I would like to start my blog by referring to the history in order to better understand why the notion “Intel Inside” should be used in data. Initially, “Intel Inside” was the marketing campaign launched by Intel to popularize the brand. Apart from manufacturing central processing units, Intel started production of motherboards. Intel’s products gave small companies a level playing field in competing with large computer manufacturers. As a matter of fact, Intel marketing campaign made Intel’s CPUs and motherboards so popular that the brand outside the computer “box” was not as crucial as the brand inside the computer. Thus, many choices of buying computer relied on the label of “Intel Inside” rather than the logo of computer manufacturer.
The emergence of Web 2.0 led to the reassessment of computer parameters that were critical for end users. By transferring the vast majority of services to Web, network speed and browser usability became of primary importance over operating systems and computer hardware: “The functionality and the data all live out on the Web, and the real race now is about who will own and control that data (for example, location, identity, calendars)” (Oehlert, 2008).
Shifting the “Intel Inside” concept to modern information systems would mean that this is not software that is valuable but rather data within it. One popular example are social networks. Many companies build their marketing campaign on collecting the information from user profiles in Facebook. Facebook has already segmented audience by various criteria which increase the value of data rather than the application. For instance, NavTeq – the company owning the database of maps – imitated Intel Inside strategy: cars with navigation have the imprint “NavTeq Onboard” (similarly to “Intel Inside” on computers). It was not until Google, Yahoo! and other competitors entered the digital mapping industry that NavTeq understood that data ownership is the most important aspect in Web 2.0 sphere. O’Reilly claims that there will be several types of the pivotal data: “The race is on to own certain classes of core data: location, identity, calendaring of public events, product identifiers and namespaces” (O’Reilly, 2005). He predicts two scenarios of gaining supremacy in each category: 1) creating a single source of data (Intel Inside style) superseding competitors; 2) becoming the first in the category to gather huge amount of users.
Oehlert, M. (2008, September 15). Change 2.0: How does e-learning 2.0 affect organizational culture? Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/86/change-20-how-does-e-learning-20-affect-organizational-culture
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Retrieved from HYPERLINK “http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1”