Posted on 12/29/2005 8:36:18 PM PST by nickcarraway
It's time to retire your "Intel Inside" jokes and start coming up with some "Leap Ahead" humor. Intel is changing its branding campaign after 14 years.
Intel leaked word of the new brand to the Wall Street Journal, disclosing that it will adopt the "Leap Ahead" theme at next week's Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. Along with changing the familiar "Intel Inside" line, Intel will nix the use of the dropped "e" long used in the depiction of the company's name. (You can see the new logos here.) One thing that won't change with the re-branding exercise is the fat loads of marketing cash Intel hands out to partners who willingly display its logos.
It remains unclear if Apple plans to join the "friends of Intel" club when it begins selling Intel-powered computers. It's hard to imagine Apple tolerating a little blue sticker on its clean designs, but it was also hard to imagine Apple using Intel chips.
As previously reported, Intel will replace the Pentium M brand with the "Core" brand. Single core chips will be sold as Core Solo products, while dual-core chips will be sold as Core Duo.
(We're guessing that Intel's first generation of dual-core server chips will be sold as Core Kludgo, but must admit we haven't been privy to the branding discussions.)
The WSJ notes that new SVP Eric Kim - recruited from Samsung - has lead the re-branding effort and worked hard to convince ex-CEOs Craig Barrett and Andy Grove that the move is a good idea.
While "Leap Ahead" doesn't do much for us, we'd agree that Intel could use a fresh coat of paint.
Over the past two years, the chip giant has suffered from an embarrassing spate of product cancellations and delays. In addition, it allowed rival AMD to carve out a large chunk of the x86 server processor market, while Intel struggled to push competitive chips to market.
BusinessWeek - a publication determined to keep the badger in Web 2.0 - has an embarrassingly dramatic but informative account of the underlying motivations behind the brand switch here.
Hmmm..."leap ahead"...frogs...France. Yep, that'll work!
What, no SX/DX?
Still a few steps behind AMD.
It seems that way for the moment.
Only if you want a new operating system. I've got a P166 that runs fine under Win98, and a P75 that is really fast with Win95. Unless you are editing video, what do you really need a faster processor for other than the latest from Microsoft?
I highly doubt Jobs goes for putting that sticker on Apple computers. He might think he is making a big concession if he puts the sticker on the box the comptuer comes in.
Been hearing that for a couple of decades during which time AMD per share value has increased by about 300%. Meanwhile Intel per share value over the same period of time has increased by about 5,000%.
One would think that if AMD is as wonderful as its supporters claim, AMD would have been able to grow its earnings a bit better. Meanwhile it remains a noisy but insignificant threat to Intel's dominance of the market, AMD having netted about $91 million last year to Intel's $7.5 billion.
AMD: "Leap Further"
Advertising for CELL now?
Still a few steps behind AMD.
Apparently Steve Jobs doesn't think so.
Which is why all the hardware manufacturers are desperate for the next version of Windows to arrive, seeing as how it will probably suck up CPU cycles by a couple more orders of magnitude.
Have you considered that Intel may simply be a better negotiating company? Inferior product, superior business skills...that is what enables them to remain at the top.
As for me, I'm an AMD loyalist.
Well, at least Intel has finally managed to topple AMD in the speed charts on Tom's. Of course, their dual core processor runs twice as fast, twice as hot, and takes a cooler the size of a refrigerator, but hey... they did it.
Nor did brief leadership in clock speed on certain applications seem to be accompanied by comparable leadership in reliability, a characteristic that to many folks is even more more important than a minor speed advantage. Occasionally, AMD boasted of having new deals with various PC makers. Those seemed to flicker for a while and then disappear. While AMD struggled, Intel continued to multiply its billions.
After two decades, an investor who put $1500 into 100 shares of AMD would have seen his account grow--if that is what gains approximating those available in a Money Market account can be called--to a whopping 200 shares worth $6,000. Had that AMD investor used his $1,500 to buy Intel instead, today he would own 36,000 shares of Intel worth about $900,000.
For whatever reason, one company continues to dominate, despite its "inferior product."
I was not a real fan od AMD, but Intel has had problems.
This year, I got my wife a new PC and we went with AMD, simply because for the same performance, we paid a lot less.
As long as I can play AMerica's Army, I don't care what chip is running it.
I wonder how many articles there were 20 years ago about Intel stock being overpriced, and how AMD was a bargain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.