Lose the Blue Man Group and start marketing the Intel like the iPod with dancing shadows holding white microchips with solid colors in the background. Thus making Intel cool.

I'm indifferent about the whole thing. But, if it means that Mac processors can keep up with PC processors, I'm all about the Apptel machine.

With Steve Jobs' legendary control freak personality I doubt that the Intel bug (the literal logo and the brand in general) will ever be as predominant as it is on the PC market. Apple is about Apple and only Apple, not about Intel. Utopianly, I would say that any mention of Intel should stay in the product specs but I have the feeling that Apple will heavily promote Intel to attract PC users. I'm sure they will do it in a more sophisticated way than employing the blue man group or those space cadets from a few years ago.

It's not a merger. Apple is just buying processors from another vendor now.

I doubt that the Intel bug (the literal logo and the brand in general) will ever be as predominant as it is on the PC market.

The only way it'd appear is if Intel picks up some of the costs of advertising (which they've done in the past if you plaster the silly jingle on the end of your commercial). I'm sure Jobs hates it. Alas, he didn't have much choice other than going with intel.

Slap that ugly Intel logo on a beautiful Mac? Yuck! I could live with it on the box, but not on my Mac.

I seriously don't think future Macs will come with a big, traditional "Intel Inside" sticker, unless Intel puts Apple between a rock and a hard place about this. As if the (merger/business/whatever) notice weren't heartbreaking/confusing enough for the tons of Mac zealots out there, slapping such logo in the machines would just mean adding insult to injury. Not the smartest marketing move for a company that has built themselves an image of "thinking different" while getting blue men toasted.

It will take years to wipe the "Intel = PC = Evil" association off the consciousness of today's Mac users crowd.

The most probable scenario would be that of Jobs & Co. getting some arrangements with Intel in order to not piss off the current crop of longtime Mac users - at least not for this first round. Apple's greatest asset is not its hardware or software - it's its image, and their longtime loyal users. I guess Jobs knows better.

But you have it to hand it to Intel: They've done a passable job making their chips the only noteworthy feature of otherwise-bland Wintel boxes.

Ask my mom (er... I mean YOUR mom) what makes a good PC, and the only thing she'll remember is that Intel Inside sticker.

But Apple watering down their own brand with another message? It will not happen. Everything Apple IS is uncluttered.

I think even more important to Apple than the chip inside the computer is their brand of sleek design - they wont sacrifice that for anything. It might be mentioned in advertisements, but you won't see their logo on the computer, and i doubt even on the box.

But I don't understand the move to intel chips... Does this mean Apple is looking to the same marketing scheme of "Gigahertz sells" that intel has? Maybe they got sick of the fact that Intel processors are able to be marketed as having twice the clock speed as a mac processor, even though that is a totally arbitrary gauge to measure the actual performance..

I don't see this as a sign of impending doom for Apple, but rather a hopeful change for Intel and the PC market.

If having an Intel chip inside a G6 (?) means that one more PC user will consider converting — then that's a great thing, is it not? And this union will also mean a greater compatibility between platforms for software and peripherals — making it a better world for all Mac users. That means in the future, my stupid Blackberry might synch with my Mac without some sketchy 3rd-party patch.

As to the branding of Intel on Macs? I highly doubt it, but stranger things have happened.

when Apple launched it's Think Different campaign it's initial reference was how the computer (and of course the apple computer) at that time was going to revolutionize the way we 'think (or more so 'do' our job)s, communicate, etc. It was initially fairly literal - we were going to think diffeent as a result of the computer. Out of that emerged the cult of Apple, where Think Different became a flag to wear, showing our unique, if not anti-, otherness and the wintel versus apple camps formed as a side of the battle of corporations for consumer dollars.

So in my usual rambling kinda way, I'm saying does it really matter if the processor is Intel, IBM, or if your computer is an apple or HP as long as it does the job you need it to? For most of us it's a mac, but if I were a web or software developer, Linux would likely be my choice.

all in all it leads to the mac having the power of say, Alienware or Voodopc, and subsequently the applications we use will be built around that powerful chip. I smell massive upgrade cycles of both computers and applications out of this - those necessary business expenses that we have to make to compete in our field...

I'm pretty content with my 4 year old 800 MHz tibook, external monitor and with it's IBM processor where Adobe's CS2 and Quark run just dandy. 2 years down the road I'm going to have to face that the processor will no longer support the applications I need.

But Jason's question is In short, how would you handle this merger?

Much in the same way as Jobs, which is talking about how the intel chip is more in align with the next 2 - 5 years development plan of the mac.

I don’t see a problem. I see �great’ getting �greater’! BTW I’m not a PC monger. On one hand you got one of the best processor makers and on the other, without a doubt, you’ve got the best Macs ever. Now what’s that combo going to give you? Remember that Macs had the IBM processors before.

I've thought about the branding of Intel on Macs. I hope the blue sticker does not make it onto the pristine aluminum surface and I doubt that it will.

If it were going to be absolutely necessary to market Intel Inside, I'd rather see a blue anodized aluminum case such as the iPod mini. For that matter, make them in all colors like the mini.

But I don't understand the move to intel chips...

IBM completely failed to deliver promised chip speeds. Jobs knows you can't keep selling new Macs if their speeds are increasing when the competition's are.

And this union will also mean a greater compatibility between platforms for software and peripherals

The chip doesn't have a whole lot to do with peripherals. Doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with the software, either, other than x86 emulators shouldn't have to work so hard...which is also a problem for Apple, though, as it makes the arguments for developing mac software less strong.

Again, though, Jobs really had no option. So he's clearly trying to make the best of the situation.

But I don't understand the move to intel chips... Does this mean Apple is looking to the same marketing scheme of "Gigahertz sells" that intel has? Maybe they got sick of the fact that Intel processors are able to be marketed as having twice the clock speed as a mac processor, even though that is a totally arbitrary gauge to measure the actual performance.

Intel can make more chips, and make them faster and for less money. From what I understand, the chips aren't really changing a whole lot, they're just being made by a different company (which means they will change some, due to proprietary licenses and such).

Overall, this menas one of two things. One, the Mac, even the high end models, will get less expensive. Whether that means they will get cheaper (in terms of quality) is up in the air.

As for marketing and who says what is faster, PCs have the market share, so more or less the people who buy PCs will want to believe that they are faster. People who buy Macs will want to believe they ar faster. If you look at (somewhat) independent findings, it looks like both run basically the same. Apple's clockspeed charts are just as bogus as PCs.

On to Jason's question . . . its not really a merger, so its a bit different to grasp. I dont think Intel will get a sticker on Apple's boxes (IBM didnt, so why should Intel?) The best approach is that Apple will point out that this move means less expensive hardware in the future, and Intel will say that they really are the best chipmaker. I'm not even sure there needs to be advertising over this. I'm sure there will be a large amount of internal and consumer documentation, but I dont think in the eyes of Apple or Intel that this is big enough for a large campaign like the iPod campaign.

My guess is that Apple with start with educating their current base as to the new collaboration (merger has certain business connotations that do not fit this instance) and what it means for the future. Thats really why Apple has such devoted users. The fact that they are honest and keep their consumers in the loop about the major going-ons. That in itself is their "design". The packaging may be beautiful, but its the approach they have with consumers that gives them high marks. I dont see it any different with this campaign.

honestly, it doesn't matter. every single one of us would still buy mac products if they had a hamster for a processor. they just look and feel so cool...everyone has to have one!

who cares? you can always rip the stupid label off of the case.

It will take years to wipe the "Intel = PC = Evil" association off the consciousness of today's Mac users crowd.

The most probable scenario would be that of Jobs & Co. getting some arrangements with Intel in order to not piss off the current crop of longtime Mac users - at least not for this first round. Apple's greatest asset is not its hardware or software - it's its image, and their longtime loyal users. I guess Jobs knows better.

I disagree about longterm loyal users being Apple's greatest asset. Wall Street certainly doesn't seem to think so. If it were so, Apple's stock price would've been in the clouds for the last few years. As we all know, the iPod was the catalyst here.

Now, I'm not saying that iPod buyers necessarily equal new Mac users, but Apple's real opportunity is with the young whippersnappers and a completely new generation of computer users. We loyal Apple users were already prepared to go down with the ship.

On a side note, I think we all know what the stupid "i" in front of everything really stood for all this time.

IMHO, the Apple brand comes from the consistently exquisite, forward-thinking industrial design of their computers and the friendly, yet elegant, look-and-feel of the system software. The maker of the microprocessor has very little effect upon that consciousness. As long as the software runs fast and effortlessly, who cares about the brain chip.

A couple of other things that haven't been mentioned yet:

A major reason why Apple is shifting to Intel is because the PowerPC chip runs much too hot for Apple to come out with a G5 laptop, and IBM/Motorola didn't really have anything in the works to solve this situation. That was a big concern for Apple because more people are moving toward laptops over having towers. With such a small share of the overall market, Apple absolutely can't risk having their already thin slice of the pie get any smaller.

Another reason for Apple switching chips to Intel microprocessors may be because Intel is making serious inroads into the portable/celular world. This could enable Apple to come up with some pretty interesting options to further leverage the iPod craze. Maybe they might even be working on a reincarnation of the Newton, but as a predominantly media/gaming device.

And here's another big reason why Apple wants to switch to an Intel: dual-core processors, which overcome some of the limitations of single-core processors. Here's two links about this: (1), (2).

I also agree with others that there's no way in hell Steve Jobs would ever agree to have that fugly "Intel Inside" Sticker permanently afixed to an Apple computer. If anything, there might be one of those easily peeled-off clear stickers. However, if for some god-forsaken reason there was a more permanent imprint, it's nothing that a little rubbing alcohol or lacquer thinner would remove.

Finally, on a related note, about a decade ago when I was working for Berkeley Systems (remember flying toasters and the fish tank screen savers?), we did this HILARIOUS little spoof promo where we had sticker on some of our boxes that said, "Sea-monkeys Inside!" Of course, it was abruptly stopped when Intel's lawyers sent a rather threatening letter to the President. (BTW, the two founders of that company later went on to found MoveOn.org.)

I am design director for a major PC company. Putting that little Intel sticker on a PC is worth MILLIONS of dollars in kickbacks from Intel. With the pressure on the bottomline results these days few can walk away.............

Not to nitpick, but the PowerPC logo was prominently displayed on the front face of all new Macs for a while after the processor's introduction. Not exactly "transparent." If memory serves, it wasn't dropped until the introduction of the blue-case G3.

Um, R, maybe the word "kickback" isn't the best way to describe it. I'm guess it's probably positioned as "co-marketing"... even though it's a bit like a kickback. ;-)

Wouldn't it be divisive for Apple to ignore this new ingredient?

There must be an inoffensive solution set in one line of 7 pt Myriad.

Wouldn't it be divisive for Apple to ignore this new ingredient?

There must be an inoffensive solution set in one line of 7 pt Myriad.

Why put a sticker/badge on the machine, when they can just put a logo on the box and posters in the stores? Point of Sale recognition, hardware doesn't get uglified. Simple.

Also, the Rosetta-driven transition looks like it'll be a minor pain (when it comes to software dev) that Apple will work hard to make as transparent as possible to us end users. Though it may spur some to jump to Leopard in late '06/early'07, which I'll assume is being designed to perform optimally on the new chipset.

Intels in Macs, PowerPCs in Xboxes. What's the world coming to?

Why put a sticker/badge on the machine, when they can just put a logo on the box and posters in the stores? Point of Sale recognition, hardware doesn't get uglified. Simple.

Also, the Rosetta-driven transition looks like it'll be a minor pain (when it comes to software dev) that Apple will work hard to make as transparent as possible to us end users. Though it may spur some to jump to Leopard in late '06/early'07, which I'll assume is being designed to perform optimally on the new chipset.

Intels in Macs, PowerPCs in Xboxes. What's the world coming to?

Yes, what's the world coming to? And who'd have thought that Macromedia & Adobe would marry?

Still, in my original post, I labeled this a merger, when in fact, it's closer to an alliance or partnership.

Semantics aside, I'm curious to see how much Apple (or Jobs) plays a part in the marketing and communication materials for this match made in... (heaven?)

Yes, I'll go out on a limb. This will be a heavenly mixture. As any Dell or Gateway fanatic will tell you, the speed of their Intel-based machines has always exceeded that of Apple's. Dell had a 1Ghz chip long before the G4.

Semantics aside, I'm curious to see how much Apple (or Jobs) plays a part in the marketing and communication materials for this match made in... (heaven?)

Jobs seems to micromanage the entire operation at Apple. I assume he has final say in pretty much everything.

As any Dell or Gateway fanatic will tell you

There are no such things as Dell or Gateway fanatics. ;o)

I'd take a gander that it will be displayed, but it won't be a sticker...

Everyone flip over there iBooks, Ti books, Clamshells, or look on the back of your imacs or G5s. On there you'll see somewhere some really plain, simple, & informative information concerning the design and copywrite on that product.

That's where I forsee the Intel logo going. Probably big as day on the underside of our machines, but at least it'd be lineart in grey...

Here's some speculation that it may actually wind up being a merger."

...you know, in an effort to take down Microsoft.

Well, Cringley always makes for good theories. ;o)

Cringley was interviewed this morning on NPR. I have to admit, his theory makes some sense now that I've thought about it.

Funny... this has been discussed on several different boards, that no one has looked at, judging from the comments.

The use of Intel chips is a great step for Mac/Apple, considering the processors currently being used is unable to break the 3.5 Ghz barrier. Where the intel cheaps are still making leaps and bounds and mulitplying speed by 2's and 4's.

I read something about the advertising w/ the blue man group vs the use of the solid colors. Who cares... most advertising departments are totally out of touch with reality either way. I hate both ads respectively.

I'm a graphic designer and I design under windows and linux. haven't touched a mac since high school. Programming w/ a windows or linux system is remarkably easier... no offense. I love doing the design layout on mac's... so don't get me wrong. I'm just saying keep an open mind... and be prepared for Mac to finally packing some power behind their punches!