[Taywee]

Yeah, and you could argue that ARM and RISC-V Windows and Linux wouldn't be PCs, but I don't really see the value in using the terminology for such a dated use. It's not really useful anymore since none of the same software is compatible across different OSes anymore.

"Mac vs PC" was way after Windows software was already not compatible with IBM PCs, so by that point, the implication was just "PC == x86", and Apple was already transitioning to Intel as well. "PC" being tied to a specific Intel processor is confusing. It's all very bizarre and mostly marketing.

[dTal]

It's very much of a piece with Apple's infamous "what's a computer" iPad ad. Apple have always been trying to position their products as existing in some sort of technological alternate universe ("Think Different"). They go out of their way to avoid applying conventional terminology; you will never see them call AirPods "earbuds", for instance. This extends even down to the banal - their just-announced AR goggles are fastened to the user's head by way of a "Head Band", because heaven forfend such advanced technology be sullied with anything so prosaic as a "strap".

This relentless self-othering has a dark side; apart from being good marketing, it also conveniently excuses behavior that might otherwise be regarded as unacceptable - much like how rebranding small LTE-enabled computers as "mobile" reset user expectations across the board for things like admin control, advertising in the UI, the worth of software, and other pesky social mores inconvenient to the money-extracting classes.

Pedantic perhaps, but not a terrible thing to draw attention to.

[icedchai]

My definition: Does it run x86 Windows, without a VM or emulator? Then it’s a “PC”