This is what happens when you prefer an incremental culture over a culture of innovation. There’s no way they could possibly innovate at this point with all the baggage of x86.
I think Intel has a long way to fall before they are forced to finally face the music and innovate a bit. Until that time, expect to see a lot more of these awkward and cringe ad campaigns.
You do know you can buy cheap phones and cheap PCs, right? I'm personally happy for the choice. Not everyone has the budget for "the best phone ever."
Also, its interesting that you say "lasting 12-24 months at best" when recent Apple laptops have had plenty of issues necessitating recalls and redesigns.
> This is what happens when you prefer an incremental culture over a culture of innovation
It might be useful to read this
The words innovation and invention overlap semantically but are really quite distinct.
Invention can refer to a type of musical composition, a falsehood, a discovery, or any product of the imagination. The sense of invention most likely to be confused with innovation is “a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment,” usually something which has not previously been in existence.
Innovation, for its part, can refer to something new or to a change made to an existing product, idea, or field. One might say that the first telephone was an invention, the first cellular telephone either an invention or an innovation, and the first smartphone an innovation.
> There’s no way they could possibly innovate at this point with all the baggage of x86.
That just seems like nonsense. There's absolutely nothing that stops innovation – Intel's problems are primarily the result of a technical failure to implement their last process node, and the corresponding failure to manage the outcomes that went along with that.
There's a small cost to maintaining the x86 architecture, which impacts on processor performance. But the idea that somehow processor designers switching to ARM will somehow make them fast an innovative is obviously wrong – I mean we've got AMD right there getting performance which is substantially closer to the M1, there have been countless ARM chips out there forever, and the M1 is itself absolutely an incremental approach to processor development!
To innovate you usually have to throw away something old that is still working well. That is not so easy to do. That is why innovation usually comes from those who don't have anything valuable they need to throw away.
They also have more advanced, larger instruction pre-processing units, (I can't remember the exact name of them). Also the big.little architecture. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25258165
"The M1 is really wide (8 wide decode) and has a lot of execution units. It has a huge 630 deep reorder buffer to keep them all filled, multiple large caches and a lot of memory bandwidth."
Good grief, seeing news like this takes me back to kindergarten where kids' favourite activity was finding out the best way to make fun of the other kids.
Yeah, pretty remarkable to see Intel behaving this way with a _current_ customer. I would’ve thought that would be off-putting for other current and potential Intel customers. I don’t have an MBA though, so what do I know.
I'm sure the existing contracts are being fulfilled, but as soon as Apple announced they were transitioning their product line away from Intel they became competitors.
Or is Intel the patient partner that was there in times of need, even though Apple outburst are childish and irrational and usually flirts with every new girl to hurt Intel feelings?
What do you mean by the flirting? Apple has been Intel's client since for the last 15 years with no exceptions (on the Mac side).
I don't enjoy this kind of marketing, but for some reason the snail ad feels a lot more tongue-in-cheek than the serious corporate-hate-infused materials that Intel is releasing now.
Was it true at that time that Apple's offering was faster than the Intel-snail? Because if it wasn't, I'd certainly look at it differently.
Wintel vs. MacArm: Intel throwing its marketing might against Apple indicates a fear of an exodus from Wintel. Remote work has increased demand for laptops during the pandemic.
We may have entered a phase similar to automobiles where brand stickiness is correlated to first purchase. I wonder if the ads will continue after the pandemic subsides and whether the exodus is significant.
Rule of thumb, any time you hear a competitors product mentioned in ads you know it's unbeatable. Like, which smoothbrain at Intel thought it was a good idea to spend millions of dollars telling people about Apple's M1?
Intel has so little to say about its own products that it's redirecting ad money to the streisand effect
As opposed to this ad that uses PC and Mac??? I don't get your argument when it is basically the same argument inverted. This advert doesn't include prominent Intel branding either - they are fighting for the PC segment.
Apple did literally the exact same thing back in the day, saying some programs don't work very well on PC and urging people to get an Apple computer. Check out one example:
PC isn't a brand. Apple was referencing all non-Mac computers (not just Dell or HP) as their competitor. Intel is specifically referencing a single chip from a single competitor.
If the Apple ad said "Mac is so much better than the Dell XPS", that would be different.
M1 Mac is three different computers; Intel is taking a swipe at Apple Silicon in general. They want Apple to use Intel chips for refreshes on the bigger devices (MBP16 still ships with 9th-gen Intel, iMac with 7th-gen). Anything they can do to delay Apple Silicon market takeup will dampen the attractiveness of post-M1 models running Apple Silicon, because nobody wants a machine with sparse software availability and that's a problem that won't get resolved until the user base is much bigger.
At the time of "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC," Apple transitioned to Intel. Now that it's transitioning away from Intel, you're seeing the same argument but inverted.
> M1 Mac is three different computers; Intel is taking a swipe at Apple Silicon in general.
You are exactly correct: Apple silicon. Intel is calling out a singular competitor. Apple called out all PCs.
> They want Apple to use Intel chips for refreshes on the bigger devices (MBP16 still ships with 9th-gen Intel, iMac with 7th-gen).
If there are generation-bump Intel refreshes for those machines coming, they have either been planned all along or will be a result of unexpected problems getting the M1X (or whatever would be in the those machines) ready or available. Intel isn't going to convince Apple to delay their architecture transition, especially now that they have released ads attacking their products.
> Anything they can do to delay Apple Silicon market takeup will dampen the attractiveness of post-M1 models running Apple Silicon, because nobody wants a machine with sparse software availability and that's a problem that won't get resolved until the user base is much bigger.
Oh, I agree this is their intent. But trying "Anything they can do" means they aren't coming from a position of strength.
Sure, “PC” was (is?) synonymous with Windows, but as @ricketycricket said, Apple wasn’t calling out a single thing, but all computers that are labeled “PC”.
The difference is the power differential: at the time Apple ran those ads, they were much smaller and semiregularly the topic of speculation about bankruptcy. Pitching them as better than the dominant platform was trying to get buyers to think of them as peers.
In this case, Intel has been the dominant player since the 90s, possibly the late 1980s in the consumer market. Running an ad saying they’re afraid of a newcomer’s first product (in this segment, of course) seems different because they’ve been a safe default option for decades - especially because this option was created to replace their products. It seems just as likely to make consumers wonder why they’re so worried about.
They are not suggesting the ad is making people aware of Apple. They are suggesting that the ad is making people aware that Intel sees the M1 as a legitimate competitor, therefore suggesting to buyers that it is a worthy alternative to Intel's products. An unintended consequence of attacking a specific competitor or product is that you can raise awareness of the value of your competitor's product.
It's cool that you recently learned what the Streisand effect is, but you're talking about a product that was announced in a special event named after Steve Jobs's catchphrase, praised by every vlogger under the sun, and benchmarked to the moon and back. Go to the Mac homepage and you'll see "Welcome to the
future of Mac."
I really don't think this is some kind of secret to the general public. Give the people some credit.
Let's not fall to their level of intellectual dishonesty: ARM is not immune to speculation attacks, even though the M1 is unaffected by the two you named (spectre did however affect some ARM cores). New attacks will be found, and the M1 is a pretty likely research target.
I love this even though I am no fan of Intel. But as a consumer, I want Intel to survive, because without such competition it is we who are ultimately screwed.
I also feel safer with Intel hardware than Apple's, because Apple is a system integrator who makes their own hardware and software. And thus they don't care beyond that - and so you have soldered hardwares (with no documentation), limited to no software comptability (for other OSes), face varying levels of difficulty to make anything work outside their ecosystem etc. ... it's fine for certain people. But limits our computing freedom.
If it were not for Intel or AMD, we would have a lot of silo-ed and incompatible systems, just like Google, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook have divided up the internet. Perhaps this is already happening with our personal computing devices slowly, and we haven't fully grasped it yet ...
Considering the list of of intel CPU vulnerabilities, I’m actually quite happy to see someone threatening to eat their lunch. Hopefully it pushes intel out of complacency.
I remember when Halo 2 came out, and there were so many people playing the game that a new glitch was discovered every day. When you have millions of users, flaws that you never thought about get discovered and exploited. Intel's long running dominance of the market means that a large number of smart people are trying to break the product every day. This is not complacency, but rather a consequence of success.
This provides evidence that Intel and Apple have split for good. I'm happy with my new M1 Apple systems, but I wondered if the Mac Pro was possibly going to stay Intel based because of number of PCI lanes, ECC memory, etc. This campaign by Intel seems to indicate that contracts between Intel and Apple have Intel believing that no more Apple products are being planed at all for Intel chips.
Simply because you get better or same performance for less money, more PCIe 4.0 lanes, ECC support even without going for Threadripper or Opteron solutions....like if I was buying a high performance workstations for building code/rendering I have no idea why I'd even consider spending literally 3x the money for an Intel system with identical or worse performance, using more power.
Threadripper is a consumer grade part with no certified support for ECC memory Save the UDIMM variety! AMD's New Threadripper Pro Branded parts are Actually what Servethehome calls WEPIC(Workstation Epyc). And the Epyc Branding has supplanted AMD's Opteron line of Branding in AMD's Server/HPC market products since the arrival of AMD's Zen CPU micro-architecture.
Threadripper Pro is really Workstation Epyc as that comes with the full 8 memory channels per socket and 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes support as well as fully certified by the Motherboard suppliers ECC memory support for all ECC memory types and that includes ECC RDIMM support and 2TB memory capacity as well compared to the non Pro Threadripper consumer variants that only support 256GB or ECC UDIMM memory on motherboards that are not necessarily certified for ECC Memory support even if the consumer Threadripper has ECC memory support enabled.
The point about two external monitors is fair but short-sighted. It’s not gonna age well. Apple will release the next version of the chip with multi display support.
The retired two-port laptops were able to drive two external displays, and that is something that M1 two-port laptops cannot accomplish. The criticism is timeless, especially for M1 buyers.
Why? How much does Intel have to fear from Apple? It's not like a ton of Windows users will suddenly switch to Mac because of the M1. If anything they will switch to AMD as that still runs Windows.
I think Intel has bigger threats elsewhere. This is just a waste of money and will eventually backfire.
57 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadThings you can do on an Intel that you can't do an M1...
Oh, look, there it is.
https://twitter.com/intel/status/1356633480776531968
I think Intel has a long way to fall before they are forced to finally face the music and innovate a bit. Until that time, expect to see a lot more of these awkward and cringe ad campaigns.
They were not cheap plastic phones, they were expensive miniaturized phones representing the state of the art of portable phone devices.
I blame Apple if nowadays we keep bricks in our pockets.
Bricks that can't work on a battery more than 12 hours.
> PCs that last 12 to 24 months at best
I'm a proud owner of functioning PCs of the 90s, 2000s and 2010s.
The HW inside many PCs is of the same quality than the HW on a Mac, if not better, because people could chose what to put inside them.
Also, its interesting that you say "lasting 12-24 months at best" when recent Apple laptops have had plenty of issues necessitating recalls and redesigns.
It might be useful to read this
The words innovation and invention overlap semantically but are really quite distinct.
Invention can refer to a type of musical composition, a falsehood, a discovery, or any product of the imagination. The sense of invention most likely to be confused with innovation is “a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment,” usually something which has not previously been in existence.
Innovation, for its part, can refer to something new or to a change made to an existing product, idea, or field. One might say that the first telephone was an invention, the first cellular telephone either an invention or an innovation, and the first smartphone an innovation.
> There’s no way they could possibly innovate at this point with all the baggage of x86.
Let's talk about it again in a few years.
There's a small cost to maintaining the x86 architecture, which impacts on processor performance. But the idea that somehow processor designers switching to ARM will somehow make them fast an innovative is obviously wrong – I mean we've got AMD right there getting performance which is substantially closer to the M1, there have been countless ARM chips out there forever, and the M1 is itself absolutely an incremental approach to processor development!
"The M1 is really wide (8 wide decode) and has a lot of execution units. It has a huge 630 deep reorder buffer to keep them all filled, multiple large caches and a lot of memory bandwidth."
*Actual Apple ad from the 90s
https://i1.wp.com/lowendmac.com/wp-content/uploads/pentium-s...
I don't enjoy this kind of marketing, but for some reason the snail ad feels a lot more tongue-in-cheek than the serious corporate-hate-infused materials that Intel is releasing now.
Was it true at that time that Apple's offering was faster than the Intel-snail? Because if it wasn't, I'd certainly look at it differently.
There was a time when they didn't
> the snail ad feels a lot more tongue-in-cheek than the serious corporate-hate-infused materials that Intel is releasing now
Pentium II is the fastest processor in the World
... Not quite!
The chip inside every new Power Macintosh G3 is up to twice as fast
(it wasn't true... or, it was true that Altivec was "up to" twice as fast than MMX on some selected workloads, but the chip itself wasn't)
https://lowendmac.com/2006/twice-as-fast-did-apple-lie-or-ju...
We may have entered a phase similar to automobiles where brand stickiness is correlated to first purchase. I wonder if the ads will continue after the pandemic subsides and whether the exodus is significant.
Rule of thumb, any time you hear a competitors product mentioned in ads you know it's unbeatable. Like, which smoothbrain at Intel thought it was a good idea to spend millions of dollars telling people about Apple's M1?
Intel has so little to say about its own products that it's redirecting ad money to the streisand effect
Very insightful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48jlm6QSU4k
If the Apple ad said "Mac is so much better than the Dell XPS", that would be different.
At the time of "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC," Apple transitioned to Intel. Now that it's transitioning away from Intel, you're seeing the same argument but inverted.
You are exactly correct: Apple silicon. Intel is calling out a singular competitor. Apple called out all PCs.
> They want Apple to use Intel chips for refreshes on the bigger devices (MBP16 still ships with 9th-gen Intel, iMac with 7th-gen).
If there are generation-bump Intel refreshes for those machines coming, they have either been planned all along or will be a result of unexpected problems getting the M1X (or whatever would be in the those machines) ready or available. Intel isn't going to convince Apple to delay their architecture transition, especially now that they have released ads attacking their products.
> Anything they can do to delay Apple Silicon market takeup will dampen the attractiveness of post-M1 models running Apple Silicon, because nobody wants a machine with sparse software availability and that's a problem that won't get resolved until the user base is much bigger.
Oh, I agree this is their intent. But trying "Anything they can do" means they aren't coming from a position of strength.
In this case, Intel has been the dominant player since the 90s, possibly the late 1980s in the consumer market. Running an ad saying they’re afraid of a newcomer’s first product (in this segment, of course) seems different because they’ve been a safe default option for decades - especially because this option was created to replace their products. It seems just as likely to make consumers wonder why they’re so worried about.
> the streisand effect
Pretty sure everyone's heard of Apple. Come on.
They are not suggesting the ad is making people aware of Apple. They are suggesting that the ad is making people aware that Intel sees the M1 as a legitimate competitor, therefore suggesting to buyers that it is a worthy alternative to Intel's products. An unintended consequence of attacking a specific competitor or product is that you can raise awareness of the value of your competitor's product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
I really don't think this is some kind of secret to the general public. Give the people some credit.
I also feel safer with Intel hardware than Apple's, because Apple is a system integrator who makes their own hardware and software. And thus they don't care beyond that - and so you have soldered hardwares (with no documentation), limited to no software comptability (for other OSes), face varying levels of difficulty to make anything work outside their ecosystem etc. ... it's fine for certain people. But limits our computing freedom.
If it were not for Intel or AMD, we would have a lot of silo-ed and incompatible systems, just like Google, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook have divided up the internet. Perhaps this is already happening with our personal computing devices slowly, and we haven't fully grasped it yet ...
Threadripper Pro is really Workstation Epyc as that comes with the full 8 memory channels per socket and 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes support as well as fully certified by the Motherboard suppliers ECC memory support for all ECC memory types and that includes ECC RDIMM support and 2TB memory capacity as well compared to the non Pro Threadripper consumer variants that only support 256GB or ECC UDIMM memory on motherboards that are not necessarily certified for ECC Memory support even if the consumer Threadripper has ECC memory support enabled.
I think Intel has bigger threats elsewhere. This is just a waste of money and will eventually backfire.