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.
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.
> 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.
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