1984 Apple's Macintosh Commercial (HD)

This is a battle humans/technologists have been facing since the advent of paper and pencil. Just for fun, the old Apple advertisement. 1984 Apple's Macintosh Commercial (HD) Video this video

The whole point of somewhere like Google is that they don't want people who will do what they're told, because such people are only capable of doing what they're told. You can't order someone to innovate unless they have no other choice. Silicon Valley has spent years setting itself up as an inheritor of the counterculture, a place where it's possible to "think different". Employees are given a share of the business (via a complicated tax shelter of options). Startups want "contributors", people who buy into the idea that they're engaged in a positive-sum contribution to the world rather than just bringing home a paycheck. They provide all sorts of office features to encourage people to "bring their whole self to work". (I could go on, but I expect this thread to be buried) Edit: exhibit A, hollywood social justice warrior proudly being a nuisance, disrupting law abiding citizens with a hammer: this video ; the "1984" Macintosh commercial and its successor "Think Different" link are as close to an official statement of SV founding ideology as you're going to get)

In case you haven't seen it (like I hadn't), this ad is a parody of the 1984 Apple Macintosh ad: this video

This is the original Apple "1984" commercial (directed by Ridley Scott) that is spoofed by Epic: this video In the Apple commercial, "Big Brother" is represented by a domineering IBM. It's rather ironic that Apple has been more closed, guarded and controlling than the PC platform has ever been.

Adobe used Myriad as a corporate identity face for nearly a decade before Apple. Garamond has a rather more extensive history, but, suffice it to say that, in terms of typography at least, 1984[1] was not entirely unlike Nineteen Eighty-Four [2]. [1] this video [2] link

Enough people need to put pressure on these companies to stop censorship. These companies still care a bit about emails and customer reviews. This is why cancel culture gets away with it because they mass email them to take down and de-platform people. Here's an email template. You can modify it as needed and send it. I sent it to these two emails WHICH ARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ON THEIR SITE so I am not doxxing: [email protected] [email protected] ----------- TEMPLATE: I wasn't able to find a specific place to send this feedback so using this email. Please forward to the relevant department. I am a brown immigrant to Canada. I usually don't mention my race but it seems relevant in this topic. I as well as my family own several Apple products including iPhones, MacBooks, Mac Minis etc. Several of us and my friends are also developers for the App Store. I am deeply disappointed in Apple threatening censorship and banning of apps which don't align with Apple staff's views. I understand calls to violence are unacceptable but Apple banning apps like Parler just for political speech which isn't violence is deeply disappointing. I am not sure if you are aware but apps like Twitter, Reddit have and allow porn, illegal porn, and regularly calls to violence. Twitter allows violent terrorists like Antifa, Iranian dictator who calls for assassination and violence to stay on their platform but has banned a democratically elected President just because they disagree with him. Facebook

Don't you hate it when you're an evil big-brother dictator giving a frenzied political rally, with your menacing visage projected onto a gigantic monochromatic screen towering above the audience, in a dystopian, industrial setting in blue and grayish tones, with a line of people of ambiguous gender marching in unison through a long tunnel monitored by a string of television screens, and a full-color nameless running female competitive track and field athlete wearing an athletic "uniform" with red athletic shorts, running shoes, a white tank top with a cubist picture of Apple's Macintosh computer, a white sweat band on her left wrist, and a red one on her right, runs in carrying a large brass-headed sledgehammer, striding past rows of marching minions evoking the opening scenes of Metropolis, while you continue to speak inspiringly to your raptured audience about the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives, as your four police officers, presumably agents of the Thought Police, wearing black uniforms, protected by riot gear, helmets with visors covering their faces, and armed with large night sticks, chase her towards the large screen with the glaring image of your Big Brother-like facade as you give your speech, and then close to the screen, she hurls her hammer towards it, right at the moment you announce, “we shall prevail!”, gob-smacking you right in the nose, and in a flurry of light and smoke, the screen with your face is destroyed, leaving t

- The following is based on traditional (television/film/etc) advertising; I am assuming it holds true for internet based advertising. There's some [literal] marketing 101 stuff most people aren't aware of. For large companies the value in marketing isn't really about directly selling you products, but about instilling a positive subconscious perception of a product in your mind. Coke is the classic example. Dominant marketshare, defacto monopoly in many regions, and a loyal customer base. Yet they advertise endlessly and at great cost. The reason is so when you look at a bottle of Coke you don't think 'sugar, heart disease, obese people drink this' but instead 'crisp, cool, refreshing, athletic people drink this'. And it's all subconscious because of course we all consciously know its the former rather than the latter, but advertising can effectively make people do and think things that they might not otherwise. And there is significant research and practice to confirm all of this. Companies aren't just spending out of inertia. This [1] is considered one of the most effective and powerful ads of all-time. It's Apple's 1984 Ad about the first Mac. A 60 second clip with zero information on the product/capabilities, zero information on pricing, etc. And Apple spent big on the ad (which was, for instance, directed by Ridley Scott) and tried to get it out everywhere, including in theaters. It seems like a completely absurd ad, until you understand how advertising works. [1] - [VI

I like it. What can make a name on that list notable above other names is the plethora of other awards they may have also made - in advertising it would not just be ClIO, but IBA, ADDY, Hatch, New York International, Sunny, Silver Microphone, Mobius, RAC, London International, ANDY, EFFIE, The One Show, not to mention regional awards. A multidimensional matrix of such award winners would indicate true notability. Other factors might also include the notability of the campaign they created - e.g. the famous 1984 Apple Chiat Day commercial [0] - or the top advertising agency revenues. [0] this video

I would agree on the tone of the latest keynote, but I wouldn't say it's entirely a departure from their 1984 Macintosh commercial: this video

All advertising must have these two criteria: 1. Who is this advertisement for? 2. How persuasive is it for that person? Compare and contrast Apple's two other advertising campaigns: the black-and-white dancers for iPod [0], and the 'resistance' 1984 for Macintosh [1]. In the former, the target were people who wanted to have a good time but also highlighted the fashionable white chord that was unique to iPods of the time. It said you could have fun and be cool (if you bought an iPod). In the latter case, the target were people who wanted to be free from soulless computers and express themselves. It said you could have freedom and be unique (if you bought a Macintosh). Now lets compare the newest advertisement. If you are a creator, watching a bunch of the things you like and create destroyed is unsettling. If you like appreciating those creations, then watching a bunch of artwork, games, etc destroyed is unsettling. If you like to preserve things, watching a bunch of well-crafted instruments and technology that last decades destroyed and replaced by a device that barely lasts a few years is unsettling. Every advertisement has one job: Persuade TARGET to do ACTION. Advertising is designed to manipulate your feelings toward this end. This advertisement is not just a flop, but is triggering strong negative feelings in the very target demographic. It became an organic and viral Anti-Marketing campaign for Apple itself. From a marketing perspective I would want to yank and kill th

I don't really think that's true, Apple has always marketed quite aggressively. In fact they invented (or at least popularized) the CEO keynote ad to say nothing of their history of more traditional ads going all the way back to their 1984 ad [1]. As for the AVP, they pretty clearly want it to be a productivity thing as opposed to a video game machine that every other consumer VR product is, which is consistent with their historic ambivalence to video games. In fact, I'd say that it's Zuck et al who are making "Oscar-worthy" VR experiences (or at least enabling them), while Apple's are basic and derivative [2]. [1] this video [2] link

This '1984' Apple ad shows how Freedom is Slavery to the average Joe: this video The original reading is that the bad guys are IBM and people who make you type on the command line and learn assembly language and such but if you roll it up to 2025 maybe the bad guys are the drones who have the latest iPhone and iPad and iWatch and AirPods and iPad Pro and Macbook and Mac Studio and Vision Pro and the real liberators write AVR8 assembly for the Arduino.