Intel Inside was actually a tricky way for Intel to undercut their competitors.

You had to apply to the Intel Inside option. You don't need to do anything to avoid it. If you are accepted, you get a kickback from Intel for every chip. Part of the condition is you put a little sticker in plain site.

Any manufacturer could have shipped their machines without the Intel inside sticker, they just wouldn't get that moneyback.

I wonder how much they pay per sticker?

I wonder if there should be consumer protection laws that require anyone selling a product to disclose all the kickbacks they receive on that product to the buyer?

I would love to know how much each product placement in a movie cost, how much some shady third-party paid to have their bloatware installed on all new laptops from a particular vendor, how much it cost to set the default browser, how much a TV manufacturer was paid to include a "smart TV" device in their product, etc..

Would love to see actual numbers my Android and PC OEMs receive to install bloatware.

I bet it's not even any substantial sums, just enough to get some beancounter to push for it.

For LG phones, it's their own bloatware. Not even as good as the Android equivalents. LG even have their own, unremovable parallel system for software updates.

Such a shame because the hardware is nice.

That is for a different purpose though, lock in.

The idea being that if all phones ran the same software no one would choose their phone on brand but rather on what particular phone was best suited for their needs.

But that's not good enough, manufacturers create a custom feel solely because customers will get accustomed and need to relearn if they choose another manufacturer.

It doesn't matter if their software is worse than stock (and they all are (much much) worse), the only thing that matters is that it is unique.

I would love to know how much Oracle made from the drive by installs of bloatware on Java on Windows.

IIRC the Intel Inside sticker got OEMs a better price on the CPU. Apple probably agreed to pay the higher price and not have their sleek hardware cases sullied by the presence of a (gasp) sticker.

Or perhaps there was enough incentive for Intel to get rid of the last remaining PowerPC platform in end-user computing. Certainly in volume alone Apple doesn't represent a very significant supplier of Intel-based computers.

Apple has more market power than you think -- they focus on a few models, those models sell like hot cakes and Apple pays for guarantees to get inventory. For Intel that means their factories keep pumping out chips like clockwork and inventory is low.

Dell or HP sells more units, but in 300 or more SKUs each. Apple is different enough to get better terms.

This. Intel does not make money from the CPU in the broader sense, they make money by running their production lines at full tilt and getting paid for what comes off them.

You didn't get better pricing you did get marketing money.

Money is fungible, so de facto you got a lower price.

Money is fungible, so de facto I got a lower price on my house by eating cheap ramen noodles for lunch.

Ability to get stickers is contingent on actually buying the CPU first. Buying ramen isn't contingent on first buying a house.

The post you replied to is saying "A rebate is de facto a discount."

Did you buy a batch load of ramen from the same supplier as your house?

A CPU is more essential to a computer than ramen for lunch is to a house.

Eating ramen noodles made home ownership more affordable for you.

Intel Inside program was never mandatory.

Possibly part of the reason that other manufacturers did join the programme is that they thought it would help them sell more of their PCs. That was unlikely to be the case with Apple, who had their own marketing and didn't need a sticker to sell a laptop.