Talk:Get a Mac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Quote / transcripts

Whoever keeps changing the synopsis for the "Better" ad to a quote-for-quote transcript, STOP. The point of these little bits is to summarize the content, not give a second-by-second breakdown. Changing it to a transcript will only confuse people who have not yet seen the ads, and helps none with the article. -- Anonymous. 00:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

Should this be moved to Get a Mac ad campaign? -- Rspeed

Yes McDonaldsGuy 01:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resemblance

I've removed the line "The two characters bear a resemblence to Bill Gates and a young Steve Jobs.", as it seems POV, and/or original research. If there is some major editorial source that has made this connection we can put it back in with a citation. --DDG 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factually Incorrect?

Can someone give examples of how the Mac claims are factually incorrect? Not only should this assertion be backed up for reference purposes, but I'm thinking about switching to a Mac soon and I need to know these things! PeteJayhawk 02:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect and/or misleading. I should mention I'm a PC user and have a bias. *goes down the list of commercials...*

1. More PC's get viruses because thet make up 90% of computers, while Mac makes up about 5%. Macs don't get viruses, not because of some high tech ad/spyware or anti-virus software, because because their userbase is so insignifcant for malicious coders.

Partially, but it's also generally a far less friendly environment for viruses. Linux, for example, has plenty of attackers (I see people knocking on my SSH all the time), but virtually no worms/viruses.

That still doesn't really address the issue. If 90% of computers were run on Linux (say, if 90% of computers were Macs) then there would be just about as many viruses, because the hackers would put effort into exploiting it, just as they exploit PCs. Would a hacker really waste their time on around 5% of computer users?

Incidently, the same week I saw this commercial for the first time, there was a news story about a virus that only affected Macs. --Billdorr 23:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That is complete B.S. Market share doesn't mean a thing, just look at Apache vs. IIS, or the market share of *nix in the server market. Furthermore most attacks are automated anyways. 24.87.114.179 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Granted, but restarting is only a minor annoyance.

Sometimes. I remember the old Mac bomb, particularly, coming up at the worst times. Glad we don't see that anymore. --70.177.196.96

I'd love to see a cite for this. In my experience, hour for hour, I've had to restart my Powerbook at least as often as my Windows desktop. I also remember near-constant crashing on old Macs (680x0, System 7.x), but that was years ago and I suppose it isn't relevant to the current ad campaign. --Mr2001 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Since such technologies have existed, I've never encountered a PC that couldn't burn and rip movies and DVDs, edit pictures, etc. The implied Mac monopoly on such actions is bogus. There are, however, technologies for the PC that aren't available for the Mac. Mainly, games. I think they just now ported Pong over to the Mac. (slight exxageration)

I have seen plenty of Windows machines that couldn't burn and rip movies and DVDs and stuff, and the default picture editing (Paint?) is silly. This is mostly getting better (except Paint; they've got other programs shipping with it now).

What kinds of Windows machines? I thought it was "PC vs Mac", not "Windows vs Mac"? Regardless, I bet the computer did not have the ability because it did not have the hardware installed (especially since it just recently has become a mainstream thing). As I don't own the new Macs, I can't say what picture editing software comes 'bundled' with the software. Personally I own Photoshop, so it's not a problem. Most people, I stress that, never even use Paint, or any editing software, and I'd be hard pressed to believe that any professional (or amature that's interested) would use anything less than something they'd go buy themselves.

I disagree. All PCs (of a sufficiently modern technology level, but we're comparing modern PCs and Macs here) have the capability to burn CDs, edit photos, make albums. The only difference is that if you WANT to burn CDs, you have to get a PC with a burner, and Mac happens to include proprietary software to do those things. Windows includes proprietary browser software and people have a fit and call them antitrust. Mac includes proprietary iLife and it's a selling point. ::shrug:: TheHYPO 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim wasn't "CDs", it was ripping and buring DVDs. It takes a DVD burn-capable drive to actually burn a DVD. Now burning CDs... XP computers have that function built in, as well as most computers coming with their own software bundled in, Dell for example bundles software, and previous computers of mine came with a full version of Nero), and if the drive is burn capable (as almost every single computer has been for CDs for at least the last 6-7 years) you can burn a CD. However, DVD burning (as was refered to) is a new technology, and frankly, a lot of people downgrade their selections because frankly, they would rather save a few dollars then have a DVD R/RW they'll never use. Radagast83 14:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, DVD burning... again, as long as the buyer gets a PC with a burner (which is at their discretion - you can't say PC can't do it because buyers CHOOSE not to get it), PC has lots of software for DVD authoring. Just because it's not included, doesn't mean the PC is not capable. That's like saying mac can't do wireless keyboards and mice just because they don't come packaged with macs. TheHYPO 15:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

4. PCs have similiar and equal programs for the PC that iLife offers for the Mac.

Disclaimer: Not a mac user. Mac has the UI experience down pretty well. There's a huge amount to be said for smooth, easy interface design, and Apple has jumped way ahead of Microsoft there. The facts of what programs are available discount how easy and comfortable to use they actually are. (Note: Windows Movie Maker is pretty good.)

Again, you're not differentiating between PC and Windows. Becides some attempts, Microsoft has only really been "sucessful" with it's Outlook and Office programs (IE is still popular, but only because Firefox is so "new").

Note that this isn't Microsoft vs. Apple. It's PC vs. Apple.

Exactly, the user who mentioned "Apple has jumped way ahead of Microsoft" made the mistake. Radagast83 14:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Most PC periphials are plug and play. Stick the USB cord in the USB slot, and you're set.

Absolutely. Like the "Windows crashes if you look at it funny" commercial, this one is just blatently false. What hardware manufacturer would alienate the majority of computer users by creating new products that only would interface with Macs? --Billdorr 23:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Mac offers that it is simply "one man's opinion." Sounds about right.

7. Hooking up a PC and removing bloatware takes about 5 seconds, and no one bothers to read manuals, anyway :-P. Actually, if Macs didn't come with manuals, I'd be worried.

One doesn't have to get a Dell or similar machine that actually comes with installed programs; though that is admittedly the most popular way of buying them. Do you really not need to plug your mouse or keyboard in on a mac? Cause all you have to plug in on the PC to get going are your keyboard, mouse, power, monitor and speakers - I assume the latter two are the only ones Mac doesn't have to do. Big deal? TheHYPO 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The point made about plug-and-play was made to the borderline-fradulent "Out of the Box" Mac ad. A PC is ready "out of the box" just as much as a Mac because frankly, you won't see a competent computer company sending parts seperately. Radagast83 14:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

8. Yay, Macs can run Windows. The fact that they need to kind of proves that Mac OS X is inferior. And the touche thing has nothing to do with computers.

Disclaimer: Not a mac user. That doesn't really 'prove' anything -- the stated goal is to soften/ease the transition.

And then what? If you can run Windows on a Mac, why would anyone ever switch to Mac OS X if you chose to get Windows installed on it? Why get a Mac anyway if you're going to use Windows on it?

Many people (I assume, I know a few) use XP and MacOS equally on their macs, depending on what they want to do. Game on the PC side, garageband, ilife, other stuff on the mac side. TheHYPO 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

9. Same as 3 and 4.

If only I weren't lazy, and could be bothered to find sources and edit the article myself.Preston 03:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My PC shut down on me while reading number 2. No joke. 68.2.143.22 06:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Was it your fault? I have two PCs (one desktop, one laptop), and they shut down against my will probably once every 6 months. And it's usually because I messed something up. :-P Preston 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but at least with a mac, the user interface isn't similar to the décor at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles. --74.129.147.244 02:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added my own responses to a few of the other person's responses above (ones with bullets). I'm sure that if cited sources were found, the warranted criticism could be expanded. Radagast83 02:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the above section to be incredibly silly.

Hey, fellow Mac users! Some people just aren't cut out to be Mac users. Let 'em wallow in mediocrity if they want. You can drag a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. PC types maximize--we zoom. Let's keep the distinction meaningful. Ng;jt 14:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your statement. I have posted a partial response to these silly statements on my website http://web.mac.com/mrsteveee/iWeb/Apple_Avenger/Myths.html and I will continue to include additional responses as my time permits. Steve 21:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)MrSteveee

I'd email this, but you don't seem to have an address listed over there: you might want to look at more brands than just Dell when comparing prices. For about $1100, you can order an HP laptop (dv5000t series) with specs nearly identical to the $2000 15" MacBook Pro. --Mr2001 04:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Your website doesn't respond to any of the critisisms of these ad campaigns. I see 3 major topics - Mac can Game, Mac is not overpriced, and Mac isn't worse just because fewer people use them. I don't see any of those really having any connection to this ad campaign which doesn't address any of those issues... TheHYPO 04:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iLife

I think the iLife ad needs a bit more clarity. Particularly if you (as I don't) understand the connection to the 'ipod halo effect'. Anyone want to clarify the ad, perhaps linking what's actually in the ad to the concept of halo effect?

[edit] What's A PC?

The latest edit suggests that "PC is unclear" in that Mac is becoming more PC like... does anyone else feel this way? I think PC is pretty clearly defined as computers (usually windows computers) that aren't Macs... most people know what a "PC" is, right? TheHYPO 16:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on context, but I agree that it's pretty clear that in this context, "PC" indicates a non-Mac, probably one that runs Windows. Some people who wish to get really technical would argue that a PC indicates any computer used in the home (or perhaps even in small business settings as well), but in common usage, a PC is generally a non-Mac. – Mipadi 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should a Non-Mac be a "PC" when they are essentially the same thing? They use the same hardware, serve the same purpose, and run the same software. Dell uses proprietary hardware and software, yet its considered a "PC" by most people, however, Dell would love consumers to think it was something different (i.e. "dude you're getting a Dell!") The critisism is that Apple is confusing consumers into thinking they are buying something fundamentally different. I think this is a legitimate concern, but I will try to get some sources of similar criticism. --Wesman83 16:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care what a Dell is. This isn't a debate about what a PC really is, this is a debate about what is considered a PC for the purposes of what this commercial is referring to when it says PC. I don't think that's in question. As for what a PC should ACTUALLY refer to, I would suggest that the talk page of the PC article would be a better forum (assuming they disagree with you in that article...) Apple being a non-PC is historical. in 1991, a PC and an Apple were totally different. You might argue that Apples have become PCs, but again, that is an argument for the Apple article. For the sake of this article, Apple considers itself non-PC for the same reasons that most of the public do. It may RUN windows, but it still has it's own OS side. I don't think Apple is countering Linux in it's commercials. it's countering Windows-based machines. Those still can't run MacOS. Mac may be able to run WinXP, but it can also run MacOS. I don't think this needs to be debated in this article... TheHYPO 21:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have heard heard many criticism about how Apple is misusing the term PC in these commercials. This is something that should be noted in the article under the criticism section. Btw, the term PC predates IBM's and Apple's use of it. Apple marketing basically wants people to think generic computer when they hear PC (which I suppose is supposed to refer to windows running on intel machines). Then when people hear that Macs are not PCs (which they are) then the consumer thinks they are something more special than the generic computer. This much detail isn't relevant to the article, but it should at least be noted that a criticism of these ads exist on these terms. Jdufresne 21:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

TheHYPO has hit the nail on the head here: its a historical difference in hardware and software that no longer exists (at least exists to the point that Dell and HP use different hardware), so who cares about history? It's a valid criticism to say that Apple is riding on their past to try to elevate their products of today. So I ask you, if we take Windows and OSX out of the equation, lets say we have Linux installed on both an X86 Apple and Dell, what essentially is the difference? They look different, they cost different amounts... but is that enough of a difference to say that an Apple computer deserves its own special category of personal computer? Now that OSX and Windows can both be run on the same platform, why does Apple think its product is still worthy of it's prior image? You can disagree with me all you want, but that doesnt change the fact that these are valid criticisms of a consumer product ad campaign. --Wesman83 23:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Its the conceptual idea of a PC and Mac that some people have problems getting down, which in order to understand it the history of these terms should be written down. As far back as I can remember the PC was coined by IBM's PC, but I could be wrong since there were plently of other computers developing back then. Basically it was a computer that average person can afford to buy and use at the comfort of their homes, hence a personal computer. Personally I just see them as terms that have been coined by different large businesses, but nothing more and nothing less.

As I said, it's mainly historical, but until very recently (VERY recently), mac had it's own hardware, AND its own operating system (which it still does the latter). What term would you suggest the commercials use to indicate the Windows-based PC? I'm just curious because I can't think of a clear and easy word besides PC (which I think most people understand the meaning of for these ads). Even though Mac CAN run XP now, it still not designed for XP, it's designed for MacOS. In some respects, an XBox is a PC - but I don't think Mac is comparing their product to an Xbox in these ads...

The problem is that the Mac ads are trying to say that their product is categorically different than other products which are essentially the same thing. Its decieving and its preventing the typical layperson computershopper from understanding what they are buying. What is a Mac? Is it the hardware? Is it the OS? What is a PC? Is my Ubuntu box a PC? Is your Xbox a PC? Is a hacked Xbox running linux a PC? These questions are not easily answered because the definitions are fuzzy and Apple is taking advatange of peoples ignorance on the subject. I contend this is a valid concern. --Wesman83 23:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've said again, What is a PC? Difficult question. What is a PC for the sake of these ads? Not a difficult question. You opinion about Apple taking advantage of people's ignorance might be a valid issue, but it's a personal opinion and/or original research. If you can cite a source on such things, you're welcome to add it to crititism, but the fact that it's an opinion makes it invalid for adding to wikipedia on its face. As I'm sure you probably know, Macs only gained windows capability very recently, (particularly actual official support of running XP on a mac which only happened in the last few months). Other PCs (as far as I know) don't run MacOS. So until about a few months ago, Macs had a very distinct difference in as far as they had a completely different OS (which requires completely different software) than windows-based PCs. Even tho they can now run Windows, they still do primarily run MacOS (Windows is not supported specificially, tho they have software to run it, if it screws up your Mac, they won't help you).

If you look at software from the past 15 years, it has always been classified as Mac or PC (and sometimes more accurately labeled Windows versions. Mac didn't make up that categorization, that's simply the naming convention that was created years ago when IBM-compatable was to bulky to say, and IBM lost its stake as the computer to be compatable with as they stopped making PCs I'm guessing (and it's just a guess) that the convention 'PC' came from 'IBM-Compatable PC' when the IBM-Compatable was dropped for brevity. Either way, While I may argue that Mac is or isn't the same as an a dedicated Windows machine, I think that the fact that it still has its own OS and own software makes it at least somewhat valid that it be seen as unique from a Dell which can't run Mac, and can't therefore run iLife or any MacOS software, and MacOS and iLife are generally the issues in question in the commercials. The computers don't not get viruses because of the hardware; it's MacOS. They aren't better at whatever "life stuff" because of the hardware, it's the software. And I think it's pretty clear that what is being compared here is the computer from Apple, a Mac, which runs MacOS, unlike the PCs (specifically Windows PCs) that they are comparing themselves to. TheHYPO 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Wesman has hit his own nail on it's head and bent that nail, it seems. "If you take Windows and MacOS out of the equation..." but you can't take that out of the equation. MacOS runs only on the Mac. And as such, it's a different product from your Dell or HP. Because as I said above, if you look at the points Apple makes in the ads (and btw, I'm not a Mac guy - I'm totally a PC user, so this isn't any bias showing through), viruses, better and life stuff, networking, etc. That's all MacOS. The point of the Touché commercial can't be looked at as "We run windows, so Mac is identical to a PC", because the Mac still runs MacOS too. That's its (primary) unique aspect. It's OS. TheHYPO 23:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as long as I get this straight: if i take a generic computer and get OSX on it (via hacking, emulation, or if/when it is officially released without hardware restrictions) then it is now a "Mac" and not a "PC"? So why is it "Mac" VS "PC" instead of OSX VS Windows in the advertisements, when all they are really talking about is the operating system? In other words, if you arent trying to confuse people, why would you talk about something in the vague sense when what you really mean is more specific? I think the answer is because Apple wants to keep its elevated niche market image in the face of critisicm to go with an X86 proc. I agree that we (I) should find some other sources for this (although we should find some sources for the other critisicms as well, to be fair) --Wesman83 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Because as far as I'm aware, you can't buy OSX to port illegally over to a computer. It comes with a Mac computer. They are trying to sell their computers, not their OS on a CDrom. You can argue all you want about 'what they intend', but you can't post it on wikipedia without a citable source. I 100% believe they are slanting issues to their favour. Every company does that. They have 30 seconds for a commercial. They don't go into fine print in that kind of time. "I think the answer is because Apple wants to keep its elevated niche market image" Sure they do... but you can't say that on wikipedia. That's opinion, not fact. And no, if you go hacking a dell to get it to run OSX, it's not a Mac, because I believe Mac is a copyright of apple. It's a Dell box running OSX. But you can't go out and buy one of those from anyone that I know of. If I can emulate XBox games on my PC does it make my PC an Xbox? No. OSX what makes a Mac notably different from a PC which is what you asked for (Why is a Mac different from a windows PC). It is not what defines a computer as a Mac. A Mac is a computer made by Apple that has the name "Mac" attributed to it. What makes a Mac unique is OSX (previously hardware, now not so much. I'm in no way arguing that Apple isn't slanting issues, or that their Ads aren't exaggerating or downright lying. But that's opinion without citation. I'm merely saying that Macs are different than other PCs. Or else I could use Garageband on mine. Linux boxes are also different, but no company sells "The Linux Box". Not exclusively anyway. PCs in these ads aren't referring to Linux boxes anyway. I think anyone watching these commercials knows what "PC" means in this context. If you think they don't, that's your opinion and it's your right to it. I don't think Apple is expected to assume that Because you personally (and not the standard consumer) can hack a box to run OSX that they shouldn't consider their box, the only commercially available OSX box as in at least some way unique, then that's your opinion. I disagree. TheHYPO 05:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think you've made your case in this regard, and its fine with me if its taken off the article. But i do want to say that when they say PC, people think generic computer, like a Dell or something you buy at staples. But these computers can run other operating systems, besides windows. So Apple is saying that their computers are better at networking and life stuff or whatever than a generic computer running windows and a generic computer running linux. Yes its a generic critisicm of all ads that they dont cite and sources, but i think its nice to remind people not to get to caught up in unverified subjective and biased commercials. Thanks for a good discussion at any rate, wikipedia is great because it has these forums for debate! --Wesman83 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I'm glad that you don't appear to take it personally, because it's not intended that way. The thing is, these ads are marketing a Mac as an everyday computer for everyday things, and to the people they are marketing the Mac do, I frankly don't think Linux or other OS's are a significant option. Those tend to be in use by more advanced users who could probably find a better way to author a DVD on any platform than even Mac's default software. This (mildly) reminds me of that commercial for (I don't even remember what, so it must not be a very good commercial) where the guy says "It's so simple, a caveman could use it", and then you see him sitting down with two cavemen explaining that he didn't mean real cavemen, and that it was just a simplified statement. Similarly, Apple is exaggerating their pervue (including the PC issue) with the basis that they think people will understand what they mean by PC. I think you have a valid point in technicality, but I also don't think they "technically" are misusing the PC label just based on popular perception. I dunno about you, but I've never heard anyone use the term PC and be referring to a Mac. :) TheHYPO 06:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I touched up the criticism about the term PC and I added a citation. This citation is a slashdot thread where many people argue what is a PC and asks if Apple is being fair in their usage of the term. It shows that people do exist that have this criticism besides myself and wesman. I tried to write the section in the 3rd person so to not give a bias. Please fix if you want if you think it can be more neutral. Jdufresne 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A largely anonymous SlashDot poster, without any other credentials or qualifications, is hardly a reliable source. – Mipadi 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how high profile this guy and the others linked to are, it shows that there are critics out there, which is all that was claimed. I didn't claim that Bill Gates made this argument but that a decent sized group of people do. The link I provided showed this. Jdufresne 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The slashdot posters are the facts in this case, and i think that slashdot is a reliable source of peoples opinions/criticisms, which is what we want for this citation. The issue with criticisms is largely not validity because, A) the opinion exists even if its not based on fact or reason (i.e. creationism vs evolution) and B) it is difficult to detirmine if the crit. is sound or not. I think the citation is fine, since all we need to show is that the criticism exists amoung the population, not detirmine if it is sound. --Wesman83 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're dealing with things that are opinions, not facts, then why is it in an encyclopedia in the first place? – Mipadi 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that people have opinions, it is a fact that people have opinions about this topic, as well as about this criticism in particular; in this regard opinions are facts (just in case i wanted to make the distinction again). It is a fact that this criticism has been expressed and has led to a lengthy discussion amoung the public viewing this ad. Encyclopedia's have "opinion" facts and "fact" facts, since the cultural/social impact of events and people is important and otherwise interesting knowledge. --Wesman83 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, there isn't a debate at all here—at least, not one that hasn't been invented and contrived. "PC", like most English words, is a term with multiple meanings. I've heard it used in connection to Windows-based home computers, home computers running Windows or Linux, and all home computers (including Macs). Like any other English word with multiple meanings, its meaning is deduced based on context.

The context is pretty clear in the "Get a Mac" ads: Apple is talking about a Windows-based computer.

At any rate, the article isn't about the definition of a PC, nor how many people have differing opinions on it. Such discussion is off-topic and not relevant to the article, even if it is encyclopedic (which it is not), so it doesn't belong here. Save it for SlashDot. – Mipadi 22:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, there shouldnt be a debate here about the definition of a PC, that is for a different forum, but the fact remains that people criticize the ads because of that issue. Just because you think the message is "clear" doesnt mean that it is and even if it were the majority viewpoint (which you have not demonstrated), why should that discount those who think otherwise? Some people do not think it is clear in direct reference to the apple commercials, and thats been demonstrated by the immediate reactions of a large sample of the viewing audience on the slashdot thread. --Wesman83 23:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if there are some people who are unclear just what a "PC" is (and I'd argue that the only people who are supposedly unclear are a bunch of tech nerds who will argue about anything), it's still off-topic. The article doesn't have anything to do with a "What is a PC?" debate, fabricated and contrived or not.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias deal in facts, not the opinons of posters on Internet forums. Even providing citations about a few people who for whatever reason take offense to some ads isn't encyclopedic. What's being argued here: That the term "PC" is unclear, or that a few people find it to be unclear? The latter is hardly encyclopedic knowledge—and even the former is a bit vague. And anyway, it's pretty clear what Apple's advertising agency means by "PC".

And finally, citing a discussion on SlashDot—especially one started by a user named "Whiney Mac Fanboy", is most certianly not a reliable or verifiable source. I'm relatively certain that if I cited a SlashDot thread in a research paper, my professors would definitely make a few comments about that "source". – Mipadi 03:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny that the ads generisize other PCs as "PCs", but I don't see how that's a critisism. Most ads genericize the products competitors (eg, all those detergent ads with "the leading competitor" which basically genericizes other detergents). If the ad had a dude as a "Dell" and a dude as an "MDG" and a dude as an "HP", what would be the point? Apple would be making identical points against all three brands of windows-based computers, since the operating system is the dominant issue that controls all the issues Apple brings up. It's not about who built the system, it's pretty clearly about what OS the system is running. People are just complaining because Apple is claiming the OS is 'the computer' because MacOS is proprietary to their computers. That said, I don't see a problem with this in the critisism sectio, as long as the section remains neutral - IE: presenting both the critisisms cited, but also responses in the same place. Presenting only one side (the critisism without the response) is presenting a bias unless no response exists.

This isn't analogous to Tide comparing itself to the leading competitor this is analagous to Tide comparing itself to laundry detergent. If tide did this it wouldn't make much sense because Tide itself is a laundry detergent, so it is comparing tide to itself. Likewise, Macs are PCs (they are sold as personal computers). So since Macs are a part of the group PC this ad compares Macs to Macs on some level. If they compared Macs to the leading competitor, then there wouldn't be a discussion here. Jdufresne 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to make this really clear, because you are not listening. This isnt a debate about what is a PC, forget that, this is not the place for that debate (I think we both agree on that). The FACT we are getting at here is that people have raised the issue as a criticism of the ads, not if its a fact that a mac = or =! PC. It is irrelevent if someone is a "tech nerd who will argue about anything" (and you complain about "whiney mac fanboy"?) or has a PhD in What-is-a-PCology but that in a public forum visited by thousands of people all watching that specific commercial, this criticism was raised. YOU might be of the opinion that its clear what the ad is after, and perhaps it is, but its a FACT that some people didnt. If you dont like the fact that the general populations documented opinions are making into articles under the heading of "reactions/opinions/criticisms/etc" then feel free to start removing a lot of content from wikipedia. I am totally fine with putting a response to the critisicm, but find some sources for it, although you can probably just use the same link (unless of course it needs to be published in Nature or Science before it can go on wikipedia). --Wesman83 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jdufresne: In fact, I just saw an ad for a vacuum cleaner (I forget the name) and the actual pitch was "Don't get a vacuum - get a [brand name]" because they claim that their system is better than a standard vacuum. This is the same case. It doens't mean that the company is trying to decieve the public that their vaccuum is not really a vacuum. It is merely a device to imply that their system is different from standard vacuums in some way that is made clear in the ad. is a Mac a personal computer? yes. It is personal, and it's a computer. But that's trivial. PC has long been used to mean a windows based, or IBM-compatable computer. It's historical and to say that Mac is using the term invalidly when it's been used in the same manner for 15 years is a bit semantic. Just because in recent times a Mac has become more compatable with those computers, it is still unique even if only for it's OS. If there was a commercial pointing out how an SUV is much better than a car, one might complain in the same way that an SUV is arguably a "car" in itself... but anyone watching the commercial should understand what the ad means by "car". Now I'll admit, there are notable legitimate arguments about whether what they say about PC is apt or applicable to ALL PCs, but I can't see why the use of the term PC is so problematic. This is a Mac ad on public network and cable TV. It is clearly not aimed to get Linux users to buy a Mac. The target of these ads is not someone who would ever consider using Linux, which may also be equally or more stable, and better at networking or any other point brought up in the ads - but the ads are comparing the Mac to "the leading competitor" like Tide ads - and when they say "PC" anyone who knows computers knows they are talking about Windows-based machines - and anyone who doesn't know enough to know to know that probably doesn't have Linux as an option. You may argue that Dell and HP and Compac computers are all just as different from each other as from a Mac, but the OS is what counts because virutally all the adds attack is the OS - networking, connectivity of peripherals, viruses, crashing - that's all Windows, not anything Dell or HP have to do with the computer.

Wesman, if your point is to me, I'm not arguing that point - in fact, I just clarified an edit on the article and left the critisism right where it is - my only issue with the point is that not only should the critisism be represented, but so should the potential rebutul if one exists - I full agree that the critism is fair to note in the article as long as it's neutral - if you bring up a critisism and there is also a counterpoint to the critisism, it too should be brought up to give the reader both opinions and let them make their own decisions. Right now I'm simply discussing the merit of that critisism on the talk page - I'm not arguing about the article at all here. TheHYPO 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, my reply was not to you, it was to Mipadi who had a problem with the slashdot source, i was defending it. We should definately put both points of view, I'm absolutely down with that, thanks for helping out!

If we want to argue about the PC thing just for sh*ts n' giggles, then thats fine i think, its just the talk page, i just didnt want it to be involved in whether or not the criticism is included. On that note, i have an interesting anecdote. We use only apple products at my office, and my cooworker was booting our new macbook into Windows XP and was talking about how great it was that he could do that. While he was in windows, i asked him what he was using, he replied "a mac running windows". I asked him if he thought it was "still a mac" and he gave me a confused look and said "of course, see the apple logo? its just running windows". This is purely anecdotal, but i think it shows how this issue is not entirely clear amoung the population, even amoung engineers. --Wesman83 19:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's not wrong... Mac is the brand name of the thing he's got. Mac is a brand of Apple. But it happens to be the only brand of product (aside from anything Apple makes that isn't named Mac, if anything like that exists) that natively uses MacOS, so it can consider itself unique even if only from that standpoint. and other "PC"'s can't claim to run MacOS. If Dell ever came out with a PC that could run MacOS, then I think you'd start to see the boundries of PC-Mac start to degrade, but the fact that Mac running windows is still a mac (still has an apple key, not a windows key, still can run MacOS - I don't think you can wipe the MacOS side of the mac? Even if you never use it, I'd still call that using a Mac as a PC). I think we have to agree to disagree - using the term PC is the same as using the term IBM. IBM has next to nothing to do with the "PC" anymore but since they originated the system, people still call PC's IBMs vs. Macs. Note that wiki has articles called Personal computer which is what they call "generic PC" and an article called IBM PC compatible. An interesting read. Perhaps the more accurate term for these ads would be "Wintel" vs. "Mac", but since Wintel is not a publically enough known term, it would likely be ineffective. I see your point and why you're saying it, but I still have a problem comparing Dell vs. HP and Dell vs. Mac - a Dell and an HP, other than the word "dell" on it, should run identically if you could get moderately similar machines in terms of hardware. This isn't about the naming convention of "PC" so much as the fact that I don't think the commercials are misleading - a DVD player plays video, and a VCR also plays video they both output to the same red-yellow-white cable and connect to TV - but dealing with the dvd, the remote is a little different, and the things you can do on a DVD player isn't quite the same as a VHS. Now, if I add a VCR to the DVD player (making a combo) can I therefore not say that the DVD player (which can also play VHS tables) is better than the VCR just because I've built hte DVD player to also let me play VHS tapes? Just because the Mac CAN run windows, doesn't mean that what its saying about the benefits of MacOS are invalid and it doesn't make the MacOS-capable machine the same as a Non-MacOS-capable Dell. Thanks for the cordial debate here. It's releiving a lot of stress :) TheHYPO 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background music

What is the background music for this compain?

It is a short piece written for the commercials. It is also fairly easy to figure out how to play (if you have any musical background).

For us who don't, is there a site that has it so I can download it?

That would be nice for those of us without pianos as well. Userpie 23:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conceptual Flaw

Apple's ad agency really dropped the ball on this one, as John Hodgman, Expert on Complete World Knowledge, is way cooler and more awesome than the other guy, and it makes me want to buy a PC even though I've always used Macs. Just so I can be like John Hodgman. I think this is important to put in the article somehow. Has this been mentioned by a noteworthy editorial source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.28.129 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

"way cooler and more awesome" - That is your point of view. Honestly, I see no such flaw. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.112.164 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Criticism section

OK look, the Criticism section is entirely un-sourced, and furthermore most of it seems like just one's opinion, not a general opinion. We need citations to make this verified, otherwise its gotta go. — Wackymacs 07:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The new additions are also unfounded. You can certainly run Linux on a Mac, but that's not what Mac is selling. They aren't selling Macs with Linux on them. TheHYPO 23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed two paragraphs (added by Halo) from the criticisms section since they don't apply to the scope of the ads. The entire theme of the ad campaign seems to be centered on comparing the operating systems (heavily implied to be Windows XP and Mac OS X) as well as both after-party and (especially) bundled software. The very nature of the criticism that many (if not all) of the ads' statements are negated by installing the same software is far to weak to be part of this article. Further, there was no citation given while the information appeared to be a personal opinion. Rob 22:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

copied from "what is a pc" section above

A largely anonymous SlashDot poster, without any other credentials or qualifications, is hardly a reliable source. – Mipadi 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're dealing with things that are opinions, not facts, then why is it in an encyclopedia in the first place? – Mipadi 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The context is pretty clear in the "Get a Mac" ads: Apple is talking about a Windows-based computer.

[edit] cite needed in critisism?

"...ads assert that some things are easier to do on a Mac than a PC running Microsoft Windows, including "life stuff" such as creating movies, photo albums and such with the bundled iLife suite. In reality, the PC is just as capable with the right applications"

Is it really necessary of citation that a PC is capable of creating movies photo albums and burning DVDs? The article says that the particular ad claims that Mac makes it "easier and more enjoyable" to do the things. Now, enjoyable is subjective, and is impossible to anti-cite; as for the ease, that is somewhat subjective as well, but I submit that it's pretty fair common knowledge that a PC can easily create movies, photo albums and dvds given the right software (which is already mentioned later on in the paragraph). What kind of cite is being looked for here? TheHYPO 11:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move To Delete Criticism Section

Sounds more like a Mac Hater venting steam than any real arguments. Arguing such trivial matters such as the "Pie Graph" thing (where the Mac displays colored graphs, and PC doesn't), and the usage of the term PC (which, for an overwhelming majority of people, the term is used to describe Windows computers) is really dragging the quality of this page down.

1. The color graph-B&W graph thing is a comic device, and everyone with a brain knows better than to say that this is slander.

2. People call computers running Windows "PCs", and those that run Mac OS X "Macs". It's been like this for a long time, and it is not a deception or whatever. It is simply popular usage. Calling the use of PC in this context as "deceptive" is, in my opinion, equal to calling billions of people as deceiving liars.

3. PCs have to restart more than Macs, and often for simpler reasons. When Macs reboot, that is a serious issue, and usually requires interventions such as repairs. I know this because I have used Macs for almost three years now. Never did a Mac restart on me unless I was installing an update or I did it deliberately for testing. Meanwhile, the PC I had during that same time restarted at least 10 times, most of the time for program crashes.

So, in conclusion, why are we accomodating irrational Mac Haters on this article? Before anyone calls me a Mac Evangelical, I would like to state that I will propose the same thing if a bias issue on this page was introduced by Mac Evangelicals. Do not question my neutrality here.

I move to delete the entire criticism section immediately. Arbiteroftruth 08:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling the use of PC in this context as "deceptive" is, in my opinion, equal to calling billions of people as deceiving liars. - well unfortunately that's "your opinion", to quote you. You can't delete stuff because in your opinion, it's obvious what the ads say. Critisism exists, and whether you agree with it or not, it exists. The section merely documents the crititism. It is up to the reader to assess the validity of the critisism themselves, not up to you to censor them based on wheat is "obvious". I would like to see a bit more citing of the critisisms, but for now, I don't see a basis to delete them outright. If you have any ACTUAL CITATION for your claims (such as number three... you are basically just saying what the ads are, while the critisism is that it's not accurate). CITE PROOF and then you can rebutt the statement. One person's anecdotal evidence is not proof. I have mac friends who tell me their computers crash on them. I am using windows XP and I haven't had my computer crash on me in a very very long time. (excluding things like power failures, and things that are my own doing and fault) TheHYPO 09:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinions aside, points 1 and 2 still has point. Whether you like it or not, "PC" is a term commonly associated with computers running Microsoft Windows, and "Mac" is a term commonly associated with computers running any type of Mac OS (Mac OS X or Mac OS Classic). Criticism still has limits you know. If we are to include all forms of criticism, should we re-add a criticism that surfaced on the Green Day page last year that accuses the band of Neo-Nazism because of the song "Boulevard Of Broken Dreams"?

According to one editor who added the Neo-Nazi accusation, the line "I walk a lonely road" in the song "Boulevard Of Broken Dreams" refers to Adolf Hitler walking along the ruined streets of a Polish city with a large Jewish population. Also, according to the same editor, the Song "When I Come Around" can also be interpreted as Hitler taunting fearful Jews to not cry, becuase he will soon arrive to kill them

Does that seem like valid criticism to you? Yea, criticisms exist, but should we add all kinds of criticism, even slander, into Wikipedia? There is a line between unsourced and outright slanderous accusations and valid criticisms, and most of the criticism page here on the Get A Mac campaign falls mostly in the former group. Do you see where I am going with this? I stand by my position. Arbiteroftruth 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your example is not cited critism. It's one guy's opinion. The critism in the article about PC is cited - I admit it's not the most superb source to cite - it's not a cnn article or anything, but it's a forum where a good number of tech-savvy people have brought up the issue. It's not one lone guy's opinion. TheHYPO 22:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, for a number of the same reasons, and some different ones. First off, it was completely unsourced; secondly, it did read like someone simply venting frustration; and thirdly, it was mostly off-topic and degenerated into a debate about the meaning of the word "PC" (both sides of the opinions were unsourced, of course). This is an encyclopedia, guys: Let's stick to the facts about the campaign, and leave the discussion of the merits of the ads to other venues. – Mipadi 23:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your example is not cited critism. It's one guy's opinion. Exactly! Do you see where the criticism of this campaign falls now? It is one guy's opinion! Do you see the point now? I agree with what Mipadi said, and we should delete the criticism section permanently and completely. Arbiteroftruth 23:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Your example was one guys opinion. The PC debate was sourced to page full of critisism from people knowledgable in the field of computers. I'm not saying that the critisism should remain, but your argument is invalid to compare it to a lone stubborn editor who is putting in is own critisism which noone backs. TheHYPO 04:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand what is so difficult about this, critisicms exist about these ads. It is encyclopedic to have a section on the public reactions to a pop-culture/mainstream media campaign, especially one that sparked a bit of controversy. If you dont think slashdot is a good enough sampling of the public, then I dont know what is. It seems to me like this is not about "mac-haters" trying to "vent" but some editor's opinions that this section doesnt belong. Cite me some sources about how "clear" the ads were and that 100% of the people who watched it all agree with your opinion and that no one had any issue with it. If you want to set the precident that only a description of the actual event can go on a page, by all means go for it, but you're going to take away a lot of interesting facts about the cultural impact of the event from a lof of articles. --Wesman83 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, TheHYPO, it really doesn't matter what the experts say about the meanings of the usage of words like PCs and Macs. It is the public's usage that counts. I do not, and will not, accept the definitions of experts over the common definition used by the general public. PCs runs Windows, Macs run Mac OS (although, I admit, the boundary is less clear than ever now), that is the truth. Arbiteroftruth 10:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No sir, you are incorrect. If the New York Times printed an article saying that these ads were crap because their own investigations show that Macs crash more than PCs, that would be completely and totally relevant to this article. You or I or Bob might argue the accuracy of the New York Times' results, but that's irrelevant. The fact is that a fair source has critisized the ad. That's a fact, and that's what is reported in the article. The article makes no claim that the word PC is misused; the article makes no claim that Mac is intentionally deceiving. All the article says is that there have been public critiques about these issues. It does not take a position on the truth or falsehood of those critiques. If you actually READ the debate higher on this page, you'll see that I have no problem with the usage of PC in this article. I'm not arguing that here as you seem to imply that I am. But people do. The article is not asserting that PC is misused. The article is asserting that some people feel it is. You cannot debate that some people feel it is. That is a fact. Whether they are right or not is opinion and isn't what the article, or me, is claiming. TheHYPO 10:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"PCs have to restart more than Macs, and often for simpler reasons." How much more often? Do you have a citation for this? Your opinion on its own isn't enough, and neither is an anecdote about your personal experience. Other people have had different experiences. --Mr2001 08:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Reinstate Criticism Section

... at least in some form. Some of the criticism is supported by objective fact:

Fact: Mac OS can crash and require a restart, just like Windows. The frequency of this phenomenon is debatable, but its existence is not. ("Restarting")
Fact: Windows PCs are capable of playing music, videos, photo slideshows, and DVDs without a separate purchase. They also come with drivers preinstalled, no need for a separate download. ("Better", "Out of the Box", "Work vs. Home")
Fact: Windows PCs are capable of connecting to digital cameras, again with no separate purchase or download. ("Network")

Wouldn't we be remiss in simply repeating the ads' claims without pointing out that some of those claims are measurably untrue? --Mr2001 10:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I got to disagree with some of these..."facts". Network wasn't just talking about digital cameras, its talking about actual networks between computers. Windows does require drivers for some cameras, it doesn't recognize everything. "Restarting", Apple aren't saying Macs can't crash - they don't crash "as much". In-fact, the only real crash on OS X is a kernel panic, and those are very rare. Apple never said Windows PCs can't do all the media/home things, they're saying it doesn't have iLife, which is true. — Wackymacs 11:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Network" is also about networks between computers. But here's what it says about digital cameras:

"Oh, this is a new digital camera from Japan. Just came out."

"You speak the language?"

"Absolutely. Everything just kinda works with a Mac."

The clear implication is that Windows PCs don't work as easily with digital cameras (or perhaps other hardware in general), and that's false. Now here's what "Restarting" says:

"Yeah, I had to restart there. You know how it is."

"Actually, I don't."

"What? Macs don't have to--"

Again, the message is obvious: Macs don't have to restart. That's false. Now from "Work vs Home":

"I'm into doing fun stuff like movies and music, podcasts, stuff like that..."

"I also do fun stuff, like time sheets and spreadsheets and pie charts."

Once again, the ad is implying that PCs can't do movies and music, podcasts, etc. --Mr2001 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see how the criticism was (and will be) on-topic and even encyclopedic, especially since the "sources" where SlashDot threads. – Mipadi 14:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources other than Slashdot for the facts listed above. --Mr2001 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Apple aren't saying Macs can't crash - they don't crash "as much"." - that may be your logical conclusion, but the commercial doesn't say that. The commercial merely has mac saying "no" when asked "you know how it is" about PC's restarting. This could mean that Mac doesn't crash at all, or that it doesn't crash frequently like the PC. It is interpretable and not a concrete statement on Apple's part. Depending on how one views the characters it could even mean that "Mac" in the ads is just a single computer, not all Macs, and that this "Mac" happens not have had to reboot. There's an implication in the ad, but it's not a direct statement. As such, I'd say it's open to critisism.

Then what are we supposed to conclude from the cut-off statement, "What, Macs don't have to--", which is left undenied by the commercial? How do you think that sentence is supposed to end... maybe "Macs don't have to pay capital gains tax" or "Macs don't have to be washed before they're eaten"? Seriously, the message of that commercial is obvious. --Mr2001 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Apple never said Windows PCs can't do all the media/home things" - They never said Windows can't do it. They DID say that Mac does it better, as in easier and more enjoyably. Now, I KNOW that if you put a CD into any brand new windows machine, a popup will ask you if you want to play it and you can click yes, and I don't know how mac can possibly be more easy than that. As well, the listening to music is about listening to the music, so the one click you must take to play it on either machine, I don't see how either machine is more enjoyable than the other. So again, I believe this is open to critisism based on Apple's subjective claim in the ad. TheHYPO 20:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mac Hater alert again. Most of the stuff on the commercial is a bit exaggerated to gain some comic effect. Nothing is for certain, of course. Obviously, Mr2001 did not take statistics class in College, because he said Apple claims Macs never crash. Macs don't crash as much as PCs. That's a fact. Macs don't require drivers to run devices, that's a fact (I have never used, nor have I met a Mac user, who has used a driver program). That's a fact. I must again ask why are we accomodating irrational Mac haters on this page? Arbiteroftruth 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, buddy. I'm no "irrational Mac hater"; I have a Powerbook G4 and love it. I'm just trying to introduce some facts here. Now, as to your claims: (1) If it's an objective fact that Macs don't crash as much as PCs, let's see a cite for it, hmm? And if you don't think the "Restarting" ad is meant to imply that Macs don't crash, please explain exactly why the Mac says "no", he doesn't know "how it is," and what the statement "Macs don't have to--" is supposed to mean. (2) The ad isn't just saying that PCs need drivers sometimes. It's saying that before you can use your brand-new PC, you have to download drivers for it. That's pure BS. --Mr2001 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Look guys, show us some reliable sources other than Slashdot and then we'll see if its encyclopedic enough to add. Also, I think you're missing that the commercials are meant to be comical, and OBVIOUSLY have a more pro-mac side to them, since its Apple's commercials...they're not going to say "Well, Macs do crash sometimes". You're just nitpicking, and it's pointless. — Wackymacs 23:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First, what exactly are you asking for sources for - proof that people criticise the ads (a /. comment is proof enough of that)? Or proof of the facts I mentioned above (e.g. "Macs have to reboot sometimes" or "Windows Media Player can play music")? Second, of course the ads are pro-Apple, but that doesn't excuse lying, or lying by implication. Think about it... imagine an ad comparing two cars. "Hi, I'm a Honda Accord." "And I'm a Toyota Camry." "Uh oh, I ran out of gas. You know how it is." "Actually, no I don't." "What? Toyotas don't run out--" How oblivious would you have to be not to realize that the ad is implying a Toyota can never run out of gas? --Mr2001 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources that they've been criticized, so that Wikipedia has a right to publish this stuff as encyclopedic. By the way...haven't you realized that almost all marketing and advertising lies? Its called good marketing, its meant to make you buy stuff, and most of the time people fall for it. — Wackymacs 07:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A slashdot comment in which someone criticizes the ad works just fine as a source for the claim that the ad has been criticized. So does this talk page, for that matter. And no, you're mistaken, most advertising doesn't blatantly lie about verifiable facts. If one car company claimed that their cars never ran out of gas or got flat tires, but their competitors' cars did, they'd be sued before the commercial even ended. --Mr2001 08:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You're comparing car advertising to computer advertising. That's a big big mistake. And no, some user comment on Slashdot is not a good source. I'm talking about an article by a proper writer/columnist such as David Pogue in the New York Times or something like that. — Wackymacs 09:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Computer ads aren't special; an advertising tactic that would be fraudulent when used by a car company doesn't magically become honest when used by a computer company. And if you think a Slashdot comment criticizing the ad isn't a source for the claim that the ad has been criticized, you're gonna have to think again what you want a source for, because you seem to be confused. If the claim were "this ad has been criticized in the New York Times", then yes, you'd need to cite the NYT - but if the claim is simply that people have criticized the ad, well, Slashdot users are people too. --Mr2001 01:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Some stuff in the ads are exaggerations. Some are not. Some are based on real facts, some are not. The black and white pie chart is exageration. But is it based on real fact? No. PC can play music, DVDs, burn them and do all of these things that the ad claims Macs do so much easier and more fun. Since both "easier" and "more fun" are subjective, the claim is subject to critisism, and it's clearly being critisised. As for Drivers, I'm honestly curious: If a company comes out with a new device, like my guitar amp which has a USB connection - what process do Macs use to ensure the mac knows how to read data from the amp?

There is nothing on wikipedia that says that documenting critisism of something is forbidden and unencyclopedic. It would be unencyclopedically biased NOT to include critisisms. Imagine an article of George W. Bush that doesn't even mention the fact that he is frequently critisized, portrayed in the media as dumb etc. That is a fact about him and should be included. As an example look at Kevin Trudeau#Criticism of infomercials and the subsequent sections (particularly the stuff from "References to scientific studies" onward). In fact, most of the article leading up to that point also lists numerous critisisms of his claims. As long as it's neutral and portrays both the claim and the critisism without sideing with one or the other except by providing cited evidence of one side or the other, it's still encyclopedic. TheHYPO 06:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There's most definitely a limit to what criticism is encyclopedic. For example, I'm reluctant to agree that the fact that a bunch of SlashDot readers are debating Apple's use of the term "PC". Furthermore, I think it'd make more sense to blend criticism into the text of the article where appropriate, rather than lumping it into a whole section, which tends to lead to allegations of bias and a violation of "NPOV". – Mipadi 13:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a criticism section is appropriate... many other articles have sections devoted to criticism. For example: George W. Bush, Microsoft, GNU General Public License, Family Guy. If anything, I'd say putting the criticism in its own section is more NPOV: people who are only interested in the content of the ads can just skip the criticism section entirely. --Mr2001 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is more encyclopedic to neutrally describe the content of the ads as they appear and with the claims they make so people can form their own neutral opinions. And then if they wish to read about outside critisism, it is available. It's splitting claims made by Apple from claims made by critics. Again: Critisism isn't by itself unneutral. If I write in the article "People know that the fact that Macs don't get viruses is a complete lie." That is NPOV. If I put "It is known that in fact, Macs do get viruses(cited source)", that is legitimate critisism in the article. But we're not even talking about either of those. We're talking about "It is argued by x that Macs do get viruses(source of arguement)". But to be completely honest, there are some things that shouldn't even need citing. It is a common knowledge fact that windows can play music, for example. The only reference perhaps needed is a link to the Windows Media Player article. The fact is that the Mac ads are not NPOV - they are Mac-biased. It is not un-NPOV to list the other side of Apple's arguments - it is just Non-Mac-POV. I'm not saying that every critisism ever belongs in the article, but once that can cite legitimate critisism belong or else this is just a list of biased claims by Apple. If there. If an article as significant as Holocaust, even with all the fact behind it, can dedicate a section to claims of "denial" that it even happened, I don't see why it's un-neutral to deny the claims in mac ads in a commercial. TheHYPO 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VOTE on Critisism section

This is the easiest and fairest way to do most anything on wikipedia, so forget all the arguing. Let's just get this over with: Vote here for your opinion on whether the critisism should be included or excluded from the article. This means Critisism that is sourced, and also should include any rebuttal side of the argument if existant. This does not mean any old critisism that you feel like including, but sourced critisism in a neutral tone simply indicating that the critism exists, and not arguing the point in the article. Follow the format of the first vote (if you must clarify your position, please do so in one sentance. This isn't a debate, but a vote - simply vote "include" "exclude" or "neutral"). Sign your vote:

Include -- TheHYPO 09:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Include, on the basis we have proper references and footnotes for it, and that we keep NPOV. — Wackymacs 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Exclude. Again, it's largely not encyclopedic, and more often than not, uses no sources, or shaky (at best) sources. Besides, do we need a whole "Criticism" section? Why not just provide examples of criticism where relevant in the other parts of the article? – Mipadi 13:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Include --Mr2001 01:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Include it should also include the PC issue. --Wesman83 04:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Include IF it all has sources (proper sources). If not i'm removing it again. streetmagix 10:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Exclude- Completely not encyclopedic. Mostly opinionated pieces by Mac opponents, arguing over minutaes. Arbiteroftruth 05:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Include - To pretend some implied lies by Apple don't deserve mention is POV and completely not encyclopedic. As long as the critisism is NPOV and cited where possible, it's perfectly fine. --TheTruthiness 07:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Include. But make sure to point out that critics are inveterate squares who lack a sense of humor and take themselves too seriously. And could be mistaken for beige-box PCs in real life. Ng;jt 13:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think that is the actual point of these advertisements: to show that PCs are square and Macs are hip.
- Apparently that would be encyclopedic, as long as we provide a link to a SlashDot poster who states that. – Mipadi 14:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  - If the standard is "encyclopedic," I'm afraid none of this article qualifies. As for verifiable, we could certainly state "At least one Slashdot commenter has expressed the opinion that such-and-such and so on." Where's the problem? Ng;jt 14:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    - I'd certainly agree that the article is not really encyclopedic, especially in its current form (by which I mean all of it, not merely the "Criticism" section). It seems especially unencyclopedic to provide citations for facts like "At least one Slashdot poster has expressed such-and-such an opinion", but I digress. – Mipadi 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Revised introduction to this debate for factual accuracy (marked in red). You know what, besides? I read this entire talk page, and it is remarkably stupid. Ng;jt 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Exclude unless someone can provide verifiable citations for each and evey criticism. I can't believe so much energy is being spent on this topic. Steve 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)MrSteveee
Include and find verifiable sources to bring this article to a more NPOV, right now it reads like a mac-ad or just re-word the Ads section. Radagast83 05:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Current results: 8 include - 3 exclude. An 8-3 majority falls in favour of retaining critism of the ads.

If someone wishes to go ahead and do so, feel free. I highly reccomend adding the following opening with this invisible warning tag:

==Critisism of the ads==

Feel free to tweak it a bit - that's just off the top of my head. TheHYPO 07:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the ads?

They were organized alphabetically, and WWDC happened to fall at the bottom (convenient since it's not really one of the ads). Apple just released three more which have been added at the bottom of the list. Should they be alphabetized, or kept chronologically? Should WWDC be separated from the main list as well?

On an unrelated note, What's the point of the Angel/Devil ad besides "mac made a photobook"? I'm confused - I don't think they are trying to say anything directly bad about PCs that they are two-sided or "Evil" or anything like that, but They don't seem to have a technological point like all the other ads. TheHYPO 07:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was order of appearance. Ah well. I could definitely agree with separating WWDC. I think i'll do that. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not do forumer-style speculation on Wikipedia, but it was likely just a straight up insight/jab related to PC character, which could, in turn, be seen as a semi-blatent insult to PCs, without clearly stating a reason. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what it seemed like but it didn't seem to jive with the other ads - ok, I guess Touché was kinda like that in that it introduces a point (I can run windows/Look at my nice photobook), but then ignores the point and starts making PC look stupid. I heard a rumour that Apple actually filmed 28 new ones recently, since they are so cheep. I don't have a source on it though. TheHYPO 07:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheap? I don't know about that, but I believe I read something similar in the Justin Long article, but with different numbers. Whatever the case, it would make sense that their filming more, though we can only write about what's been released and/or what we can cite to a reliable source. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 08:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheap in that all it costs them is a white background, two actors and a camera. It's just that Apple has run out of unique features of the Mac to brag about ;) I kid, I kid. TheHYPO 08:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

TV advertising is never cheap, especially not when you have Phil Morrison directing, and are using a film actor (Justin Long). I guess it really depends on how everyone is getting paid. Making the ads is probably the cheapest part of this campaign, airing all these ads costs millions upon millions though. — Wackymacs 10:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Commercial

I'm not sure if anyone else saw it or not, but an station up here in canada aired a new Get a Mac commercial, where both Mac and PC are dressed in business suits, and Mac tells PC that he's been running Microsoft Word for years, at which point PC breaks down and curls up on the floor, "...I knew this day would come."

I think you mean Self Pity. It's there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.112.164 (talk • contribs).

[edit] More on criticism

The primary problem with most of these ads is that the disadvantages of "PC" are in fact disadvantages about Windows. This is rather misleading. I'd like to mention this in the article, but I don't know how to say this in a verifiable way; perhaps someone else can. Dysprosia 08:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been discussed many times already. I don't see a problem with saying (in the introductory paragraph) that PC in this campaign apparently represents specifically Windows PCs. I'll add it - let's see how fast it gets shot down ;) TheHYPO 17:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similarity to Alltel Advertisements

Did anyone notice the similarity of the Mac ads to Alltel Wireless's advertisements? Alltell also features people representing the inanimate subject matter (in this case, the companies Alltel, Cingular, Verizon, Nextel, and Sprint). The ads usually feature the four competitors, all wearing their appropriate name badges and company colors discussing ways in which they are better or can become as good as Alltel. Then the guy representing Alltell shows up and remarks. Which ad campaign came first, Apple's or Alltel's? I think this is somewhat noteworthy, if only as a trend in advertising gimmicks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.85.52.17 (talk • contribs) on 00:28, November 2, 2006 (UTC); Please sign your posts!

I'm not sure of the timing, but the perceived simility is limited and likely coincidental. Alltel originally used the actual "mascots" of the companies, the consistant actors in the ads, plus that humaniod graphic Cingular has. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More criticism, again, for the eighth(?) time

Well, someone insists on adding more sloppy semi-official criticism to the article. (It's ad compaign, people, damn!) Anyway, I'll try to clean it up, and leave what I can, but really, this doesn't seem very Wikipedic. Also, I find it funny that people are so insistany about adding this stuff but seem hestitant/unwilling to discuss it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: this quote "A psychologist made an 18-page analysis of the campaign and called it "negative ... so that even some ad commentators miss the slash-and-burn effects that occur in the minds of consumers exposed to it."[4]"

Total BS... the full quote is:

"This is the genius of the GAM campaign—it employs sufficient camouflage for an acrid, negative campaign so that even some ad commentators miss the slash-and-burn effects that occur in the minds of consumers exposed to this type of comparativec ampaign."

This is actually a complement to the campaign, not a criticism. Mis-quote deleted. - A casual reader.

[edit] Failed merger

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'no merge. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal The Article content will not shange if it is collaborated with other apple campaigns - it will only become easier to find. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.112.101 (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Oppose - this article would suredly get cut down to be merged, and I think the info here is valid. I support having a section on Get a Mac on that page with a 'main article' reference here. MAYBE once this campaign is dead and no longer topical, it could be reduced slightly and merged, but while active, I think plenty of people specifically want info on this campaign TheHYPO 04:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no discussion beforehand and this...proposal...is just as offensive. Much like Late Night with, the merger is/was just a sloppy attempt to make a new by cramming it full of the content from existing articles. To say nothing of the KB issues, the article which would get this content is a mish-mesh- No. Mish-mess with or without it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The series on its own is notable enough for an own article. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 18:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Goodwill

I think Goodwill needs to be added to the list of ads. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Google636 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Get a Mac at WWDC

Here: "WWDC - While not strictly a part of the ad campaign, Hodgman and Long appeared in a video prior to the keynote at the 2006 Worldwide Developers Conference. Hodgman's character, PC, claimed to have a message from Steve Jobs, in an attempt to stall Mac development. He starts to go off-topic about his vacation with Steve, but when Mac arrives he says he's just preparing for the next ad and starts to sing." Can someone provide a citation to the proof, or was this added based on original first-hand or I-told-you-about-it research? And if it is a citation, where? Also, is there a video? Perhaps Apple may post one...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.112.164 (talk • contribs) on 01:13, December 26, 2006 (UTC); Please sign your posts!

[edit] "Surgery" added

Hi. I just added the "Surgery" ad that was introduced with the intro of iPhone. PGSONIC 20:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is going to sound stupid, but: At the end of the description, it says "Speaking of peripherals..." What is this alluding to? 67.188.33.236 22:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Changing "Network"'s Name

Please stop changing the name of "Network" to "Networking." Whoever does that is WRONG, and there is PROOF. Go to http://web.archive.org/web/20060507195347/www.apple.com/getamac/ads/?viruses_medium. The list of items there says "Network", not "Networking". I WILL change it again if it is changed. I am not doing this to be rude, just to be accurate. PGSONIC 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two more added

Hi y'all. I just added "Sabotage" and "Tech Support", both added today. PGSONIC 20:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

If you would like to have a certain section retained, then you need to provide a rationale for doing so. The statement listed below, "With the introduction..." really adds nothing to the "Gift Exchange" advertisement.

Gift Exchange — Mac and PC begin by greeting viewers with "Happy Holidays" before the usual introductions. Mac has a gift that he gives to PC, who is hoping for a C++ GUI programming guide. He is disappointed to see that it is a photo album of previous Get a Mac ads. Mac reveals that he made it in iPhoto and asks if there is anything for him. PC hands him a C++ GUI programming guide with a bow on it. With the introduction of "Sabotage" and "Tech Support", this was dropped.

If you would prefer to list them chronologically, by start date and stop date, then you provide more information. By the way, are these arbitrary names chosen by a given editor or actual names (which would require a citation)? (Since the name defines the order of listing.) Lmcelhiney 13:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I only add info that is true. If you look under the main viewing window of the Get a Mac video's pages at apple.com/getamac, you will see 6 thumbnails with the names under them. 22 citations to the same page seems silly. - PGSONIC 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, this was not an accusation of untruth. Whether it "seems silly" or not, that is what WikiPedia requires. You could choose to do it as a single note, I believe--'All advertisement names come from... and then name the site and link it.

Next, you do not own this article. Please do not threaten other editors who feel that what has been written needs to be changed. (Everyone has the same right to do so as you have.) I have removed your comments on the two ads once again, because they are redundant with information that is listed in the Release Dates section. When you are asked for an explanation, please give it to the other editor's reasonable satisfaction or preemptively place a note as to the value of what you are adding, such as the above, it will probably stay.

This article is simply a listing of commercials, nothing more. They do not need a blow-by-blow description, as you've provide links to the video. If you are concerned about individual chronology or total airtime, give their Start and Stop dates. (Of course, you need to ensure that these are correct for all markets and not just your market.)

Finally, if you are going to actively participate in WikiPedia editing, please add something to your User: page so that your link is not always in red. It gives others the impression that you are just passing through and that your material might be questionable.

Thanks for listening. Lmcelhiney 02:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. - PGSONIC 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK 'Get A Mac' Adverts

Apple UK have just released 3 adverts that are near identical to the American version, but they instead feature Robert Webb and David Mitchell. They can be found at http://www.apple.com/uk/getamac/ and are linked to on MySpace UK.

Just a quick heads up for anyone who wants to add it to the article. Ixistant 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. - PGSONIC 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a New Ad on apple's site: Security

can be found at [1], Just a heads up Cengao 18:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to delete one of the duplicate UK ads section

Duplicate description for UK ads(in Spots section and in international variants section) Only one of them worths keeping Cengao 06:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One More Spoof: (Of Course) Greenpeace

I just added information on the Greenpeace campaign spoof. - PGSONIC 20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page FUD?

I am a little concerned by this statement ... "In addition, there are spyware known to attack any operating system with a compatible browser.[4]" When I follow the link I find that it refers to the Firefox Browser (with an extension which could effect any version of FF I presume). However, its method of propagation is by executable code for windows.

My feeling is that this is an erroneous statement because:

1. It uses the plural (there are) when it should be singular (unless someone knows better) 2. This spyware does not "attack" the operating system 3. It refers to one extension (Formspy) with one browser (which should be named as Firefox - and I couldn't find out if the vulnerability still exists as Firefox has been updated since the reference which was mid 2006). 4. Spyware is not a virus

This would be better worded if the virus critisism was removed. Granted there are some macroviruses but they don't affect the OS but specific applications.

There is the "Trust Mac" movie which the spyware could be related to if it was cleaned up as suggested above.

Candy 13:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/t/Talk%7EGet_a_Mac_6a86.html"