Samsung pokes fun at Apple lawsuits in Super Bowl teaser ad - Page 5

Originally Posted by jragosta 

And that's the point. People are still talking about that Apple ad 3 decades later. How many of today's ads will be remembered in 30 days, much less 30 years?
I would suggest that you get a book on statistics and learn something before embarrassing yourself further.

Your statement applies ONLY IF the sample is random and representative. If a sample is random and representative, then increasing the sample size increases the probability that the observed result is the same as the population as a whole. The numbers are controlled purely by mathematics and can easily be looked up. Just from memory, but the order of magnitude will be right: If you have a sample size of 1,000, there will be a roughly 95% probability that the result will be within +/- 3% of the result for the entire population.

That does NOT apply if the sample is not representative (as, for example, in this case where you have a self-selected sample). Example: let's say that I want to know what percentage of the world's population speaks Mandarin or Cantonese. If I sample 1,000 people in Beijing, the result will be close to 100%. If I sample 1,000 people in Little Rock, Arkansas, the result will be a few percent, at most. The problem is that neither sample is representative of the world's population.

As I've pointed out repeatedly in the survey numbers presented here on various topics, the numbers are often worthless, not because of sample size (since, properly done, a sample of even a thousand can give you useful results) but because samples are not representative of the population as a whole.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it but I can't believe Apple would be so undignified and sexist as to use a blonde joke in an ad.

Originally Posted by Marvin 

Well no, they'd just use a brunette. Some people will still say it's sexist but I don't think it would work having a guy using the pregnancy test.

You have to be allowed to portray scenarios. If you decide you can't have a stupid woman in an ad, then you have to also decide you can't have a stupid man in an ad otherwise that's sexist. So then Apple's Genius ads are sexist because they suggest middle-aged guys aren't smart enough to have basic computer skills. Nobody calls them sexist despite only portraying middle-aged men requiring Genius assistance.

Apple gets a pass to portray some of their customers as stupid in need of help but when Samsung portrays scenarios, all of a sudden their portrayals have to be applied to everyone. They should get the same treatment. I didn't like the Genius ads because I didn't think they were funny and they suggest some of their own customers are really stupid. Similarly Samsung in their 'line' ads suggest customers they hope to persuade to buy their own products are deluded and gullible, which isn't a good move.

There are limits to how much advertising should cause offense but the level of political correctness that goes on these days is a little tiring and I think Apple is becoming too politically correct. Back in 1984, they were small and trying to get some footing against Big Blue and having a disruptive advert made the impact. Although Samsung and RIM are big companies, they have to be more disruptive and risky in their advertising in order to get that mindshare instead of Apple.

By all means they should be criticised for poor execution but I think they should be allowed to have some creative freedom too and I'd say Samsung's marketing is better than Microsoft's and RIM's. Even if it offends people, it's better than bland marketing because people talk about it. This is an Apple forum and Samsung is being publicised unlike Microsoft and RIM and guess which ones are selling really well. It has a lot to do with the products I know but the brand awareness comes along with this publicity.

Originally Posted by wakefinance 

I'll make the same suggestion to you although you can't save yourself from looking like an ass. The damage is already done. What I said was absolutely correct. With a sample size above 30 the chance that the sample mean differs from the population mean rapidly approaches zero. As sample size increases it is increasingly unlikely to pick a sample whose mean is some number of standard deviations away from the population mean (it's a bit more complicated than that but for the purpose of this argument it's all you need to know). That statement accounts for the fact that you could potentially choose a sample that does not reflect the population. What my statement also says is that your chances of selecting such a population are exceedingly low, especially when your sample is several thousand people. The chances of a skewed sample of that size is virtually zero.

I also want to emphasize the fact that the population is all viewers of the video, not all people in the US, all people in the world, all smartphone users, or any other group.

Originally Posted by charlituna 

 

So he's damned for making the apology just he would have been for not making it and folks ripping the company to shreds over 'pretending the problem doesn't exist'

Originally Posted by jragosta 

You're still wrong.

First, you said that the claim about the 'likes' was correct because the sample size was several thousand. That is wrong. If the sample is not representative, then it won't ge you the right result no matter how large a sample.

It is also incorrect that a larger sample will exponentially get closer to the correct answer as the number increases. Take my example. You want to know the world population who speaks Japanese. I'm not sure what the percentage is, but let's say it's 5%. Now, you take your sample in Tokyo. Of the first 1,000 people you choose, 99.5% speak Japanese. So you take another 1000 - and still have 99.5% speaking Japanese. Now you ask a million Tokyo residents and 99.5% of them speak Japanese. No matter how large your sample, you're not going to get close to the correct number - because your sample is not representative. It has absolutely nothing to do with sample size - and certainly this argument does nothing to establish that the self-selected sample you cited has any relevance to the population as a whole.

Originally Posted by wakefinance 

You're not disproving my point. What you're saying is that someone could take a horrible sample and get data that doesn't represent a population. In your example the survey taker is trying to determine the worldwide population of Japanese speakers while only sampling in a single country. There is an obvious error in the sampling. In the case of this video the sample is of people who came to watch the video. The population is also people who came to watch the video. There is no obvious error in the sampling. YouTube didn't only take reviews from women, men, 18 year olds, disabled veterans, or any other particular group. The sample is likely fair and unbiased.

Originally Posted by jragosta 

Of course there's an obvious error. Several, actually:

1. People who come to see a particular video may have a particular mind set.
2. People who bother to respond may be (and probably are) different than the population as a whole.

What you have is a self-selecting sample - and self-selecting samples are almost NEVER representative of the population as a whole.

Once again, you really need to get at least a basic understanding of statistics before commenting.

Originally Posted by wakefinance 

Firstly, belittling me and my knowledge of statistics does not further your argument and in fact makes you less believable to anyone else reading your post. Intimidation tactics fill in the gap from missing knowledge. But don't worry about my opinion of you as I already know you're spouting off things that you know nothing about. You do it all the time. I, on the other hand, am currently taking my fourth statistics class so unless you have a degree in statistics please refrain from lecturing me.

Anyway, I'll rebut your self-selecting sample idea. It's true that in many cases a self-selecting sample is biased. When a surveyor calls a home a woman is statistically more likely to answer the phone. Bias. When a surveyor is in the mall asking for opinions an extrovert is more likely to respond. Bias. When a survey is long a person with a less demanding job is more likely to respond. Bias. In the case of this video respondents are anonymous, have no reason to be of a particular demographic (at least no more particular than the population of video watchers), and the “survey" takes less than a second to complete. The only way that bias could cause problems in this case is if I tried to apply my knowledge of the sample to a different population, such as the entire US.

Originally Posted by jragosta 

No one intimidated you or belittled you. I simply pointed out that you were wrong - and that you continued to be wrong when you kept repeating the same nonsense.

You're STILL wrong. A self-selected sample (the people who choose to click on 'like') is not representative of the population as a whole. Period.

And I noticed that you still haven't responded to the evidence of inherent bias in your method. Look at videos at random on YouTube. Likes outnumber dislikes by at least 10 to one in most videos. That's the sign of a self-selection bias.

Originally Posted by dasanman69 

You're correct. Most people that dislike a video probably just close it than click the dislike button. Now it'd be a different story if one had to click like/dislike.

Originally Posted by jragosta 

No one intimidated you or belittled you. I simply pointed out that you were wrong - and that you continued to be wrong when you kept repeating the same nonsense.

You're STILL wrong. A self-selected sample (the people who choose to click on 'like') is not representative of the population as a whole. Period.

And I noticed that you still haven't responded to the evidence of inherent bias in your method. Look at videos at random on YouTube. Likes outnumber dislikes by at least 10 to one in most videos. That's the sign of a self-selection bias.

Originally Posted by wakefinance 

That videos often have more likes than dislikes doesn't prove I'm wrong. It just means that the population of viewers on a given a video are likely to like that video because they chose to watch it in the first place. Once again I'm not saying that the sample is representative of any population other than the one that watched the video.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

IMO it wasn't better than the teaser. This one is just rambling.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

IMO it wasn't better than the teaser. This one is just rambling.

Originally Posted by jragosta 

True, but at least they showed some of the things you could do with their product. Of course, they skimmed over the only one that's unique to their product so fast that most people won't catch it, but at least the product was visible.

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

I would think that if you yourself recognize that what you're saying is a personal attack, you wouldn't say it. At least not on the forum proper. 

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

There's a very small but active number of forum members here that must not consider what they write to be personal attacks, tho to an average reader it would be obvious many of their posts are just that.

Pompous is the new black.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


Taking what is directed at your words personally is not the same as attacking the person who has made a stupid, unintelligent, vacuous, moronic, doltish, ignorant, foolish, asinine, racist, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted or boneheaded remark.


PS: I take offense at your comment¡

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

I would think that if you yourself recognize that what you're saying is a personal attack, you wouldn't say it. At least not on the forum proper. 

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

There's a very small but active number of forum members here that must not consider what they write to be personal attacks, tho to an average reader it would be obvious many of their posts are just that.

 

Pompous is the new black.

Originally Posted by macinthe408 

My dad: "Wow, they're a bitter company, aren't they? This ad makes me want to NOT get one of their products. It's like you when you used to whine about Billy Thomson beating you up all the time. Just suck it up, I used to tell you."