or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by focher

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.
Actually, it was Tim Cook who explicitly stated Apple would not leave a price umbrella for the competition. Neither you nor I appear to have any personal knowledge on the issue of whether Apple will release a smaller form factor iPad. However, it's hard to see a market where Apple doesn't address the $200-$250 price tier.You can be snarky about it, but it doesn't change the reality that a segment of the population is price sensitive AND if Apple feels like it can deliver a...
Kindle Fire, for one. And while we don't know exact numbers, the statistics we've seen suggest anywhere from 10-20% of the overall tablet market is going to someone other than Apple. I'm not doomsaying. The iPad IS the tablet market right now. But if Apple feels it has an excellent product for the smaller form factor segment (actually, I should say "middle size" because the iPod Touch is the smaller form factor) then its unlikely they will cede market share to the also rans.
New Posts  All Forums: