The difference is the power differential: at the time Apple ran those ads, they were much smaller and semiregularly the topic of speculation about bankruptcy. Pitching them as better than the dominant platform was trying to get buyers to think of them as peers.

In this case, Intel has been the dominant player since the 90s, possibly the late 1980s in the consumer market. Running an ad saying they’re afraid of a newcomer’s first product (in this segment, of course) seems different because they’ve been a safe default option for decades - especially because this option was created to replace their products. It seems just as likely to make consumers wonder why they’re so worried about.

This proves that when you make an ad mentioning the competitor's products, you have to do it right.

I thought the same for a second. But “PC” wasn’t referring to a specific brand. They were comparing with the whole industry.

As opposed to this ad that uses PC and Mac??? I don't get your argument when it is basically the same argument inverted. This advert doesn't include prominent Intel branding either - they are fighting for the PC segment.

Here, they actually call out Apple and M1 by name. That’s the difference.

Apple did literally the exact same thing back in the day, saying some programs don't work very well on PC and urging people to get an Apple computer. Check out one example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48jlm6QSU4k

PC isn't a brand. Apple was referencing all non-Mac computers (not just Dell or HP) as their competitor. Intel is specifically referencing a single chip from a single competitor.

If the Apple ad said "Mac is so much better than the Dell XPS", that would be different.

M1 Mac is three different computers; Intel is taking a swipe at Apple Silicon in general. They want Apple to use Intel chips for refreshes on the bigger devices (MBP16 still ships with 9th-gen Intel, iMac with 7th-gen). Anything they can do to delay Apple Silicon market takeup will dampen the attractiveness of post-M1 models running Apple Silicon, because nobody wants a machine with sparse software availability and that's a problem that won't get resolved until the user base is much bigger.

At the time of "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC," Apple transitioned to Intel. Now that it's transitioning away from Intel, you're seeing the same argument but inverted.

> M1 Mac is three different computers; Intel is taking a swipe at Apple Silicon in general.

You are exactly correct: Apple silicon. Intel is calling out a singular competitor. Apple called out all PCs.

> They want Apple to use Intel chips for refreshes on the bigger devices (MBP16 still ships with 9th-gen Intel, iMac with 7th-gen).

If there are generation-bump Intel refreshes for those machines coming, they have either been planned all along or will be a result of unexpected problems getting the M1X (or whatever would be in the those machines) ready or available. Intel isn't going to convince Apple to delay their architecture transition, especially now that they have released ads attacking their products.

> Anything they can do to delay Apple Silicon market takeup will dampen the attractiveness of post-M1 models running Apple Silicon, because nobody wants a machine with sparse software availability and that's a problem that won't get resolved until the user base is much bigger.

Oh, I agree this is their intent. But trying "Anything they can do" means they aren't coming from a position of strength.

Sure, “PC” was (is?) synonymous with Windows, but as @ricketycricket said, Apple wasn’t calling out a single thing, but all computers that are labeled “PC”.