Here’s Why You Should Hate Apple’s Iconic 1984 Ad

Paul Waldman notes an anniversary:

Thirty years ago this week, the Super Bowl featured an ad (directed by Ridley Scott, no less) for the soon-to-be-released Macintosh computer, in which Apple implicitly compared the dominance of Microsoft operating systems and IBM computers to the oppressive dictatorship of George Orwell’s 1984. Apple’s Board of Directors apparently hated the ad, but Steve Jobs insisted that it air, probably because he understood how critical it was to building Apple into not just an identifiable brand but a statement of personal identity. If you use a PC, Jobs was saying, you’re a drone, a cog in the wheel, someone who has been stripped of your individuality as you labor for the Man. Whereas if you use a Mac, you’re a creative, youthful individual forging your own way in the world and subverting the dominant paradigm.

Waldman uses this as a springboard for some thoughts about technology and privacy, but I want to hijack his post to make a more mundane point. Apple’s 1984 ad is justly famous, but everyone seems to be afraid to make the most obvious point about it: It didn’t work. Apple’s board of directors was probably right.

As a piece of art, the 1984 ad was tremendously successful, quickly turning into a cultural touchstone that generated mountains of free publicity for Apple. But that very success almost certainly helped doom the Macintosh, which became irrevocably viewed as a chi chi niche product for bohemians and graphic arts folks. The 1984 ad told everyone in unmistakable tones that the Mac wasn’t intended for business use; wasn’t intended for normal people; and wasn’t intended for getting any real work done. Sure, it may have appealed to creative, youthful individuals, but it cost the equivalent of $5,000 in today’s dollars. Creative, youthful individuals couldn’t afford to buy the damn thing—and the people who could afford it weren’t much interested after being pointedly ridiculed as drones and dullards.

Aside from all its other problems, Apple never overcame that. The Macintosh never held more than a tiny share of the PC market, and Apple’s revival in the aughts never owed anything to the Mac. Its success in the Jobs 2.0 era was based on the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. Those were genius.

The moral of the story is simple: Yes, the 1984 ad created an indelible brand image. But it was the wrong image. It was a memorable ad, but it wasn’t a good one.

And if that’s not enough to change your mind, here’s one more thing: 1984 also ushered in the era of insufferable “event” ads saturating the Super Bowl. That alone should be reason enough to consign it to the fiery depths of hell.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend