Yes, it was called the Get a Mac campaign, as I said below. The 'I'm a mac, I'm a pc' ads.
Yes, and those ads started
after Apple switched the Mac to the "PC" architecture. Now the two machines are basically the same thing, except that one runs a different OS, comes in a fancier box, and costs a lot more.
Really, the Mac vs PC dichotomy was invented in 2006 ????
The
false dichotomy started then. Because that was
after Apple switched the Mac to the "PC" architecture. Now the two machines are basically the same thing, except that one runs a different OS, comes in a fancier box, and costs a lot more.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-934349.html?tag=mncol;txt
June 9,
2002 8:25 PM PDT
Apple Computer is planning a series of TV and print ads featuring people who tell why they switched from a PC to a Mac.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-961994.html
October 14,
2002 4:36 PM PDT
An ad, titled "Confessions of a Mac to PC convert," was posted to Microsoft's Web site last week
Microsoft even had thier own ads refering to Mac vs PC.
But you claim that dichotomy didn't exist before 2006.
So what? Even if they did, it's
beside the point. PC and Mac were
entirely different kinds of machines back in 2002. PCs were Intel
x86 and Macs were PowerPC.
Ever since 2006, they're both
the same kind of machine, Intel
x86 "PC" computers. I really can't believe you're having such a difficult time understanding this.
There was a valid argument to make that comparison then, before Apple switched the Mac to the "PC" architecture. Now the two machines are basically the same thing, except that one runs a different OS, comes in a fancier box, and costs a lot more.
Please stop beating this dead Mac vs PC horse. I really don't want to hear how that was a 'different' Mac vs PC or other such nonsense.
I'm not the one beating a dead horse. I'm not the one trying to say either one is any better than the other.
I'm saying that the two machines are basically the same thing, except that one runs a different OS, comes in a fancier box, and costs a lot more.
You are correct - you can. I was imprecise. You may not, according to to apples software license. And 99% of the computer using world can't (technically doesn't have the ability).
Nonsense. 99% of the computer-using world is not so inept that you seem to think they are, that they need to rely on a hand-holding OS like Apple OSX. That's an
argumentum ad populum, a
hasty generalization, and a
misuse of statistics—a trifecta of logical fallacy!
So, for all intents and purpose, apple gear is what you can legally run OS X on. So it's Mac (apple gear with OSX) versus PC.
So again, you change your definition to fit the argument. Sorry, but no. You're still wrong.
I have not changed my definition at all, because I'm not playing semantic word games to make my point. I'm discussing
the physical properties of actual objects, and how Apple's marketing misrepresents those things to perpetuate a false dichotomy.
Macs are PCs. They're the same damn architecture, the same hardware, except that one runs a different OS, comes in a fancier box, and costs a lot more.
The ads are disingenuous and negative. Step out of your own state of denial, take a deep breath, and just
deal with it.
I was making a point about definitions, and how you arbitrarily interpret them in once instance, but not another.
I haven't done that at all. I have always defined PCs as personal computers built on the
x86 "PC" architecture. I've been saying that all along, because that's the general industry definition of a PC.
Sure, an Apple might manufacture several lines of "personal computers," but that's not specifically what makes them "PCs." Neither is the running of Microsoft Windows definitive of a "PC." Because, you see, the abbreviation "PC" refers to a specific
architecture, not an OS. "PC" computers can run a wide variety of OSs, including Mac OSX.
It's not a false dichotomy. You are just so focused on the hardware you are unable to step back and see the complete picture.
I'm "focused on the hardware" because the
hardware is what the designation "PC" specifically represents!
It's not me who's having trouble seeing the "big picture." You're perceiving the entire computer industry as it's been distorted by the warped lens of Apple's misleading advertising.
Maybe a little history lesson will help clear things up for you:
The term "PC" started way back in the mid-1980s. It was a derivation from the
IBM Personal Computer brand, and referred specifically to that particular machine.
Windows did not even exist back when that term was created. The IBM PC went on to dominate the home computer market, and its architecture was copied by numerous companies. All Intel
x86 computers, regardless what company they were made by or what OS they ran, were then referred to as "PC-compatibles."
Eventually the word "compatibles" was dropped, and just the initialization "PC" was used to refer to all machines by any manufacturer, built upon the Intel
x86 standard architecture. The "PC" term was used to mean any
x86 machine, regardless whether they were running PC-DOS, MS-DOS, Windows, OS/2, BeOS, Linux, any other flavor of
x86 UNIX (like Solaris, HP-UX or AIX), etc.
You said Macs aren't PCs because the designation "PC" means Windows, but that is categorically
wrong. Lots of people got that false impression from those "I'm a Mac" commercials, but it's a blatant
false dichotomy. For since 20 years before those commercials started airing, the term "PC" stood to mean a specific architecture that hosts a number of operating systems,
including Mac OSX. With those ads, Apple essentially tried to change the standard meaning of "PC" to mean something other than the architecture that it has always stood to represent—the same arch that Apple Macintoshes also have—and change that definition to mean something about the OS, which is wrong.
If your claim is that using the terms Mac vs PC , which Apple , MS and the entire tech industry has been doing for over a decade, as I demonstrated, is exceptionally deceptive (and thats the only marketing I recall you discussing), your claim fails. It's not even deceptive, much less exceptionally so.
Yes it is deceptive. It's marketing being use to obfuscate objective facts. The Intel
x86 hardware platform has always been the designation of the term "PC." It's just another case of Apple's smug and arrogant advertising trying to mislead and misinform the consumer with lies.
Apple lie shamelessly with many of their ads. Here's another example: when Apple made ads claiming that the iPhone was the only device in its class that could read email and send pictures through text messaging, and "there's an app for that,
only on the iPhone." They made these claims despite the fact that for nearly a decade, other smartphone platforms like Windows CE/Windows Mobile and Blackberry
already had mobile apps to do a lot of the same functions that Apple were touting. Yet the Apple ads are full of smarmy lies to fool consumers into thinking they'd singlehandedly invented all these great ideas that they'd really just copied from others.
And again, the 'outrageously high price' has already been refuted as well.
No, it most certainly has not. It's been demonstrated at least 3 times already in different posts.
