Intel is finally stepping up its campaign against Apple Silicon with a new series of ads promoting PCs that star Justin Long of “I’m a Mac” fame.
“Hello, I’m a M…” Mr. Long says at the beginning of each of the ads. “… Justin. Just a real person doing a real comparison between Mac and PC.”
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
Each of the ads focuses on a key aspect of Intel’s new PR blitz.
In the first video, Long compares the diverse PC ecosystem of choice with what you get on the Mac: “Gray … and grayer.” The second video examines multitouch displays, in which the Mac has “a little baby bar” and Siri misunderstands something Long says and delivers a ridiculous search result. The third video again focuses on the versatility of the PC market, this time with regards to 2-in-1s that can switch between laptop and tablet modes, as compared to the Apple ecosystem where you need multiple devices, peripherals, and dongles to achieve the same.
In the fourth video, Long uncovers another soft underbelly of the Mac, its inability to play modern and popular games; “No one really games on a Mac,” a PC gamer intones. And then the Mac embarrassment wraps up in the fifth video with a look at multiple monitor support, which the Mac lacks.
They’re funny because they’re true.
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618591">In reply to scovious:</a></em></blockquote><p>The thing is, it would make a lot more sense for this type of ad if it <em>was </em>Microsoft who did them, as each advert is essentially "look how much more variety of devices you can get running Windows". Or again maybe if one of the vendors of such devices, like Acer, Dell or HP, did them.</p><p><br></p><p>But for Intel it's an odd choice, as none of the things they highlight require an Intel CPU. I could go-out tomorrow and get say a green-coloured, 2-in-1 device, but with an AMD CPU.</p><p><br></p><p>But not one of the things their four adverts raised specifically requires an Intel CPU.</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618595">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"[…] the campaign clearly points out the benefits of Windows PCs versus Apple PCs. Consumers need to know."</em></p><p><br></p><p>It certainly does show differences between "Windows devices" and "Apple devices", yes.</p><p><br></p><p>Sadly what none of them do is explain why any of those "Windows devices" must specifically have an Intel CPU inside, rather-than an AMD CPU.</p><p><br></p><p>So… they still feel pointless as <em>Intel </em>ads. Had Microsoft made them, fair-enough.</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618636">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>I can't tell if you're seriously just trolling here or just can't understand.</p><p><br></p><p>An example of Intel accurately giving a benefit of their CPU, at present, might be "if you buy an M1 device, you're limited to 16GB of RAM. Need more? Choose a Mac powered by Intel".</p><p><br></p><p>However I still fail to see how "Hey look, you can't get a Mac 2-in-1 device, 'cause Apple don't want to make one as then you won't need to buy an iPad too. So you'll have to get one of these devices instead — oh, but don't go for one with an AMD CPU. Sure, it'll do all the same stuff, and it runs the same Windows 10, but just don't, okay, 'cause… well, y'know, reasons" is a great pitch?</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618640">In reply to cavalier_eternal:</a></em></blockquote><p>Most consumers also don't understand CPUs and that alone won't drive anyone to suddenly get a Mac device, no. I expect to see a boom in sales of the M1 devices, as current Apple users finally decide to replace their existing, aging Mac devices, but anyone who thinks this will suddenly create a mass of converts is deluded.</p><p><br></p><p>And as I've posted above, no games-console since the original Xbox has used an Intel CPU. Surely more games-consoles are sold every-year than devices running macOS, so maybe Intel should try and conqueror that and not leave it to (thesedays) ARM and AMD?</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618586">In reply to cavalier_eternal:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"The only messaging I’m getting from this is Intel is truly rattled by Apple Silicon but for the life of me, I can’t figure out why"</em></p><p><br></p><p>This is exactly where I'm at. The M1 won't be available in any non-Apple device, so it's largely an irrelevance in the Windows world, which is Intel's main market. Their main competitor, for now, remains AMD.</p><p><br></p><p>If it's because they think "ARM is the future", then just start making some ARM chips then… it's been reported AMD is looking into doing that.</p><p><br></p><p>But this just comes-over as "we're feeling hurt Apple ditched us". I bet they didn't shed much of a tear for IBM and Motorola when Apple ditched PowerPC for them!</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618691">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"It is an Intel ad for Intel. It's pretty simple – Intel is not responsible to promote AMD."</em></p><p><br></p><p>Of course not, just like no-one would expect a Coca-Cola ad to end "Pepsi is also available".</p><p><br></p><p>But I think the thing most people here are taking issue with is the fact that, in their four adverts, not a single thing they highlighted is something Intel made happen, but they seem to appear to be taking the credit for.</p><p><br></p><p>"Different colour choices on laptops" = credit goes to the manufacturer, such as Acer, Dell, HP or Lenovo, etc.</p><p><br></p><p>"2-in-1 convertibles" or "Laptop with touchscreen" = credit both to the various manufacturers, and also Microsoft for making Windows 10 adapt itself when in the different modes, and increasing on-screen element sizes (like buttons, scroll-bars, title-bars, etc.) to be more touch-friendly</p><p><br></p><p>"Better for gaming" = again, some of that will be down to Microsoft and their DirectX tech; a lot of it down to developments in GPUs (so credit mostly to AMD and NVIDIA); and to game-developers, who usually always target the Windows platform, but don't always offer a macOS port.</p><p><br></p><p>So literally which of the above can you credit Intel for? As in their ads, they seem to be suggesting "credit us for all of it" and I think this is what many here are taking issue with.</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618594">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"What they are doing is finally standing up for the platform properly"</em></p><p><br></p><p>Can you name one thing they gave an example of that would specifically need an Intel CPU to achieve that difference and where the device could not be powered by an AMD CPU instead?</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618633">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think you're missing the point though — if I walked into a shop tomorrow and it had Mac devices on one display-table, then a series of Windows devices on the other, a mix of which had Intel CPUs, and the rest with an AMD CPU then clearly there would be more variety of devices, and usually cheaper, on the "Windows table" than on the "Apple table". Intel are correct.</p><p><br></p><p>BUT out of the devices on the "Windows table", why should I pick one with an Intel CPU compared to one with an AMD CPU? So say I fancied a 2-in-1 device where the screen can become a tablet. I can't do that with Apple, as they want to flog me both a MacBook and an iPad. But on the "Windows table" I find a nice 2-in-1 device, which has an AMD CPU. The Intel sales rep says, "Wait, don't buy that one, it has an AMD CPU. Buy our one instead because…"</p><p><br></p><p>Can you complete the end of that sales-pitch?</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618619">In reply to djr1984:</a></em></blockquote><p>That's the odd thing though — <em>why </em>they consider Apple to be their nightmare competitor.</p><p><br></p><p>They make their CPUs only for their own devices, no-one else. Therefore they present no-threat in the "Windows world"; only AMD offer any real-challenge currently, as "Windows 10 on ARM" has no significant-traction yet.</p><p><br></p><p>AMD also dominates the video-game console market, as virtually all recent consoles from Sony and Microsoft use them, not Intel, but they seem happy to ignore this much-larger market and instead focus on being sad over losing macOS devices?</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618692">In reply to F4IL:</a></em></blockquote><p>I guess that depends on how many such high-end / premium machines are current Apple devices… for animators, like for feature-films or TV shows, I guess many of those could be Mac devices, but for developers — would the vast-majority be using an Apple device, not a Windows or Linux one?</p><p><br></p><p>Without any stats on the size of this market it's hard to say</p>
dftf
<p>I'm not sure what point Intel is trying to make here.</p><p><br></p><p>It's clearly feeling hurt by the fact Apple have gone their-own-way with the M1, and so they've lost a certain amount of revenue from Mac devices, but devices running Windows is still where their vast, vast amount of revenue comes from, and nothing has changed there: AMD is still their main competitor (though they seem to act like the M1 is?) and Apple are not going to make their chip available to third-parties, so the M1 is irrelevant in the Windows world, really.</p><p><br></p><p>And their videos make no-sense at-all — not one of them actually gives a reason why an Intel chip should be your preferred option. So in the PC world they say "you have more colour options", "you can get laptops with a built-in touch-screen", "you can get 2-in-1 devices" and "no-one games on a Mac". Okay… but on the first three, why would you specifically need an Intel CPU for any of those differences? Can I not currently get a green-coloured laptop, or one with a fixed or detachable touchscreen that runs an AMD CPU? Oh wait, yes I can — so how are any of those Intel-specific?</p><p><br></p><p>And as for the last one: sure, Windows is still better for gaming on, but the gap is certainly way-less than it used to be on macOS (though Linux gaming still lags, mostly as big-companies don't trust the platform when it comes to anti-cheat measures being worked-around). And as time goes on, major games will become played by streaming, not locally, so then both macOS and Linux will likely get every new game, as there'd be no logical reason to block them. (Not to mention — hardcore gamers do not choose laptops generally, compared to more-upgradable desktop PCs!)</p><p><br></p><p>So, TL;DR — Intel seem to have forgotten AMD is their main competitor, not the M1, which is irrelevant really to the Windows world, given no non-Apple device will ever have one inside. And for some reason have produced a series of videos to highlight why you'd choose a device with an Intel CPU — none of which actually do require an Intel CPU, and all such devices could be fitted with an AMD CPU instead. Odd.</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618644">In reply to lwetzel:</a></em></blockquote><p>Okay, I might have to just ignore this article as the comments really are baffling me.</p><p><br></p><p>It's like everyone seems to have forgotten AMD exists, and all of the devices and benefits Intel were highlighting only apply to them in the "Windows world".</p>
dftf
<p>Also, one other observation — if you consider how many macOS devices are sold each-year, I would think the number is vastly-outweighed by the number of video-game consoles sold each-year. And despite how Intel claimed in their fourth video that Intel is better for gaming, see if you can spot the lone 3D console of the last three-decades to use an Intel CPU:</p><p><br></p><p>Xbox Series S|X (2020): AMD • Xbox One (2013): AMD • Xbox 360 (2005): PowerPC • Xbox (2001): Intel Pentium III</p><p><br></p><p>Sony PS5 (2020): AMD • Sony PS4 (2013): AMD • Sony PS3 (2006): PowerPC • Sony PS2 (2000): MIPS RISC • Sony PSX (1994): MIPS RISC</p><p><br></p><p>Nintendo Switch (2017): ARM • Nintendo Wii U (2012): PowerPC • Nintendo Wii (2006): PowerPC • Nintendo GameCube (2001): PowerPC • Nintendo 64 (1996): NEC MIPS</p><p><br></p><p>So instead of crying-over their lost revenue with Apple, how-about asking "if our CPUs are so-great for gaming… why do none of the major consoles choose us?" Taking-over that market would easily plug any gap lost from Apple surely?</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618649">In reply to ebraiter:</a></em></blockquote><p>Missed my point: the games-console market is bigger than devices that run macOS. More game-console units sell each-year. Intel seems to have been happy to have conceded it a long-time ago to AMD, yet seem clearly very-hurt and on-the-defence over losing some sales with Apple.</p><p><br></p><p>Just strikes me as odd they've never seem bothered by not succeeding a bigger market, but are clearly distraught at losing a smaller one…</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618657">In reply to nbplopes:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"The PC is no longer about Intel. […] They main threat is RIZEN. People don’t buy a PC because its run on Intel or RIZEN"</em></p><p><br></p><p>Assuming you mean "Ryzen", then you are aware that is a type of AMD processor, right, it's not a company in itself, just like how "Celeron", "Pentium", "Core" and "Xeon" are all Intel CPUs.</p><p><br></p><p><em>"They buy a PC because it runs Windows"</em></p><p><br></p><p>Well, CPU does matter sometimes: back in the <em>Windows RT </em>days (a version of Windows 8 that ran on 32-bit ARM CPUs), the majority of software you could run on "regular Windows" wouldn't work. Thesedays, with Windows 10 on ARM supporting "regular" 32-bit and 64-bit apps, that is less of an issue, yes.</p><p><br></p><p><em>"… people will not stay on the PC because its powered by Intel…"</em></p><p><br></p><p>No indeed… some people even choose Windows PCs powered by AMD CPUs you know! ;)</p><p><br></p><p><em>"Only if the PC is effectively better. Unless they truly found the the M1 is such as jump on performance that they feel it can threat the PC in general, hence Intel itself as it can no longer bank on anything but Windows when it comes to desktop and laptops"</em></p><p><br></p><p>Compared to most low-end to mid-range AMD and Intel CPUs right now, the Apple M1 is superior — BUT it is only available in Apple devices, so it remains irrelevant in the Windows world. Vast swathes of the general-public are not suddenly going to now decide to switch to macOS when they haven't done so previously. There are many-times more iPhone and iPad owners/users than of macOS devices — they didn't all become converts, so why would a new CPU suddenly make them?</p><p><br></p><p>And what else would Intel bank-on if not Windows — as you said, that's what the vast-majority of the public expect to be "on a PC" as they're used to it. Some vendors, like HP and Dell, already sell a handful of models with Linux (usually Ubuntu) as a preinstall option — but demand isn't exactly overwhelming for them.</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#618671">In reply to BizTechSherpa:</a></em></blockquote><p>Of course Apple will not use Intel CPUs at-all in future… it's not like after they made the move to Intel back in 2005/2006 they still sell PowerPC devices now.</p><p><br></p><p>According to Wikipedia, macOS 10.6 "Snow Leopard" was the first to only run on Intel CPU devices, released in 2009. So if history repeats, Apple could be Apple Silicon-only in around three years time</p>