or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by focher

Hard to evaluate that claim when there's no agreed definition of "productive purposes" ... other than the one in your head, of course. Is "productive purposes" create MS Office files? Or maybe it's email, web browsing, Twitter, and Facebook. Jobs was right. Some people will need a truck, but most people don't need a truck. It's like defining the success criteria for a non-Windows device being whether it runs Windows software. Of course, now there will be Windows devices...
Yeah, that's great. Apple can devolve into the same level of brand as those two.
Let's just go back to that Intro to Logic class you ditched out on in college. A competitor running ads insulting to Apple users is not EQUAL to Apple running ads insulting to Apple users.
Under Samsung's argument (and those who support it) is that a patent wouldn't even be legitimate for a time machine. Apparently anything that has ever been imagined and fictionalized is prior art. I think they don't understand the term "art" isn't the definition their mind.
You're joking, right?
There's actually no evidence that Apple cannot continue its upward climb. In the last 11 years, they have created 3 separate brand new multi-billion dollar revenue categories (iPod, iPhone, iPad). The negativity is fed by this premise that Steve Jobs left some pipeline of products that Apple will milk, but that there won't be anything new. How long that view persists, no one knows, but it inevitably will fade over time. Then people will realize that the greatest thing Jobs...
That's fine. You are impressed by functional ads. I do not have any desire to work for Apple, and your suggestion otherwise is just specious and silly. These ads are terrible brand marketing ads, and Apple has long been about brand marketing. It seemed to be doing well for them. Brand marketing is a specific kind of marketing, and it translates well across brands. The problem is people tend to think in terms of functional ads "product X will do Y for you" because it's...
12 years with a major international consumer brand, and brand was king over product. Here's the test: tell me if these commercials connect to you on any emotional level. They are purely functional "you can do this with product X" ads (with an annoying - which I guess is an emotion but not a good one - addition of "and here is a service that can help you"). The ads are low rent. Not bad, just bad for Apple.
A decent device is going to do that every year about this time in the iPhone refresh. cycle. It doesn't matter, because even with fewer unit sales (which are still higher than any competing single model) Apple takes most of the market profits.
Those are perfectly good ads .... for most companies. For Apple, they are terrible. Apple ads have always been about associating a product with the Apple brand - except the Think Different campaign, which established the brand identity. People who start excusing Apple for not being great are just allowing mediocrity to seep back into its culture. Schiller should be rejecting such things. He may not know what the perfect ad is, but he should know when he sees one that isn't.
New Posts  All Forums: