Intel to revamp corporate identity. New Core logos!

[Nena Trinity]

I dont like it!

[kakik09]

It pains me to see just where the focus is for this company. Not engineering, but marketing. 

[5x5]

4 minutes ago, kakik09 said:

It pains me to see just where the focus is for this company. Not engineering, but marketing. 

I mean *gestures broadly at Apple, Samsung, Razer, Dell and etc*

 

Many big players have been releasing shit and spending several times more marketing it than developing it. Just look at the XPS machines or the abysmal MaCbooks in the past 5 years. Or the horrid peripheral quality and unimpressive phones.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, X-System said:

I prefer Pentium III logo.

 

 

It made me want to buy a Pentium III processor when I saw Pentium III commercial on TV but I was too young to buy it  (20 years ago)

I had a P3 733 with 128M ram and a voodoo3 3500.    I was never taken by the advertising but I was certainly impressed with the gaming performance for the price. 

[Tech_Dreamer]

it looks okay , with the shiny hologram on the print background it should look better.

[mr moose]

22 minutes ago, kakik09 said:

It pains me to see just where the focus is for this company. Not engineering, but marketing. 

AMD was doing that only yesterday, they all do it unfortunately.  The real problem is that companies have to employ marketers to market their wares.  if they employed honest people they would only sell products when they actually had the best and cheapest product that came with a free fountain of youth. 

[X-System]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I had a P3 733 with 128M ram and a voodoo3 3500.    I was never taken by the advertising but I was certainly impressed with the gaming performance for the price. 

I had a Pentium II 233 with 32MB RAM and ATI Rage Pro 8MB AGP. When I saw Pentium III commercial on TV, I said I would like to have a Pentium III but I could not and I just stayed on my Pentium II for many years (upgraded to PII 333 -> 350 with motherboard 440BX -> 450, all used) before to get a Pentium 4 upgrade

[spartaman64]

intel: delays 7nm and stock goes down* intel: do you know what our problem is? our logos

[LukaH]

terrible! BUT if you want to blend in for a while because your cpu's aren't as good as your competition.... job well done!

[yian88]

New logos new leadership same shit prices and fails

[5x5]

Made a new logo for Intel. Hope they hire me now

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, 5x5 said:

 

Many big players have been releasing shit and spending several times more marketing it than developing it. 

Well, that may not be unrelated to them becoming and/or remainign big players...

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

AMD was doing that only yesterday, they all do it unfortunately. 

AMD is doing it now. They were showing "red bar tall, blue bar short" charts and they continue to do so.

 

I get that a forum like this will be biased towards what they feel closer to home (engineering) and and against what they don't know (marketing, business management), but truly speaking, there is no dichotomy between having good products and doing effective (not necessarily honest) marketing. People comment as if bad marketing caused bad products, or there was some form of trade-off between developing products and marketing them. There isn't, certainly not in an industry where the smallest player is gigantic.

To be fair, one could make a stronger case for engineering, not marketing, being the problem: marketers have to deal with whatever product they are given. If it is terrible, they still have to come up with some "red bar tall, blue bar short" (or the opposite in this case ) chart because "hey, your product is shit" won't be deemed an acceptable excuse if (when) the sales go down. Marketers didn't create Bulldozer nor failed at developing a manufacturing process. Conversely, the performance and cost-saving success of Zen don't make the "AMD good gamer PRO exxxxtreme" campaigns any better.

At the end of the day, a big organization requires all its parts working correctly, and you can't blame one of them doing good (or bad, or merely existing, as it's often the case with marketing here) for the failures of the other. Leadership at the top has to identify where the bigger problems are and finding solutions for them (latest resignation news sound like they are doing exactly that), but everyone else just has to make the most of their area taken what other areas are delivering as given.

 

 

Sorry engineers and engineer-wannabes reading this, but technology development and product quality is on your camp, enough sweeping under the bean-counter-strawman carpet.

[Senzelian]

11 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

I think a legit claim requires that the use of the branding can cause people confusion and that one company's product be mistaken for being from the other company. Cars and computer hardware exist in separate markets and aren't things that can confuse shoppers easily. But storage drives and CPUs (and intel also makes SSDs) exist in the same market of PC hardware and can confuse shoppers into thinking they're from the same company a lot more easily - especially when the font looks so similar.

Fair point.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

29 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Management sets the goals and constraints. Saying you want an unreasonable density using a suboptimal manufacturing technique and not having a backup is a risk management failure.

 

It might be; my point is that it's not the fault of the guy being told "refresh our corporate image" or "make some material explaining how our product is better" regardless of whether it is. I mean, I said it's the top management's job to identify sources of problems and finding solution or mitigation strategies: they may very well fail, or not be the best at that, but that's not on the folks downstream in any area.

i also disagree with last WAN show's comment about the issue being Engineer background vs. Finance background or similar: there is no particular background that would make you systematically better for top management tasks. In fact, I'd say a big part of being a good manager higher up is to fully understand that you have only one background, whichever that may be, so you are almost never the most knowledgeable guy in the room in a big organization (personal experience tells me Engineering backgrounds don't correlate particularly well with accepting limitations in knowledge ). Aggregating information from better informed, lower-level sources and putting together the big picture is a skill in itself. And tough decisions made on such big-picture understanding are often not understood by lower level staff with only partial insights, who will then complain about "the higher ups" without really understanding what's going on.

 

Anyway, i digress: I was mostly saying that the guy making a CPU box has the same job whether they are putting the most revolutionary CPU in history or the biggest flop inside  

[samcool55]

Damn they look boring, but they are known to do some crappy designs so it's not a big surprise.

I mean look at the 4000-series boxart, who tf greenlit that? It looks like crap.

[DrMacintosh]

Bruh, the person selected to make these designs just pulled off the biggest con of the Design Industry. 

[Bombastinator]

14 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Bruh, the person selected to make these designs just pulled off the biggest con of the Design Industry. 

Nah.  Remember this is marketing you’re talking about.  The science of the corporate con job.  Things get much much worse.

 

 The original marloboro rebranding, now that was an awesome con. Miles above this one.  Marlboro was originally a “women’s” cigarette.  They had red filter covers to hide lipstick. 
 

Another famous one was the “big red spot” designed to get around attempts to limit liquor advertising

[spartaman64]

what do you guys think? intel should hire me instead? Kappa

[5x5]

31 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

what do you guys think? intel should hire me instead? Kappa

Mine is better

[wall03]

7 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Mine is better

it still looks unpolished.

 

I currently prefer @Pascal...'s but if you seriusly polish it up I would consider it as kinda like the Intel of Sooubway (TheOdd1sOut reference)

 

edit: you both need some polishing werk but good rough ideas

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Mine is better

Doesn’t work as a logo.  Amongst other things  It’s got partial obscuration and size reading problems.  Logos are one of the most time consuming, expensive, and most heavily tested things design companies do.

[Steamed Hams]

Eh not a fan of the new design, I've always had a soft spot for the sandy bridge badges these are a little too minimalist

[rogerwilco91]

8 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

what do you guys think? intel should hire me instead? Kappa

The 7 looks like it belongs to the Philadelphia 76ers NBA basketball team. Change the font for the 7 perhaps? 

 

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, rogerwilco91 said:

The 7 looks like it belongs to the Philadelphia 76ers NBA basketball team. Change the font for the 7 perhaps? 

 

That 7 isn’t a font.  It’s hand drawn. I think it may be supposed to represent cloth.  A flag maybe.  A 76er is a person who fought in the early American Revolutionary War.  The “6rs” is a very standard font though I forget which one.  I recall the can’t on the e being very specific to a certain font family though.  Sports teams are generally very old.  Basketball teams less so so they follow the rules of such things even more closely.  They have to reference older designs because the fan base demands continuity.  Looking at the evolution of the company logo I suspect the 6rs was thrown on later.  I suspect the team came into existence in 1976.  The bicentennial celebration was a gigantic marketing thing.

[JoeCoke]

yooooo glad they got their priorities straight! These new logos are gonna fix everything! So glad they decided to go with the "souless and boring" look that most companies go with! This is progress!