For the past several months, and in several countries, Apple has been running some very witty, clever, and humorous advertisements.
“Hi, I’m a Mac. Hi, I’m a PC.”
This phrase is now embedded into pop-culture, proceeds some very witty and often times funny, but most of the time not-so-honest advertizing.
Apple is attempting to define its brand of computer, operating system, and software package as “better because it is cooler.”
PCs are what your parents use,” is the message that Apple wants Generation Me to think when they are computer shopping or asking their parents to buy them a new computer.
From a historical standpoint, this is not the first time that this line of advertizing has worked. It was famously used in the 1980s during the beverage wars between the Coca-Cola company and Pepsi Co. Coke had been the brand name that was trusted since the dark days of WWII, when bottles of Coke were sent to US troops in Europe and the Pacific.
However, in the 1980’s Pepsi, like Apple today, conceded that they have lost the older generation to the competition, and focused on new converts. This thinking led to Pepsi being the number one selling soft drink in the United States… for a short time, anyways, until Coca-Cola Classic made a return.
Apple knows that it won’t be able to convert consumers who have grown up with a Windows based PC. It also knows that a large number of consumers in the market are tied to Windows because it is required for their profession.
Because of these reasons, it seems smart that Apple is targeting the younger generations.
However, Apple is using another weapon as a primary means of advertizing: ignorance. Ignorance is perhaps the best “in” that anyone has with the public when there is something to sell. In politics, ignorance is typically the primary weapon used in TV and radio advertizing in the United States.
But is it ethical, and if not, should something be done to stop unethical or misleading advertizing? Should a disclaimer to the effect of, “this advertisement represents only the opinion of Company XYZ, Inc.” be required to be included in advertisements that are specifically targeting another company?
A simple review of Apple’s Mac vs. PC ads will show that Apple only concerns themselves with partial truths, or with various shades of truth.
In an advertisement entitled “Surgery” implies that PCs need to be updated whereas Macs do not. A false implication about “PCs” does not hurt or damage one specific company. However, Apple decided to link this particular falsehood with undisputed industry leader Microsoft, and imply that upgrading a PC to Windows Vista will be “major surgery.”
Another one of Apple’s “Get a Mac” ads, as they are so called, this one entitled “Gift Exchange,” implies that software for a Mac is “point and click” whereas software for a PC requires multi-chapter and several pound programming books that consist of several pages. In a society where stereo instructions are considered to be burdensome, who wants to read that?
Another ad, one titled “Better Results,” states that a Mac can outperform a PC in creating photos and videos.
Yet another ad, this one called “Viruses,” actually implies that Macs cannot get a virus.
There is even an ad that promotes the iMac’s new found ability to run Windows software.
Of course, for those who are “in the know,” the ads are no deeper than their humorous intent.
iThis, iThat, and iTheotherthing
iTunes, iMove, and iEt Cetera are just a few of the programs that come bundled with a Mac that Apple claims makes a Mac better than a PC… but what PC? There are a number of computer manufactures that make PCs, and they all come bundled with software.
A computer with MusicMatch Jukebox arguably has a better audio program than an iMac with iTunes. And isn’t iTunes available on a PC anyways? But what about iMove, you ask? I find that it’s just as unmanageable as Windows Movie Maker, which has been around since the days of Windows M.E., but a computer with say, Nero StreetSmart installed, by far and in large has a vastly superior movie making system than iAnything!
As for the claim that viruses cannot infect Macs, it is true that no file altering viruses exist. However, some of the more nasty ones do exist for OS X.
From Symantec’s website: “…please remember that Mac OS X has been tested by worms, Trojan horses, rootkits, and other various security vulnerabilities.”
Even home video bloggers and tech related websites have come to the defense of the PC, and attempt to create some public awareness of Apple’s misleading tactics.
So, the question remains, should companies be allowed to use ignorance to their advantage, or are disclaimers or citations as to the source of research the answer to the problem? Is it not a problem? Are lawsuits the answer?
This leaves me with one final question; does a Mac have any advantage whatsoever over an IBM compatible PC? Is there anything that a Mac can do that a PC can’t? Is there anything that a Mac can do better than a PC?
I am inclined to answer this question as “no,” based purely on personal experience and the fact that one of Apple’s recent selling points has been, “Hey, we can run Microsoft Windows too!
