds.</p><p><br></p><p>and if they’ve already got an iPhone it may cause them to make the jump sooner rather than later. The base apple laptops start at $1000, which isn’t that much compared to what people spend on their iPhones.</p><p><br></p><p>Intel may be thinking this M1 chip could be a market disrupting device. Intel used to be the unquestioned king of the laptops as AMD struggled with heat and power. Now the M1 chips have the technological crown while intel is left just with market share. They now have a two front battle as AMD threatens them with equal x86 chips and apple threatens them with superior risc chips. </p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618586">In reply to cavalier_eternal:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"The only messaging I’m getting from this is Intel is truly rattled by Apple Silicon but for the life of me, I can’t figure out why"</em></p><p><br></p><p>This is exactly where I'm at. The M1 won't be available in any non-Apple device, so it's largely an irrelevance in the Windows world, which is Intel's main market. Their main competitor, for now, remains AMD.</p><p><br></p><p>If it's because they think "ARM is the future", then just start making some ARM chips then… it's been reported AMD is looking into doing that.</p><p><br></p><p>But this just comes-over as "we're feeling hurt Apple ditched us". I bet they didn't shed much of a tear for IBM and Motorola when Apple ditched PowerPC for them!</p>
-
jm2016
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>I think it's brilliant! I hope intel backed a truck of money up to Justin's house – well worth it. I still wish Intel could get their act together and really advance their processors, but it's fun to see the old sparring match advertising again.</p><p><br></p><p>Now if they just take Brad's idea and call out the dongles…</p><p><br></p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyThey do call out dongles in one of the ads 🙂
-
jaredthegeek
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618631">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>The problem is that a lot of Windows laptops live that dongle life now.</p>
-
jdawgnoonan
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618641">In reply to jaredthegeek:</a></em></blockquote><p>At least you get to choose whether you want a laptop that requires dongles or not. </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyAnd the solution that is every one of those PC makers offers you many choices, many of which have legacy ports too.
-
faustxd9
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>I think those were hilarious. Unfortunately, the outcry over these is both expected and sad. Makes you realize that while in a minority, the volume of dissenting opinions is disproportionate to usage. </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyYep. It’s sad, and was very much expected. These ads are fantastic.
-
winner
Log in to Reply<p>Intel is definitely running scared.</p><p>AMD eating their multi-core lunch, and Apple eating their power efficiency lunch.</p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618590">In reply to Winner:</a></em></blockquote><p>Don't think so. What they are doing is finally standing up for the platform properly. Too many people buy Apple PCs without a clue as to what they can and cannot do. These are done with humor and are accurate. It is the right way to do it.</p><p><br></p><p>I have thought that this whole move to "Apple Silicon" could backfire on Apple. Time will tell.</p><p><br></p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618594">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>No, the fact that they are spending good money on advertising against a 'lifestyle company' and directly referencing Apple – shows that they are scared. If Apple were not seen as a threat – they would not bother with them… A common rule of thumb is 'as the leader' you never acknowledge the competitors as doing so provides both free advertising and brings focus on them as someone they company is acknowledges is at least very competitive against it… </p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618604">In reply to bkkcanuck:</a></em></blockquote><p>It is marketing, marketing can be competitive, and Intel knows that they need to communicate the benefits of their platform. </p><p><br></p><p>I asked 3 Apple users in my office what Apple's PC market share was; the lowest answer I got was 60% and the other two were over 80%. It's really sad. </p><p><br></p><p>The average Mac user knows not what they are buying and I see nothing wrong with educating the consumer so they can at least be aware of what one platform does vs the other. </p><p><br></p><p>Never expect the competitive advertiser to highlight the benefits of their competitor(s) – it all about highlighting the manufactures features. Pretty basic marketing stuff. </p><p><br></p><p>I am finding the tech community way to sensitive – getting up in arms over a competitive ad campaign is weird in my world.</p>
-
pecosbob04
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#618637"><em>In reply to VancouverNinja:</em></a><em>"</em>I am finding the tech community way to sensitive – getting up in arms over a competitive ad campaign is weird in my world."</blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><blockquote>The features you highlight as making your point including cost, flexibility, and ecosystem are functions of an operating system not the chip it runs on. As many here have pointed out AMD competes in the chip world against INTEL. Apple doesn't. INTEL just seems butthurt that the current chips they produce are not perceived as especially compelling.</blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><blockquote>So if I may ask; "What color is the sun on your planet?"</blockquote><p><br></p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618673">In reply to pecosbob04:</a></em></blockquote><p>Well mine is yellow; guess yours is Rose colored?</p><p><br></p><p>It is an Intel ad for Intel. It's pretty simple – Intel is not responsible to promote AMD. This thread is odd.</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618691">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"It is an Intel ad for Intel. It's pretty simple – Intel is not responsible to promote AMD."</em></p><p><br></p><p>Of course not, just like no-one would expect a Coca-Cola ad to end "Pepsi is also available".</p><p><br></p><p>But I think the thing most people here are taking issue with is the fact that, in their four adverts, not a single thing they highlighted is something Intel made happen, but they seem to appear to be taking the credit for.</p><p><br></p><p>"Different colour choices on laptops" = credit goes to the manufacturer, such as Acer, Dell, HP or Lenovo, etc.</p><p><br></p><p>"2-in-1 convertibles" or "Laptop with touchscreen" = credit both to the various manufacturers, and also Microsoft for making Windows 10 adapt itself when in the different modes, and increasing on-screen element sizes (like buttons, scroll-bars, title-bars, etc.) to be more touch-friendly</p><p><br></p><p>"Better for gaming" = again, some of that will be down to Microsoft and their DirectX tech; a lot of it down to developments in GPUs (so credit mostly to AMD and NVIDIA); and to game-developers, who usually always target the Windows platform, but don't always offer a macOS port.</p><p><br></p><p>So literally which of the above can you credit Intel for? As in their ads, they seem to be suggesting "credit us for all of it" and I think this is what many here are taking issue with.</p>
-
pecosbob04
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#618691"><em>In reply to VancouverNinja:</em></a><em> "It's an Intel ad for Intel" That focuses for some inexplicable reason on the alleged shortcomings of a company that does not sell a competing product. Until such time as Apple decides to sell their chips to PC manufacturers (not happening in the foreseeable future) INTEL is foolishly wasting its advertising dollars because it got its feelings hurt when Apple told them that the chips they are selling to Apple aren't up tp snuff.</em></blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><p><br></p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618691">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>The thread isn’t odd to those without anti apple glasses. It’s the commercial that’s odd. </p><p><br></p><p>Why would intel run an ad against a ‘non competitor’? Maybe because they see risc desktop/mobile chips as being a market disruptor. And apple makes the best consumer risc chips now. And apple has been a disruptor before. Even before intel got stuck on 14nm.</p><p><br></p><p>these are not good years for intel. These are good years for apple.</p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618637">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>Intel is up in arms over the M1 chip, that’s why the ad exists. When was the last time intel ran an ad that mentioned apple?</p><p><br></p><p>right now intel is getting its but kicked by fab physics and AMD, and their response is to make an ad about apple. It’s ridiculous. Unless they see the M1 series chips eating into x86 market share.</p><p><br></p><p>which I think will happen. The tech world has their own specific software that keeps them tied to their oses, but the rest of the world is conducting general business and surfing the internet which can be done on anything. Even a very speedy quiet Mac.</p>
-
cavalier_eternal
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618604">In reply to bkkcanuck:</a></em></blockquote><p>Spot on. People really don’t get that one of the basic principals of advertising is you don’t mention your competitors unless public perception is your competitor is standard to beat. This is a tacit admission that public perception is not on Intel’s side at the moment. The same applies to the Mac vs. PC ads. Apple wasn’t in the best position from a public perception stand point. Once public sentiment about the company changed they stopped mentioning competitors in their advertising. </p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618594">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"What they are doing is finally standing up for the platform properly"</em></p><p><br></p><p>Can you name one thing they gave an example of that would specifically need an Intel CPU to achieve that difference and where the device could not be powered by an AMD CPU instead?</p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618624">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>Cost, now flexibility, open ecosystem. Did you really need it spelled out?</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618633">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think you're missing the point though — if I walked into a shop tomorrow and it had Mac devices on one display-table, then a series of Windows devices on the other, a mix of which had Intel CPUs, and the rest with an AMD CPU then clearly there would be more variety of devices, and usually cheaper, on the "Windows table" than on the "Apple table". Intel are correct.</p><p><br></p><p>BUT out of the devices on the "Windows table", why should I pick one with an Intel CPU compared to one with an AMD CPU? So say I fancied a 2-in-1 device where the screen can become a tablet. I can't do that with Apple, as they want to flog me both a MacBook and an iPad. But on the "Windows table" I find a nice 2-in-1 device, which has an AMD CPU. The Intel sales rep says, "Wait, don't buy that one, it has an AMD CPU. Buy our one instead because…"</p><p><br></p><p>Can you complete the end of that sales-pitch?</p>
-
VancouverNinja
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618638">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>The ending of the reps recommendation could go so many ways. AMD should be bucking up its marketing too – Intel is not responsible for helping promote AMD. </p><p><br></p><p>Do you know how many people think Bacardi or Smirnoff are awesome? They are not. There are so many better options than either at the same price point or less but only the ones that can compete and get their message out stand a chance of drawing the consumer to try their product out; many will be as good as the higher quality competitor to the major brands but they get passed over every minute of everyday. It is the challenge of going up against the big guys. AMD should go up against Intel, Apple, or both. If they did that we would see some serious progress in the years to come from all involved. Competition like this is healthy.</p><p><br></p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618633">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><blockquote><em>"</em>Cost, now flexibility, open ecosystem. Did you really need it spelled out?"</blockquote><p>The tray cost of a CPU from Intel in a laptop from Intel for Apple is probably at least $250 per CPU, then you have options to upgrade to 'more powerful CPUs' this can add hundreds onto the tray price for Apple for the CPU (some are around $400 – $500 for a laptop CPU). It costs Apple probably around $40 / CPU for the M1. An M1 Mac Laptop now outclasses most Intel CPU based laptop in performance now — for less (base price). This will only get worse. So even if Apple has a markup of an average of 35% on top of cost, the cost goes down — Apple can add more into the same entry level laptop for a lower price. This will only get worse, as the M2 comes online and like the iPhone each generation pushes down more improvements to entry level devices. For quality hardware, Apple will be more competitive now that they dropped the Intel CPUs. </p><p><br></p><p>Open ecosystem, what does that give the user… the Mac has an open ecosystem. I have a good 35 apps ranging from professional to utilities – the quality of apps I get for macOS is better than the ones I install on Windows (I have both OSs). Of course some niche markets and gaming that may not be the case, but gaming is still a niche area… and for laptops I expect the future chips to have very good graphics performance (the M1 is pretty good for a start – I figure if they double it and a bit — which is the rumour for the M1X it will be as good as my Vega 64 eGPU for the Mac. (I have that for my 2018 Mac Mini). </p><p><br></p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618633">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>He said AMD. And now a low end Mac for $700 to $1000 will perform as well as an intel Mac that costs $2500.</p><p><br></p><p>for those with iPhones this may be an attractive move.</p>
-
ivarh
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618594">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>Having run my corporate windows install in a VM on a mac since they swapped to intel and parallels came out. When Apple moved to M1 I did not think I would move with them since I was to dependent on running windows in a VM. But 3 weeks ago I discovered that I could RDP into my work-provided laptop and run windows on it. For the last 2 weeks, I have used an M1 MBP and I am amazed at how well this has worked running Teams and Zoom directly on macos and Microsofts remote desktop for the rest. I now have a solution where I can work for 8 hours with the screen on 100% of that time staying on Zoom for more than half that and have a laptop that has 60-70% battery left at the end of the day. As an extra bonus, the laptop is lappable in that it never heats up. My old Intel-based MacBook pro was just too hot to keep in the lap. the same with the Dell laptop work has provided me with. And neither of them would last through the day using batteries only. </p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618777">In reply to ivarh:</a></em></blockquote><p>This is what I think the rest of the regular desktop/laptop world will discover. It’ll take sometime but the performance gap between M1 and intel will only increase over the next few years.</p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618594">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>Apple silicon has been improving on iPhones much faster than intel has been improving on their chips. This huge gap in rate of improvement won’t disappear for quite a few years, even if intel can break their 14nm barrier. Three years ago a very small few were predicting apple would be able to achieve desktop performance with their chips in a few years, and here we are.</p><p><br></p><p>on apple’s first try they’re competing with mid level and high level intel mobile chips. More performance, less fan noise, less heat, more battery life. There’s currently no reason to buy an i3 apple device, the chip is so far behind the M1. With the next two iterations there’ll be no reason to buy any intel chip for mobile or pro desktop apple devices.</p><p><br></p><p>right now macworld recommends the M1 mini Mac as the best bang for the buck apple device. It’ll perform as well intel iMacs costing 3 times as much.</p><p><br></p><p>this has been a stunning blow to intel and a new world in computing. That’s why intel had to make this ad. The intel board is probably getting antsy and need comforting, even if it is from an ad.</p>
-
supermarkert
Log in to Reply<p>Third one is the best.</p>
-
jchampeau
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618573">In reply to crunchyfrog:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm mostly glad the thurrott.com team did away with the downvote button. But at this moment I wish it were still here.</p>
-
digiguy
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Yes, there is a lot of hype about M1 macs but the truth is that PCs give you so much more. Mac users would dream of a Mac like the Surface Book 15in from which I am writing from… The main issues with PCs now is probably… Intel… But hopefully the competition from Apple, AMD and at some point from Qualcomm may pushed them to do better in terms of performance/watt</p>
-
Saarek
Log in to Reply<p>I don't think Intel is rattled because they expect the Mac Market share to suddenly grow to dominating proportions.</p><p><br></p><p>Intel has never faced a competitor like Apple in the chip business. AMD, Qualcomm, etc, all put their best designs and work into chips that will sell and make the best return. Apple has effectively an unlimited financial war chest mixed in with one of the best and most experienced chip teams the world has ever seen and is going full throttle to demonstrate that the Mac offers a superior performance to the Intel/AMD side of the fence.</p><p><br></p><p>I think their concern, and it is a valid concern, is that Apple will continue to humiliate them in terms of performance per watt (especially with the next release) and that that will cause demand from customers of Microsoft and companies like Qualcom to really step up to the plate with Windows on Arm.</p><p><br></p><p>Arm chips taking over both the server market and the traditional PC market is their fear. It won't happen this year, but it's amazing how quickly things can change, especially if customers can point to something demonstratably better and demand the same.</p>
-
djr1984
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618618">In reply to Saarek:</a></em></blockquote><p>My thoughts exactly. Intel has permitted themselves to fall woefully behind, AMD is handily beating them in the X86 market and Apple is like their worst nightmare as a competitor at this point.</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618619">In reply to djr1984:</a></em></blockquote><p>That's the odd thing though — <em>why </em>they consider Apple to be their nightmare competitor.</p><p><br></p><p>They make their CPUs only for their own devices, no-one else. Therefore they present no-threat in the "Windows world"; only AMD offer any real-challenge currently, as "Windows 10 on ARM" has no significant-traction yet.</p><p><br></p><p>AMD also dominates the video-game console market, as virtually all recent consoles from Sony and Microsoft use them, not Intel, but they seem happy to ignore this much-larger market and instead focus on being sad over losing macOS devices?</p>
-
F4IL
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618647">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>Unlike apple, intel make their money on cpu / chipset sales. If apple get to dominate the high margin premium workstation market of personal computers (production facilities, animators, developers, etc), this turns intel into a vendor of high volume low-margin scrap for mid-to-low end PCs.</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618692">In reply to F4IL:</a></em></blockquote><p>I guess that depends on how many such high-end / premium machines are current Apple devices… for animators, like for feature-films or TV shows, I guess many of those could be Mac devices, but for developers — would the vast-majority be using an Apple device, not a Windows or Linux one?</p><p><br></p><p>Without any stats on the size of this market it's hard to say</p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618647">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>If apple continues to improve the m line of chips they could become a threat. Intel’s biggest consumer nest egg is laptops. If people can get a $1000 apple laptop that outperforms intel on regular functions and can also run a variety of programs with Rosetta 2 or 3, people may start drifting towards apple’s PCs.</p>
-
jimchamplin
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618618">In reply to Saarek:</a></em></blockquote><p>It’s like oil companies whining about renewable energy.</p><p><br></p><p>Instead of throwing a tantrum, why don’t they… I don’t know…</p><p><br></p><p>DESIGN AND SELL A BETTER ARM CPU? An Intel ARM design? Not like they haven’t done it before, but they sold their StrongARM IP years ago for some reason. Bet they wish they’d kept it now!!! ?</p>
-
truerock2
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618652">In reply to jimchamplin:</a></em></blockquote><p>Intel makes RISC CPUs. It always has and it always will. The issue is how can Intel leverage their x86 CISC dominance into RISC architecture. I don't think ARM does anything that is particularly significant IMO – other than it provides a widely supported instruction set that is as widely supported as x86.</p><p>Intel will release a CPU this year that supports both CISC and RISC cores. I think most high end CPUs will do this in the future. I think 2021 is the year when Intel will start to recapture its relevance.</p><p>ARM is relevant because RISC is relevant. RISC is relevant because low-power is important because most people tend to run their CPUs from battery power.</p><p>Although, my family owns 6 notebook Windows PCs with Intel CPUs – none of us run them with the batteries so low power CPUs are not relevant to us. I'm thinking this is what most people do. But, smart phones and tablets are a completely different situation. My family owns 6 iPhones and 6 iPads and they all run exclusively on batteries – except when they are charging. This is Intel's biggest problem.</p><p>The main reason M1 CPUs are powerful is because they are less RISC and more CISC. ARM has nothing to do with that. Apple is not using M1 CPUs that are ARM RISC. Apple is using ARM CPUs that are partly RISC and partly CISC. All of that has nothing to do with why Apple M1 CPUs are so powerful. The reason Apple's M1 CPUs are powerful is because TSMC manufactures them. If a PC manufacturer wanted a powerful x86 CPU they would just have TSMC manufacturer the CPU rather than Intel.</p><p><br></p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618750">In reply to truerock2:</a></em></blockquote><p>The CPUs themselves right now ARE effectively using RISC cores. The original design using CISC cores is long gone (decades ago). i.e. an instruction is received, it is translated into 'micro ops' using a hardware decoder – these 'micro ops' are effectively RISC instructions. </p>
-
nbplopes
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618618">In reply to Saarek:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>“I think their concern, and it is a valid concern, is that Apple will continue to humiliate them in terms of performance per watt (especially with the next release).”</p><p><br></p><p>They will. And it will nor be only performance per watt. Good performance per watt does not just means better performance with lower energy expenditure. It also means less heat for more processing power. These two thinks combined it means that Apple can stack way more cores at a lowers cost. It will not surprise me that MacBook 16” starting at 8 cores up to 12 cores, iMacs starting with 12 up to 24 . While say the Mac Pro starting with 24 up to 64 cores in two years.</p><p><br></p><p>I’m sure Apple has all this already planned for the next 10 years or so. It will be a game between high performance cores and general purpose cores. This means more tasks in parallel, way more fluid multitasking.</p><p><br></p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<p>I'm not sure what point Intel is trying to make here.</p><p><br></p><p>It's clearly feeling hurt by the fact Apple have gone their-own-way with the M1, and so they've lost a certain amount of revenue from Mac devices, but devices running Windows is still where their vast, vast amount of revenue comes from, and nothing has changed there: AMD is still their main competitor (though they seem to act like the M1 is?) and Apple are not going to make their chip available to third-parties, so the M1 is irrelevant in the Windows world, really.</p><p><br></p><p>And their videos make no-sense at-all — not one of them actually gives a reason why an Intel chip should be your preferred option. So in the PC world they say "you have more colour options", "you can get laptops with a built-in touch-screen", "you can get 2-in-1 devices" and "no-one games on a Mac". Okay… but on the first three, why would you specifically need an Intel CPU for any of those differences? Can I not currently get a green-coloured laptop, or one with a fixed or detachable touchscreen that runs an AMD CPU? Oh wait, yes I can — so how are any of those Intel-specific?</p><p><br></p><p>And as for the last one: sure, Windows is still better for gaming on, but the gap is certainly way-less than it used to be on macOS (though Linux gaming still lags, mostly as big-companies don't trust the platform when it comes to anti-cheat measures being worked-around). And as time goes on, major games will become played by streaming, not locally, so then both macOS and Linux will likely get every new game, as there'd be no logical reason to block them. (Not to mention — hardcore gamers do not choose laptops generally, compared to more-upgradable desktop PCs!)</p><p><br></p><p>So, TL;DR — Intel seem to have forgotten AMD is their main competitor, not the M1, which is irrelevant really to the Windows world, given no non-Apple device will ever have one inside. And for some reason have produced a series of videos to highlight why you'd choose a device with an Intel CPU — none of which actually do require an Intel CPU, and all such devices could be fitted with an AMD CPU instead. Odd.</p>
-
lwetzel
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618622">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>Seems rather clear to me. Apple started and this is Intel's answer.</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618644">In reply to lwetzel:</a></em></blockquote><p>Okay, I might have to just ignore this article as the comments really are baffling me.</p><p><br></p><p>It's like everyone seems to have forgotten AMD exists, and all of the devices and benefits Intel were highlighting only apply to them in the "Windows world".</p>
-
nbplopes
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618644">In reply to lwetzel:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Its a bit weak to be honest. They should rather focus on convincing OEMs.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to Reply“I’m not sure what point Intel is trying to make here.”
🙂 Oh man. It’s pretty fricking obvious.
-
pecosbob04
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#618998"><em>In reply to paul-thurrott:</em></a><em> Well I guess what the "</em>Oh man. It's pretty fricking obvious." could be is "PC good, Apple bad!" but since INTEL makes chips wouldn't that argument be better made by Dell, HP, random PC manufacturer, or perhaps at a stretch Microsoft? The color of the box surrounding the chip, or the 'touchiness' of the screen, or the number of apps available for the operating system, or the number and types of ports available has little to say about the performance, battery life, heat profile or any other quality of the INTEL chip. A more cogent comparison might be one that compares INTELs chips to chips from other manufacturers that actually compete with them. So in a word how do these ads advance the INTEL brand? On a happier note glad to see that the Staff threading in the comment section issue is now resolv . . . uh . . oh . . . never mind. :)</blockquote>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyI feel like we’re completely missing the point of these ads. Completely.
They’re fun and funny. They’re accurate and true. They are a good reminder to normal people that the pro-Apple-ness that really is everywhere in media is only part of the story. Etc. It’s not about apps, ports, performance numbers, or whatever. It’s a higher-level discussion about what makes the PC both special and preferred.
And since Intel is speaking to non-technical people here—i.e most people—we can simply acknowledge that they’re a) not aimed at us and b) thank Intel for sticking up for that platform that we all really do care about. It’s nice to see a high-profile company go to the time, expense, and effort.
The bitterness about isn’t just weird, it’s wrong. Not you or this comment specifically, just in general. Now we’re not just tech experts, we’re experts in what makes a good commercial, and in how a company like Intel should reverse incorrect perceptions.
-
pecosbob04
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#619111">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><blockquote><em>Paul, I've always found you to be a proponent of not anthropomorphizing devices or companies and rightfully so as they hate it when you do that. And yet you seem to see some altruistic purpose in INTELs ads such as sticking up for the poor downtrodden masses befuddled by Apples marketing, or perhaps giving work to a needy actor, or maybe bringing a nostalgic smile to people of a certain age during these trying times.</em></blockquote><blockquote><em>Why did INTEL make these ads focusing on Apple who they don't directly compete against? Simple; if the M1 chip would cause a minor increase in Apple computer sales say ~2-5% that is a very small number of sales lost to a beefed up mobile phone chip. A mere blip on INTELs radar. But the M1 is soon to be replaced by M1x, M2 . . . so IFF Apple can maintain the improvement cycle that small percent of PC sales being switched to Mac sales will grow and the publics confidence in INTELs superiority already shaky may falter and even sales not lost to Mac's will begin to fall to AMD and if Microsoft sees which way the tides are shifting perhaps Windows On Arm gains momentum and Qualcom joins the feeding frenzy. Not that any of the above are foregone conclusions but INTEL wants to be sure that never happens. Hence the "Funny" yet irrelevant ads.</em></blockquote><blockquote><em>Off Topic: when auto-completing words in a comment via Safari a space is added to the beginning of the word and the cursor is placed before the first character of the word. Is this just me, of a Safari / Mac thing. Or is it happening to others? Curious minds want to know.</em></blockquote><p><br></p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#619138">In reply to pecosbob04:</a></em></blockquote><p>On the other hand if intel is losing a few percent here and there to AMD on desktop, then on laptop, and now are losing a few percent to apple’s new path, it starts to add up.</p><p><br></p><p>maybe this is more for the board members, trying to demonstrate to them that intel is doing something. Not much, but something.</p>
-
pecosbob04
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#619160"><em>In reply to cavalier_eternal:</em></a><em> The structure of the ads is interesting. First they are very short 38 seconds though of course they may be edited for time versions of a longer form ad that will be released after INTEL wins an Addie or two for them. Second without going back to rewatch and time it the lead in is one shot of between 7 and 15 seconds and is used for all of them. Third minimal (or no) special effects and one set slightly redressed for each shot probably a half day shoot. The budget must have gotten blown out by Long's notoriously exorbitant contract demands (sarcasm). Also I didn't find them funny or otherwise effective. YMMV obviously.</em></blockquote><p><br></p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyYou are so tiring. There is nothing here worth responding to. It’s like arguing with someone about the color of a blue sky and you’re insisting it’s red.
-
Jeffsters
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#619240">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>So let’s call truce and then will you stop trying to convince us that the sky is red?</p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#619596">In reply to Jeffsters:</a></em></blockquote><p>That is a silly comment — the real colour of the sky is bluish violet… not red or blue. It is our perception it is a light blue but then our eyes are not of the best design (god could have done a better job) and it impacts our perception.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyYou know what’s helpful when I have to deal with trolls in the comments? Not this.
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<p>Also, one other observation — if you consider how many macOS devices are sold each-year, I would think the number is vastly-outweighed by the number of video-game consoles sold each-year. And despite how Intel claimed in their fourth video that Intel is better for gaming, see if you can spot the lone 3D console of the last three-decades to use an Intel CPU:</p><p><br></p><p>Xbox Series S|X (2020): AMD • Xbox One (2013): AMD • Xbox 360 (2005): PowerPC • Xbox (2001): Intel Pentium III</p><p><br></p><p>Sony PS5 (2020): AMD • Sony PS4 (2013): AMD • Sony PS3 (2006): PowerPC • Sony PS2 (2000): MIPS RISC • Sony PSX (1994): MIPS RISC</p><p><br></p><p>Nintendo Switch (2017): ARM • Nintendo Wii U (2012): PowerPC • Nintendo Wii (2006): PowerPC • Nintendo GameCube (2001): PowerPC • Nintendo 64 (1996): NEC MIPS</p><p><br></p><p>So instead of crying-over their lost revenue with Apple, how-about asking "if our CPUs are so-great for gaming… why do none of the major consoles choose us?" Taking-over that market would easily plug any gap lost from Apple surely?</p>
-
ebraiter
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618635">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>They maybe comparing PC gaming. Xbox, PS5 and others aren't PCs.</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618649">In reply to ebraiter:</a></em></blockquote><p>Missed my point: the games-console market is bigger than devices that run macOS. More game-console units sell each-year. Intel seems to have been happy to have conceded it a long-time ago to AMD, yet seem clearly very-hurt and on-the-defence over losing some sales with Apple.</p><p><br></p><p>Just strikes me as odd they've never seem bothered by not succeeding a bigger market, but are clearly distraught at losing a smaller one…</p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618654">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>I would not consider Switch a game console as like the Xbox or Playstation, the Xbox sells maybe at most 5 million units a year on average… Playstation a bit more. Macs sell probably around 22 million a year. I think the lowest tray price for a processor that Apple uses is around $250USD per CPU … with the highest being $1,000+.</p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618654">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>The gaming console market is bigger than the pc gaming market, $45b vs $34b. Smartphone gaming market beats them both at $63b, according to NewZoo.</p>
-
jgraebner
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618635">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>The big difference is that the game console manufacturers aren't advertising the superiority of their processors over Intel. In fact, most people have no idea what processors are in their game consoles.</p><p><br></p><p>Apple has specifically been targeting Intel in their advertising of the new M1 based Macs. That's why Intel felt the need to respond to them.</p>
-
reason42
Log in to Reply<p>pure cringe</p>
-
ebraiter
Log in to Reply<p>I think Intel is doing this because apple switched from Intel CPUs to their own M1 CPU.</p>
-
ebraiter
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618630">In reply to RM:</a></em></blockquote><p>Not surprising with apple's M1 CPU.</p>
-
anoldamigauser
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618573">In reply to crunchyfrog:</a></em></blockquote><p>These ads are fun, and they are sort of deserved payback for the old "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" ads. They are also true. It is about time someone poked Apple for their marketing. Courageous to remove the headphone jack? What's a computer? Apple makes fine devices, but their marketing is sheer hubris.</p><p>I am pretty sure that Intel is worried about both AMD and Apple, and possibly Qualcomm. The first step when you have been knocked down is to get back up, and perhaps remind yourself that you once had some swagger.</p>
-
whiplash55
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>I wonder why Intel got so far behind in the processor upgrade race? Too big, poor leadership, I don't follow the industry that closely. But you'd haft to be daft not to notice that AMD has been kicking them around for a while. Now Apple, because of Intel's inability to deliver went through the very costly process of designing their own chips, and will transition their whole lineup to them over the next couple of years. Beyond that Apples first effort on their low end machines kicks Intels ass on many tasks running against Intel's high end chips. Not a good look, so now they make a Windows commercial, that'll teach em! Since my newest PC laptop is a X230 I'm in the market, but really I'm looking at AMD not Intel. </p><p> Seems like marketing isn't their strong point either.</p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618656">In reply to Whiplash55:</a></em></blockquote><p>Intel has spent too much time trying to figure out how to cripple there chips so that they can sell 'full featured' chips for much more — rather than focusing on building the best chips for their consumers. "If you don’t cannibalize [your own products] yourself, someone else will." — Steve Jobs. Wise words indeed.</p>
-
truerock2
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618742">In reply to bkkcanuck:</a></em></blockquote><p>You are absolutely correct. This has happened to Intel before.</p><p>Intel becomes market dominant and then it spends most of its time figuring out how to make their CPUs run slower. Obviously that inevitably leads to AMD eventually outperforming Intel. </p><p>I assume Intel will eventually catchup to what TSMC manufacturers for AMD. The larger, longer term issue is when will China outperform Intel and TSMC.</p><p><br></p><p>TSMC will continue to manufacture Apple's M1 CPUs for the foreseeable future. At some point I'm guessing that China will manufacturer CPUs equivalent to M1s at a much cheaper price (via the use of much lower Chinese labor costs).</p><p><br></p><p>Obviously TSMC will need to move manufacturing somewhere… probably Vietnam. Labor in India, South Korea, etc is too expensive. I keep thinking North Korea may step into the ultra-cheap labor market – but, it is politically too messed up to do it any time soon.</p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618748">In reply to truerock2:</a></em></blockquote><p>Inexpensive labour is of little worth to the fabrication of chips/semiconductors. It is capital intensive (R&D) but not labour intensive. Primary concerns for the fab are access to skilled labour. I stopped making the assumtion of Intel catching up since Intel has made many promises over the last 5 to 7 years and keep and there 'schedule' tends to be missed almost days after publication these days. TSMC seems to be firing on all engines. Eventually the generational improvements will hit a wall and require either a materials change (that could take years or decades to advance at that point) — or being able to create multi-layer chips (also a big unknown – but layers won't help if your bottom layer is like a frying pan). </p><p><br></p><p>TSMC will likely look open new fabs outside of Taiwan – just in case war breaks out with China. </p>
-
nbplopes
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618754">In reply to bkkcanuck:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>If war breaks out with China better open fabs in Mars.</p><p><br></p><p>You are correct in pointing out that need. Lately I’ve been watching the unthinkable in politics worldwide.</p>
-
nbplopes
Log in to Reply<p>I believe Intel lost the the long term plot some time ago when it comes to the value of its products. The PC is no longer about Intel. Its products are only aas valuable as OEMs think they are. They main threat is RIZEN.</p><p><br></p><p>People don’t buy a PC because its run on Intel or RIZEN. They buy a PC because it runs Windows which most people know how to use and the device/price choice. Gaming itself its not Intel doing, its the GPU stuff, where Intel has been always particularly weak.</p><p><br></p><p>On the other hand the macOS market share is not really much of a threat to the PC at the moment, just 15%.</p><p><br></p><p>In conclusion, putting themselves against the M* as they are doing makes no difference … people will not stay on the PC because its powered by Intel. Only if the PC is effectively better. <strong>Unless they truly found the the M1 is such as jump on performance that they feel it can threat the PC in general, hence Intel itself as it can no longer bank on anything but Windows when it comes to desktop and laptops.*</strong></p><p><br></p><p>This is to say, that the Intel reaction over M1 just makes it stronger. It’s puts it even more in the map for people that don’t know much (M1, what is M1? Why is Intel talking about it … let me see a presentation from Apple …. oh wow). When it comes to this game, Apple plays it way better, they will smash all they say now in the next Mac presentation with new devices … or not who knows. There is a fair amount of due expectation.</p><p><br></p><p>Who they need to convince is not the end user but OEMs.</p><p><br></p><p>Cheers.</p><p><br></p><p>Nuno</p><p><br></p><p>* Which I think its the main reason. Its the only way can understand this reaction. Otherwise, staying as usual and keep coming with new Intel gen CPUs would just be fine … right?</p><p><br></p><p>The M1 is so fast and efficient for its kind that people are running tasks that traditionally require 16GB on “Intel Macs” because there is almost no drop in performance even with the increase in memory swapping. Which taxes the SSD way more than would otherwise, so some people come out complaining afraid that it might hurt its longevity, when the solution for their problem would be to get the 16GB model. The bottleneck is now back to durable memory.</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618657">In reply to nbplopes:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"The PC is no longer about Intel. […] They main threat is RIZEN. People don’t buy a PC because its run on Intel or RIZEN"</em></p><p><br></p><p>Assuming you mean "Ryzen", then you are aware that is a type of AMD processor, right, it's not a company in itself, just like how "Celeron", "Pentium", "Core" and "Xeon" are all Intel CPUs.</p><p><br></p><p><em>"They buy a PC because it runs Windows"</em></p><p><br></p><p>Well, CPU does matter sometimes: back in the <em>Windows RT </em>days (a version of Windows 8 that ran on 32-bit ARM CPUs), the majority of software you could run on "regular Windows" wouldn't work. Thesedays, with Windows 10 on ARM supporting "regular" 32-bit and 64-bit apps, that is less of an issue, yes.</p><p><br></p><p><em>"… people will not stay on the PC because its powered by Intel…"</em></p><p><br></p><p>No indeed… some people even choose Windows PCs powered by AMD CPUs you know! ;)</p><p><br></p><p><em>"Only if the PC is effectively better. Unless they truly found the the M1 is such as jump on performance that they feel it can threat the PC in general, hence Intel itself as it can no longer bank on anything but Windows when it comes to desktop and laptops"</em></p><p><br></p><p>Compared to most low-end to mid-range AMD and Intel CPUs right now, the Apple M1 is superior — BUT it is only available in Apple devices, so it remains irrelevant in the Windows world. Vast swathes of the general-public are not suddenly going to now decide to switch to macOS when they haven't done so previously. There are many-times more iPhone and iPad owners/users than of macOS devices — they didn't all become converts, so why would a new CPU suddenly make them?</p><p><br></p><p>And what else would Intel bank-on if not Windows — as you said, that's what the vast-majority of the public expect to be "on a PC" as they're used to it. Some vendors, like HP and Dell, already sell a handful of models with Linux (usually Ubuntu) as a preinstall option — but demand isn't exactly overwhelming for them.</p>
-
nbplopes
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618687">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p><strong>“Compared to most low-end to mid-range AMD and Intel CPUs right now, the Apple M1 is superior — BUT it is only available in Apple devices, so it remains irrelevant in the Windows world.”</strong></p><p><br></p><p>Maybe you can explain that to Intel instead of me no? It <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> wasn’t me who did these series of commercials bringing even more the spotlight light to the M1</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Considering its irrelevant to the Wintel PC, in your opinion why is Intel giving it such relevance? </span>Do you think the commercials are intended to convince Apple not to move to the M?</p><p><br></p><p>Cheers</p>
-
prebengh
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618687">In reply to dftf:</a></em></blockquote><p>The M1 is at the same level as the Intel 11th gen i7-1185G7 chip. As far as I know this is the best Intel has for an ultra portable PC. Of course Intel has better chips, but they are intended for higher end laptops and desktop computers.</p>
-
ianbetteridge
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618657">In reply to nbplopes:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>“People don’t buy a PC because its run on Intel or RIZEN. They buy a PC because it runs Windows which most people know how to use and the device/price choice. Gaming itself its not Intel doing, its the GPU stuff, where Intel has been always particularly weak.”</em></p><p><br></p><p>This is absolutely on the money., and it’s always been Intel’s problem – hence them spending bazillions of dollars over the years on “Intel inside” ads, stickers on machines, you name it. All that anyone really cares about is whether a device runs the applications they want to run – and unfortunately for an increasing segment of the market, “the apps they want to run” are either (1) available on Mac, (2) have a Mac alternative that’s actually better, or (3) are just web apps which will run on anything. Outside serious gaming and niche users, the “app advantage” that Windows had has long since melted away.</p>
-
jgraebner
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618763">In reply to ianbetteridge:</a></em></blockquote><p>You are correct that the app advantage for Wintel is a lot less than it used to be (although it does still exist), but I think that is exactly why they are taking this tactic when arguing their advantage over Apple silicon. At this point, by far, the biggest advantage of Wintel over Mac is the much larger ecosystem and the wide variety of choices when it comes to device form factor and feature sets. They are wise to emphasize this as a response to Apple's promotion of performance advantages with the M1. Basically, their best defense is that the availability of devices that fit individual needs greatly outweighs those performance advantages.</p><p><br></p><p>Admittedly, this is really more of an advantage of Windows than of Intel processors and I'm a bit surprised these ads are coming from Intel instead of Microsoft. </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyDoesn’t Intel still power 80-90 percent of all PCs? Arguably, the PC is only about Intel. The other chipmakers, including Apple, are just side stories.
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618996">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>Exactly, Intel still dominates many manufacturers (even if the lose in the DIY market)… I thought the Intel Inside advertising was very targeted and did what it wanted… (though I hated the stickers – I would pay more for not having one). Basically, Intel was dominant and those ads made anyone who was slightly hesitant on getting something like an AMD chip to think twice… was it going to be compatible, Intel must be better as everything else is a clone. </p><p>These ads though – might work – but to me they do reek of desperation… to a certain extent… this market leader is so afraid of one small company that does not even sell chips to third parties they have to go on the offensive against that enemy… I sort of like the ads, and I like that Intel feels the need to do it… since it sort of confirms my belief that there is something for Intel (and Wintel) to be very afraid of…. Yippee!</p>
-
nbplopes
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618996">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Yes it does. But we have learned in history that it just takes half a decade to go from that to irrelevance. </p><p><br></p><p>This usually happens when there is a technological corner … the corner seams to be here and they don’t seem to be in control of the narrative technically. Apple was heavily criticized over their Marketing on the M1 … but now we have Intel marketing that is mostly founded in negative marketing because they don’t really have anything to show that matches it. Its simply reiterating PC advantages vs Mac that were here 10 years ago. Reminds me of Nokia marketing against the new smartphones back than … Steve Balmer …</p><p><br></p><p>Mind you, don’t think Apple will dominate the PC market at all, maybe they can stretch up to 35% if expectation are met? If that starts happening it might happen that on the Windows side some other player appears with a “copy cat” strategy good enough to win over OEMs from Intel. Say a Samsung … NVidia … </p><p><br></p><p>Who knows, this is just speculation. Apple is in control really. Its quite obvious that Intel firing a CEO, hiring a new one, and playing defense marketing against a side story. Now, it was not because of the ZEN of course. In their marketing they don’t seam as worried with that at all. Otherwise we would watching other marketing videos, RYZEN vs Intel Core solutions rather M1 vs Intel Core solutions. M1 with punny marketshare.</p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618996">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>MercuryResearch (Feb 2021) says intel’s at 80% on desktop and laptop, and 92% on servers.</p>
-
glenn8878
Log in to Reply<p>Do anyone remember Justin Long? I'm happy Justin Long still has an acting career. What's John <span style="color: rgb(32, 33, 34);">Hodgman up to? He should be playing a Mac instead.</span></p>
-
BizTechSherpa
Log in to Reply<p>This would seem to indicate that Intel thinks Apple is leaving Intel completely in the near future. If there were still large orders for Intel chips, they would not do this. Perhaps Apple is all in on the Silicon platform?</p>
-
dftf
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618671">In reply to BizTechSherpa:</a></em></blockquote><p>Of course Apple will not use Intel CPUs at-all in future… it's not like after they made the move to Intel back in 2005/2006 they still sell PowerPC devices now.</p><p><br></p><p>According to Wikipedia, macOS 10.6 "Snow Leopard" was the first to only run on Intel CPU devices, released in 2009. So if history repeats, Apple could be Apple Silicon-only in around three years time</p>
-
interloper
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618671">In reply to BizTechSherpa:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"Perhaps Apple is all in on the Silicon platform?"</em></p><p><br></p><p>Apple <a href="https://www.apple.com/uk/newsroom/2020/06/apple-announces-mac-transition-to-apple-silicon/" target="_blank">made it absolutely clear in June 2020</a> they would be completely transitioning to Apple Silicon within a two-year timeframe.</p>
-
jdawgnoonan
Log in to Reply<p>I find myself wishing that Microsoft had made these ads instead of Intel. But the ads are truly great. </p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyTotally.
-
ben55124
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Now the "dude you're getting a Dell" guy should come back with a chromebook. </p>
-
brettscoast
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>A subtle clever dig at Apples always makes me smile. :)</p>
-
curtisspendlove
Log in to Reply<p>Hmm…</p><p><br></p><p>I’m an Intel fanboy, but these ads are a bit strange to me. </p><p><br></p><p>I can get a $20 skin for my MacBook that is green or whatever color I want. Strange flex. </p><p><br></p><p>I still don’t think most people use multitouch on their monitors. But I do expect Apple to release at least a MacBook with a touchscreen when they are redesigned. </p><p><br></p><p>I haven’t used a 2-in-1 for a significant amount of time. I expect they are quite nice and would love this form factor in an Apple device. (Though my understanding is that Windows is still a little lackluster in the transition between device modes.)</p><p><br></p><p>The fourth point is definitely true. Macs are mostly used to get stuff done. So another strange flex. (Also, fewer and fewer people are gaming on PCs either. Personally I love my Intel based gaming rig. But gaming is about the only thing I want to do on a Windows PC nowadays. If I didn’t like Macs, I’d basically build a PC running Linux on the metal and a Windows VM with dedicated hardware Passthrough via VFIO and only boot Windows when I wanted to game. And that could run on Intel—which I’d do—or AMD—which a lot of people would do.)</p><p><br></p><p>Apple has clearly stated the M1 architecture doesn’t support more than one external display (two for the Mini) on the built-in bus. But I’m pretty sure people have gotten multiple monitors working on M1 Macs via docking hubs and port replicators. I also expect this to change on all future Apple Silicon Macs. So I’d chalk this up as another strange flex. And a very short-term one at that. </p>
-
nbplopes
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618736">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>I think its fair to say regarding the M1 Macs that there are still a few trade-ins mentioned in all reviews:</p><p><br></p><p>Trade in this:</p><p><br></p><ul><li>No native support for more than 2 monitors.</li><li>There still a few apps that don’t behave correctly. Not really representative, but there are. </li><li>Depending which machine you are comparing with, there may be less native ports available.</li><li>At least Runs classic Windows VMs at least. Which might be a thing for some use cases. </li><li>Very matured platform.</li></ul><p><br></p><p>For this:</p><p><br></p><ul><li>Way more performance for the price. Either compared with MacOS Intel or Wintel machines.</li><li>Way more battery life</li><li>Absolute silence irrespective of workload. There are instances that fans can be heard but are not really representative of a daily usage.</li><li>iOS App compatibility.</li><li>Sleight immaturity in certain aspects. But its Apple here so we have the assurance that not only has plenty space to evolve in the next decade in terms for performance and functionality, but that Apple is totally vested in it.</li></ul><p><br></p><p>Depending on the reviewer one might be inclined to switch on the qualifiers fans in whatever are their preferences. </p><p><br></p><p>We still have some of old .NET code that is not cross platform. So I do need a Windows VM at least for that. We are working on porting still, but temporarily if and when the time comes for a complete switch, there always VMs in the cloud for the ever so exceptions. </p><p><br></p><p>So I’m ok with the switch for the very most part.</p><p><br></p><p>Which comes to my latest point. Die hard .NET devs, which are plenty out there working as consultants for major companies, plenty of code that has not still being ported to .NET cross platform, will not be able to switch. These will probably be back to Windows machines.</p><p><br></p><p>So even with the exceptional job done by Apple with Rosetta, my impression is that a lot of users will not switch until there is a x64 Windows runs on a VM in the M1, if ever. But a lot more will jump in, office / browser productivity is the best one can get, non classic dot net developers, audio and video producers … so on and so forth.</p>
-
Sir_Timbit
Log in to Reply<p>It’s Intel’s clever distraction from the initial reports showing Rocket Lake to be a hot mess compared to Ryzen! </p>
-
warrickdean
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618573">In reply to crunchyfrog:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yeah, got to disagree crunchyfrog – playful poking fun at real disadvantages of Macs at just the right time. This is what they should be doing</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyYep. Exactly.
-
linear2202
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>The adds are a bit entertaining. However, the adds completely miss the point on why people choose a Mac over a PC. None of this will sway someone to suddenly choose to buy a PC. Intel clearly doesn't get it, neither do people who use PCs. That's ok though. </p>
-
i_khan
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>I'm going to look for a gif for = "<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">They’re funny because they’re true."</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It's nice to see Intel fight back.</span></p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplySearch your GIF source for “common sense.”
-
winbookxl2
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>This is great! It reminds me of when the, Can you hear me now? Guy switched to Sprint from Verizon. Promoting Sprint's Spark Network. Very funny and good for marketing. </p>
-
hal9000
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Good for him, he made some extra bucks.</p><p>These ads are more about the ecosystem, which does not really have anything to do with intel. They could have compared with the intel Macbooks instead, that would have made no difference whatsoever, except it would have been intel vs intel.</p><p>I find this to be a little bit cringy to be honest. Intel, try harder next time!</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618755">In reply to Hal9000:</a></em></blockquote><p>Except that there are no Macs using current Intel processors, they are all a couple of generations older. The whole point is that Apple is moving away from Intel for <em>all</em> its PCs.</p>
-
hal9000
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618759">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Well if that is the point, then they missed it in the ads in my opinion. All they talk about are things that are absolutely independent from the CPU inside those machines. Color, touch screens, form factors and software have nothing to do with the CPU. That three external monitors thing might be the only comparison that make sense, but come on… People didn't game on intel macs either, intel macbooks also were grey, they also had the tiny touchbar, they also had no touch screen, and they also had siri. Sorry, I just don't get it.</p>
-
wright_is
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Qudos for picking up Justin for the ads. Not particularly funny or informative, but a nice play on the old Apple ads.</p>
-
ianbetteridge
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618573">In reply to crunchyfrog:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>I don’t think they’re embarrassing, but they are a little “meh”. For a non-technical audience they are trying to get across the point that if you choose an Intel-based (really Windows-based) computer, you have a choice of form factors and it’s better if you’re a gamer. That’s really it, and both those points are true. But, as you and everyone else reading this will know, neither of those points are really anything to do with Intel’s processors.</p><p><br></p><p>Are they are funny and well-executed as the Apple “originals”? Probably not. But they’re ads, so why waste your energy getting too het up about them? (And yes, I know that I’m spending five minutes writing a comment about them 🙂 )</p>
-
ianbetteridge
Log in to Reply<p>Notably missing: The Surface Pro X, which is the most beautifully designed Windows PC I’ve used for years. Now I wonder how Microsoft’s hardware designers managed to make that design so thin, light and pleasant to use compared to, say, the Surface Pro 7… :)</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyOh, easily. They used a platform that can’t run many of the apps that people want, and runs those apps that do work slowly.
-
2ilent8cho
Log in to Reply<p>Wow, Intel are this scared already and Apple have only released their entry level chip so far, for their low end slow, lower cost devices?</p><p><br></p><p>I must not be a gamer then as i only play Cities Skylines, 7 Days 2 Die, Rust and many others on my M1 Macbook Pro, o and without fan noise, complete silence whilst playing those intensive games on a laptop, on Apples slowest chip they will ever put in a retail Mac!</p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618774">In reply to 2ilent8cho:</a></em></blockquote><p>That’s the funny part. You couldn’t game (or barely) on an intel Mac, but the M1 Mac is an entirely different and better opportunity for gaming.</p>
-
ivarh
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<p>Funny they got Justin but I have one big question for all touch screen proponents. How do you stand all the fingerprints on the screen? BC (Before Covid) when I worked in the office I felt like slapping peoples fingers who touched my screen instead of pointing at it. I live with a fingerprint stained phone since it's not big enough for a physical keyboard, but my PC and Laptop have a mouse/keyboard/trackpad that allows you to avoid staining up your screen with fingerprints. </p>
-
retcable
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618776">In reply to ivarh:</a></em></blockquote><p>This is the very reason I do not consider a touch-screen as a factor when buying a new monitor or laptop. I could not care less whether it has the function or not, because I will never use it. I have spent my entire computer-using life keeping my screens free of fingerprints and I refuse to stop now. I think it's gross and nasty-looking. Beyond this, it is ergonomically horrible to use in real life. Why raise your arms to manipulate something on a monitor on your desk when you can easily do the same thing via a cursor with a mouse comfortably? I just don't get it. Tablets and phones, fine, they are totally separate types of devices, but a laptop or desktop monitor, I don't want it.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyWell, you definitely don’t get it, yes. 🙂
On a regular laptop, multitouch is just another option. But many portable PCs are convertibles/2-in-1s and can be used as a tablet too.
But the bigger overall point is that its presence on a laptop doesn’t hurt you in any way. And you may find that you do, in fact, use it from time to time. I certainly do.
-
jgraebner
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618776">In reply to ivarh:</a></em></blockquote><p>The only answer I have for this is just to say that it hasn't been a problem for me. On touchscreen laptops or tablets, if it gets smudged enough to bother me, I just wipe it off. </p><p><br></p><p>If you are ultra-sensitive to fingerprints on the screen, then I suppose a touchscreen laptop or monitor isn't for you. For me, the advantages vastly outweigh what I would consider a very tiny annoyance.</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyWe’re not seriously still wondering about fingerprints on touchscreens? We touch phones and tablets all day long.
-
ivarh
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618985">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yes, I do not like smudges on my screen, but for a phone or tablet, I can live with it since there is no physical keyboard/trackpad/mouse. However, on a laptop/desktop, I just will not use it. work has provided me with a dell laptop that has touch but I have never used it apart from confirming it's there. I will not actively avoid a machine with a touch display but neither will I judge it as a negative that it does not have it as I never use it. </p>
-
flekmatik
Log in to Reply<p>Intel complaining they are a technological company losing to a lifestyle company while doing ads using no technological but instead lifestyle arguments (literally: we have nicer colors wohoo).</p><p><br></p><p>This whole thing about: Apple does something and instantly everybody copies it exactly is just unreal. Intel doesn't only copy ad style they copy it perfectly including the same actor! This is just sad. If they'd use the PC guy it could have at least had some underdog theme. But why not just copy Apple ads 1:1 instead …</p><p><br></p><p>If this is 'the new Intel' then I don't see any point in hoping for the future of this company honestly.</p><p><br></p><p>Disclaimer: I was an Intel fanboy until recently. I am one of those suckers buying 10core without ECC support for $1000.</p>
-
Martin Klimke
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#618786"><em>In reply to flekmatik:</em></a><em> I could not agree more. Intel has lost the ability to innovate not only technology wise but also on doing adds.</em></blockquote><p><br></p>
-
dcdevito
Log in to Reply<p>Apple should totally continue to use PC guy and convert him to the new Mac guy. That would be hilarious. </p>
-
jdawgnoonan
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618814">In reply to SvenJ:</a></em></blockquote><p>Have you ever seen a USB C reciever for a Logitech wireless keyboard or mouse?</p>
-
cavalier_eternal
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618820">In reply to SvenJ:</a></em></blockquote><p>What’s funny is that during the entire time those ads ran Macs had intel processors so they weren’t directed at intel in any way. Which makes intel’s decision to invoke them even more confusing. </p>
-
BlackForestHam
Log in to Reply<p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Somebody's frightened. LOL. </span></p>
-
jgraebner
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618820">In reply to SvenJ:</a></em></blockquote><p>Apple has pretty much continuously been touting their claimed superiority of the M1 over Intel's processors from the day they announced that they were switching the Mac over to their own silicon. This is Intel responding by pointing out that there are more important advantages with Intel-based computers that outweigh some lower benchmark scores.</p><p><br></p><p>Yes, this campaign completely ignores AMD, but that's kind of like seeing an ad where Coke goes after Pepsi and then saying "But what about RC?" These are targeted responses to a specific threat.</p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618851">In reply to jgraebner:</a></em></blockquote><p>What were the benefits that they outlined in the commercials. I saw benefits for a diverse ecosystem of competitors… but not really too much about the sizzling hot slow chips 😮 I guess there is a benefit to people living in the north during winter, or someone that wants to block out the sound of a nagging wife while using the computer …</p>
-
cavalier_eternal
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618851">In reply to jgraebner:</a></em></blockquote><p>Serious question, where has Apple done this? They talked about the performance at the launch but I haven’t seen an ad for a Mac (M1 or otherwise) in forever. Looking at the official Apple YouTube channel the only Mac ad I see is from November and it doesn’t mention M1, performance or PCs. It doesn’t even have the word Mac in it. I honestly can’t remember the last time Apple mentioned a processor in an ad, during they 15 years with Intel processors I don’t recall them ever mentioning what processor was in a Mac. It seems super out of charger for them to start now but I guess it could happen. Truly curious what media outlets have the continuous ads pushing superiority over M1. Is it print? T.V.? Web ads?</p>
-
jgraebner
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618876">In reply to cavalier_eternal:</a></em></blockquote><p>Go out to Apple.com and click on the Mac tab. </p>
-
pecosbob04
Log in to Reply<blockquote><a href="#618905"><em>In reply to jgraebner:</em></a><em> Okay but 'continuously touting' in my mind conjures up a heavy ad buy on broadcast and social media. Not a go to site and click on tab and get information scenario.</em></blockquote><p><br></p>
-
cavalier_eternal
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618905">In reply to jgraebner:</a></em></blockquote><p>So your claims are :</p><p><br></p><p>”<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Apple has pretty much continuously been touting their claimed superiority of the M1 over Intel's processors”</span></p><p><br></p><p>And by continuously touting superiority over intel you mean they have a section of their website that that talks about M1 performance and doesn’t mention Intel. The second is actually buried beyond what you said. The Mac tab has a link to info about M1 and when you click on that there is a graph that shows performance against “Latest PC Laptop Chip” . </p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>“<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Apple has specifically been targeting Intel in their advertising of the new M1 based Macs.”</span></p><p><br></p><p>I guess in this one you are counting the graph on a website that someone has to go out of their way to find as an Ad and said graph doesn’t name intel or anyone specifically. Maybe in some sort of fine print at the bottom?</p><p><br></p><p>One can certainly say the Apple website claims the M1 is faster than PC chips and that would be totally accurate. Twisting that into continuously touting superiority and specifically targeting intel in advertising? It’s somewhat difficult to imagine making those claims with a straight face. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyI’m having trouble understanding what you’re upset about here. But I also desperately want you to not expand on it.
-
prebengh
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618968">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think the main problem is that you continuously are stating that Intel is counting the media blitz that Apple is on. This is simply not true. Apple had their event presenting the new M1 Macbooks and then more or less nothing.</p><p>But the new Macbooks has of course been reviewed by various sites.</p><p>On the last Windows Weekly you praised Intel for clearly describing their tests, but Apple has done exactly the same on their site.</p><p>And I think the reason for Intels media blitz is that they are seing that their best chip for ultra portable laptops can only at best run even with Apples entry level chip. They fear that Apples next chip will be superior.</p><p><br></p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyI’m continuously … what. Whatever.
There’s no “media blitz.” Intel has finally put up a single page on its site that correctly points out the strengths of the PC vs. the Mac. And the releases five fun ads.
-
cavalier_eternal
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618968">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>I’m having trouble understanding who you think is upset here. I just asked where the guy saw the continuous Ads where Apple said they were better than Intel because I hadn’t seen them. Anyway, it turns out they don’t exist *shrug*</p>
-
jgraebner
Premium MemberLog in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#619018">In reply to cavalier_eternal:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm not going to get dragged into a pointless semantic argument. If you want to define "continuously touting" as running lots of broadcast and media ads aimed at consumers, then I concede your point. </p><p><br></p><p>It's completely obvious what point Intel is trying to make here. No idea why you are treating it like it's somehow mysterious.</p>
-
cavalier_eternal
<blockquote><em><a href="#619026">In reply to jgraebner:</a></em></blockquote><p>I totally understand the point Intel is making and am not disputing their claims. You literally cannot point to where I have done that. I have expressed confusion about why Intel is bothering to spend time and money on marketing/advertising like this. But that is because I don’t see Apple as any sort of threat to their dominance and they are pointing out the obvious. </p><p><br></p><p>What I did question was your claims that Apple was continuously touting superiority and below where you said Apple was specifically targeting intel in their advertising. Neither of those claims have anything to do with the content of the Intel ads. And my disagreement isn’t semantic, you simply made both of those claims up which was just odd. But if you feel like Intel needs you help, by all means jump in a make up any wacky thing you want. I thing handwringing over Intel’s fate is goofy, they are doing just fine and aren’t going anywhere. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLet it go. You can do this.
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberOr important in some way. It is obvious what Intel is doing here. It’s also obvious that these ads are fantastic and that anyone who cares about the PC should be thanking Intel for doing what Microsoft and the rest of the PC industry will not. Speak up.
-
bkkcanuck
<blockquote><em><a href="#619112">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>I prefer actions over words though… if you deliver a better product (in Intel's case it is the chip set) — then you don't have to do churlish ads even if they are amusing. When they were on top they had the Intel inside campaign, and although I hated the stickers and would pay more for a computer without stickers, they did the job… they did not have to compare themselves to anyone… If you did not choose Intel, you however had a nagging worry in the back of your mind about is it compatible — and that is what the Intel inside campaign banked on in a very smart way.</p><p><br></p><p>I remember all sorts of 'PC' guys (I guess you could call me a PC guy back then since I was running a Windows machine; though I also had a Sun Sparcstation as well) say how they hated the Apple ads, now, they love these… guess it is all about which tribe you decide to be in. </p><p><br></p><p>Personally, I neither hate nor love the ads – just mildly amused that they would photoshop a better looking MacBook into the ad, and for the ports add compare it to another product… that does not have a wide variety of ports… and have nothing to say about the actual product they make… What Intel is worried about is PC makers investing more into making ARM devices — and that ad does not do anything to show that Intel Inside is better than either M* or AMD chipsets (luckily Apple is not in the business of selling their chips to 3rd parties). God only help Intel of Qualcomm actually ever invests heavily into ARM chip sets… or AMD pushes their ARM project back to the front burner now that they have the money to invest in R&D. (it was depriortized when AMD only could do one thing at a time). </p><p><br></p><p>Apple only really brought the ad back as an homage to the early days (when they were much smaller) to a group at WWDC (most likely all are fanboys). The rest of it is vague (which they got hit one – unlabeled graphs) to some other products (with regards to heat / performance)… Now that Intel has basically told the world now the leader in chip sets is Apple for Apple devices – all further releases will only compare the performance of the new chip to the performance of the previous Apple chip… no need to compare to a company that does not have something competitive… same thing they did with iPhones… they compare each new iPhone performance to the last… that is what you do when you are a leader… you ignore the also-rans…</p>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyReplace the word “ask” with “berate” and I think you will see what it looks like from the outside.
-
prebengh
Log in to Reply<p>It seems there is basis for a new cooperation between Apple and Intel. Now it looks like Intel is doing the design work for the new Macbook Pro with very small bezels, no touch bar, as shown in one of the videos.</p><p>I really like the honest ads from Intel….</p><p><br></p><p>By the way I am really looking forward to see reviews of PCs on thurrott.com in colors other than grey/dark grey. Since the beginning of 2020 there seems only to be gold/rose gold Macbook Airs on the site in other than grey colors. But new colors seems to be the future of the PC.</p>
-
Martin Klimke
Log in to Reply<p>… but you do have to use Windows. An this really, really sucks in comparison to MacOs, doesn't it.</p><p><br></p><p>Funny side notes</p><ul><li>he is holding a convertable in his hands that is only supporting USB and "complains" about having to use a dongle to interface to an SD card when using a MacBook.</li><li>he does not find the mute button after having press the Siri button on the sidebar, not seeing the mute button right left to it.</li><li>to be continued</li></ul>
-
Paul Thurrott
Premium MemberLog in to ReplyYou’re really over-analyzing this. The ad is aimed at normal people.
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#619143">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>Not if normal people are concerned with performance, battery life, fan noise and heat. Intel understandably didn’t mention those.</p>
-
tonytech
Log in to Reply<p>I wouldn't mind if they reunited the Justin with the PC guy and they just hug it out lol. </p>
-
bkkcanuck
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#619362">In reply to tonytech:</a></em></blockquote><p>Na, it should be a cage match pay-per-vew </p>
-
Greg Green
Log in to Reply<blockquote><em><a href="#618694">In reply to Bob_Shutts:</a></em></blockquote><p>Most people just want a computer, they don’t care about the os. If apple can get high performing PCs for the masses, even at their current entry level,price, intel may lose market share to AMD and apple.</p>