or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola - Page 7

post #241 of 281
What an article! AWESOME!!! Kudos.

Those fools at Cupertino need to read this twice to see how incompetent they are.

Sorry Schiller but those idiotic "tear jerk emotional" ads are not gonna cut it.

Also, why am I seeing Apple's SSL security issue on every newscast and we don't see Androshit's lack of security coverage?

They need to fire whole of Apple's media team. They're awful.
post #242 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

you like the layout is why your stay and you get called a troll for no apparent reason, whatsoever.

amazing.

I'd wager that you stay because you like to have debates (i.e. interesting topics) and has little do with with website layout.  Please spare us with the I'm an innocent victim sympathy card. It's apparent, you get a rise on stirring things up to make your day less boring.  That is why you are here.  Layout indeed.   

Glad AI has a "Block Member" feature. 
Did I imagine typing "and discussion topics"? No, there it is in the quote in your post, I guess you missed it? I don't imagine anyone will accept your wager when I've already confirmed exactly what you're betting on.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #243 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

One gets a feel for posters. There are people like Gatorguy, who consistently question positive Apple news and consistently defend Google, no matter what. Therefore, he tends to get known as a troll, as he comes across as excessively provocative.
And that's fine. That's a measured response to evidence. A key phrase reaction on a single occurrence of "I love Apple, but" is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

My accusation of you as a troll wasn't based on one of your posts but on all your posts. I think you have made some intelligent and fair comments, but on the whole, you seem to be too negative on Apple without backing it up with strong arguments.
Like when? I'm rarely negative on Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Even in your last post, you revealed your troll comments by not even taking on board what I had to say. I explained my system of outing trolls (which others have similarly alluded to) and concluded by saying that it was borne out of the evidence of this forum. And yet, you dismiss this in your first paragraph.
I dismissed the "I love Apple but" troll identification formula, since that is the main subject of the conversation, and I think I gave a fair account of why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

I think several people get frustrated at being called trolls when criticising Apple. What I love about AppleInsider is that it is a very civilised forum compared to so many out there, due in no small part, I think, to the moderation. I really appreciate being able to read the comments without having my finger on autopilot as I desperately scroll down another 30 comments looking for a decent one.
The moderation is good, I agree (shout out to Marvin for doing a great job). What isn't so good is the mob of users, some of them long timers who use bully tactics and aggressive shouting down of any opinions that run against the current. See the regular reactions to anyone who says they'd like a different size iPhone or iPad screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

But life is short! So if you display even the hint of trollishness on AppleInsider, expect to get given very short shrift because, as I said before, experience suggests that, generally speaking, if it quacks like a troll, it is a troll.
Then ignore it. This name and shame approach just leads to endless arguments that solve nothing. To my mind "troll" is in the same category of words as "fanboy", it is used to shut arguments down rather than engage with them. Which is pointless because there is a proper method for shutting down arguments if you think they're entirely antagonistic - the report button. If it's just an opinion you don't agree with then either talk about it civilly or ignore it. Calling another user a troll (especially over something as innocuous as using "I love Apple, but") is just a jerk move.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #244 of 281
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
He didn't do that.

 

He did that. Sorry. Read posts more carefully.

 

Originally Posted by starxd View Post

I happen to buy nearly every product Apple puts out and I have great respect for them as a company, but

 

Rule #4.

 

Originally Posted by starxd View Post
No, it's a normal person stating a fact.  

 

:lol:

 

Originally Posted by starxd View Post
I love Apple products as much as anyone on here, the only difference is

 

Rule #4. Again.

 

Originally Posted by starxd View Post
Or they can say it whenever they feel like it... because it's a free country, and we have free speech protection. How about that?

 

No, we are not a country. We do not have a constitution. You are not free. You do NOT have free speech protection. You cannot say anything you want here.

 
Originally Posted by starxd View Post
What I said is completely factual

 

Other than being incorrect, as I stated several pages ago, and which has been corroborated by dozens of users since.

 

Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
What the hell is a "wealthy penis?"

 

Wouldn’t it be something to do with the generic “penis measuring contest” metaphor using monetary worth as what is being measured?

post #245 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by bighype View Post

What an article! AWESOME!!! Kudos.

Those fools at Cupertino need to read this twice to see how incompetent they are.

Sorry Schiller but those idiotic "tear jerk emotional" ads are not gonna cut it.

Also, why am I seeing Apple's SSL security issue on every newscast and we don't see Androshit's lack of security coverage?

They need to fire whole of Apple's media team. They're awful.

Sarcasm tag is missing.
post #246 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by starxd View Post

...basically said that any criticism of Apple, or anything written on this site, is absolutely unacceptable...

Not even close.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #247 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Even I didn’t forget that, so you can pretty much tell you’re trolling.

Even if you think he's trolling (I merely skimmed the thread after reading the article), the article is not an exact reporting of details. It reads more like an Op-ed with the emotive language.

post #248 of 281
pot, kettle. a better headline, if one were to be fair about not trashing apple, would be "Samsung wastes billions being petulant brats, and don't get the ice cream after all."
>>< drow ><<
Reply
>>< drow ><<
Reply
post #249 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Even I didn’t forget that, so you can pretty much tell you’re trolling.

Even if you think he's trolling (I merely skimmed the thread after reading the article), the article is not an exact reporting of details. It reads more like an Op-ed with the emotive language.

poster "hmm",

 

I'm curious. My browser show a BLUE box with the word "Editorial" just before the title "Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola". Does your's show something different? I ask because something seem to be coming over  very different when some others reading it and what their expectations are when they do read it. I see this description "Editorial" and take it for it is.  An Editorial .  I read what you wrote about it being an article and sayings effectively "..but its read's as on Op-ed" as though you were surprised.   Somewhere we have a disconnect between expectations of it being an article when in fact it is an editorial and was represented as so. At least in my browser. 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #250 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 

poster "hmm",

 

I'm curious. My browser show a BLUE box with the word "Editorial" just before the title "Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola". Does your's show something different? I ask because something seem to be coming over  very different when some others reading it and what their expectations are when they do read it. I see this description "Editorial" and take it for it is.  An Editorial .  I read what you wrote about it being an article and sayings effectively "..but its read's as on Op-ed" as though you were surprised.   Somewhere we have a disconnect between expectations of it being an article when in fact it is an editorial and was represented as so. At least in my browser. 


I don't see that. Right now this is just one of my background windows. I'm viewing from firefox in Lion rather than from my phone. I am a bit zombified today due to little sleep, but no I still don't see a tag that states that. It may be that I didn't click on it from the front page. Anyway it's not a terrible article or anything, but I'm still not a fan of overly emotive language. That is kind of why I typically read the articles here rather than some of the more "tribal" mac sites. It varies though. Sometimes they're good. Sometimes they feel a little devoid of substance. Now I'm going to check the front page to see if I can find that tag, because I have seen other things tagged editorial.

post #251 of 281

ed·i·to·ri·al

 
 
 
 [ed-i-tawr-ee-uhl, -tohr-]  Show IPA
noun
1.
an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editoror editors.
2.
a statement broadcast on radio or television that presents the opinion of the owner, manager, or the like, of the station orchannel.
3.
something regarded as resembling such an article or statement,as a lengthy, dogmatic utterance.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #252 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 

ed·i·to·ri·al

 
 
 
 [ed-i-tawr-ee-uhl, -tohr-]  Show IPA
noun
1.
an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editoror editors.
2.
a statement broadcast on radio or television that presents the opinion of the owner, manager, or the like, of the station orchannel.
3.
something regarded as resembling such an article or statement,as a lengthy, dogmatic utterance.


Ahh that misses my point. Perhaps I should have said I found some to be more insightful than others. Would that make you happy? I can think of one of the mods on here that regularly points out more interesting references in his posts than some of the writers.

post #253 of 281
It's interesting how the media will jump all over the news of Apple having to rebate $32 million to parents whose children made unauthorized in-app purchases, making this seem like a horrible turn of events for Apple. Or Apple's tussle with the assigned monitor in the eBooks case (at $1100 per hour, his fee comes to $11 million over five years). And yet, none do the simple comparison that would highlight the fact that, even at the low-end estimate of an incremental one million iPhones sold per month based upon China Mobile coming on board, that's an incremental $600 million in revenue to Apple, monthly! Surely this warrants more column inches of positive coverage for Apple than the FTC news or eBooks monitor tussle warrants column inches of negative coverage. This is an example of how you can tell the Apple ship is still seaworthy; when the reality of the aggregate negatives adds up to a tiny percentage of just one month's worth of one positive development in the Apple story. And yet the narrative remains negatively biased. Time to pick up some additional shares.
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #254 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 

ed·i·to·ri·al

 
 
 
 [ed-i-tawr-ee-uhl, -tohr-]  Show IPA
noun
1.
an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editoror editors.
2.
a statement broadcast on radio or television that presents the opinion of the owner, manager, or the like, of the station orchannel.
3.
something regarded as resembling such an article or statement,as a lengthy, dogmatic utterance.


Ahh that misses my point. Perhaps I should have said I found some to be more insightful than others. Would that make you happy? I can think of one of the mods on here that regularly points out more interesting references in his posts than some of the writers.

 

sorry if I am being dense here, but I  honestly do not understand your comment as a response to my inclusion to the  definition of editorial.  Since I don't see how the inclusion of the definition of editorial, "missing the point" of defining what an editorial is, I am going to assume this was offensive somehow.  Did my inclusion of the definition somehow offend you?
 
It was not supposed to offend nor was I  doing it to provoke an argument with you. Quite the opposite, actually. Not sure why but if the inclusion of the definition of editorial offend you, then I'm sorry you took it this way.   It was not directed at you, especially since you seem to know the difference between article and editorial, per your own words "..the article is not an exact reporting of details. It reads more like an Op-ed with the emotive language.." You obviously know that difference and correctly identified DED's work as being editorial in nature (even if your Firefox browser did not label as such).  So I am not sure, the cause for your subsequent response and why you feel the need to defend yourself, when there was no offense intended to be given.

 

or did I misunderstand your intent? You would not simply be trying switch paddles mid stream and switch one complaint for another until something sticks, are you? You would not be trying to intentionally offend DED, just for the sake of being offensive. right?  Because that would not only be sad but some would probably call it trollish.    

 

I'm confused.  sorry. Whats your intent here? 


Edited by snova - 2/25/14 at 9:29pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #255 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

Surely this warrants more column inches of positive coverage for Apple than the FTC news or eBooks monitor tussle warrants column inches of negative coverage. This is an example of how you can tell the Apple ship is still seaworthy; when the reality of the aggregate negatives adds up to a tiny percentage of just one month's worth of one positive development in the Apple story. And yet the narrative remains negatively biased. Time to pick up some additional shares.

 

I grew up in Michigan, in what used to be car country. Now, granted, the companies were not doing well for a lot of my early years, but the media was all over the negative news and never emphasized the rare positive developments. Even now, if you only paid attention to the media, you wouldn't think that GM and Ford are still both in the top 5 car companies by revenue. Bad news sells better than good. 

post #256 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

I think you've misinterpreted the CNET story. CNET actively sought to monetize its already favourable reviews by charging companies to republish those stories. It's a shady business scheme but it's a stretch to say that CNET has accepted bribes in exchange for positive reviews.

This is even worse.

At first I thought CNET was accepting bribes. But they appear to be approaching companies and asking for them.
post #257 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

I think you've misinterpreted the CNET story. CNET actively sought to monetize its already favourable reviews by charging companies to republish those stories. It's a shady business scheme but it's a stretch to say that CNET has accepted bribes in exchange for positive reviews.

This is even worse.

At first I thought CNET was accepting bribes. But they appear to be approaching companies and asking for them.

the politically correct term for this is "solicitation".  Other people know it as, "the world's oldest profession".

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #258 of 281
The media makes their money off of advertising. When Apple was heavily advertising in the NYT and WSJ, those magazines became the foremost proponents of Apple. No doubt, it was easy for them since Apple has such an advanced lead over its competition. You may recall the regular front page Ads on the NYT, where Apple purchased both the Hero banner and the contiguous right hand side banner, playing them in sync.

Apple traditionally slows down its advertising after it makes its case and effectively makes a call to action. Allowing word of mouth to continue the campaign. This is a very effective approach and has the added benefit of gaining strong traction and new brand loyalists. After all, its easier to buy a product that your friend or colleague is using and is promoting glowingly.

I know very few Samsung S3/S4 buyers who plan to buy another Android device, whereas they simply state that they are waiting now for Apple to release a larger display on their iPhone. Justifying their current purchase, while allowing themselves a reason to return to the Apple camp. That leads me to conclude that the next iPhone will put a nail in Android high end phone coffin.
post #259 of 281

well, the Samsung S5 unveiled yesterday is a totally underwhelming new model. last year's chip, screen, and OS. a few more megapixels but no dual flash. various spec bumps and lots of bells and whistle gimmicks. and oh yes, a third-rate fingerprint sensor and gold plastic case - with dimples!

 

so what does the tech press do? gush about it! no real reviews yet but lots of hype about what a solid "evolutionary" improvement it is.

 

i guess "evolutionary" in only bad when Apple does it. if this same package were the 5S last year, it would have been branded a "total fail."

 

i can't wait to read the reviews of this blatant dog and see how they BS their way thru it all.

post #260 of 281
Can you point to "gushing reviews"?
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #261 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) You'd have banned him as a troll for thinking someone else might be a troll?

2) What does 6 months mean? If we're talking about a brand new account with little to no post history I would be able to see your point but we're talking 6 months and hundreds of posts, but more importantly his posts aren't snarky one-liners but in-depth and thoughtful enough to defend and explain his position. We need more of that around here, not less.

3) I see a lot more new posters getting upset for having replies of a differing opinion and the flaws in their logic or facts getting addressed back to them than I do non-trolls being called trolls.

4) I'm not a fan of these terms like Scamsung. They hurt an argument because they show a complete disregard at even attempting to approach a position fairly and objectively. When someone starts their conversation here with Crapple or iSheep do you expect their comment to be a worthwhile contribution to the thread?

You can't really compare the terms Crapple and Scamsung. Apple products aren't crappy. But Samsung IS a fraudulent company, and even a trial showed that.
post #262 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

well, the Samsung S5 unveiled yesterday is a totally underwhelming new model. last year's chip, screen, and OS. a few more megapixels but no dual flash. various spec bumps and lots of bells and whistle gimmicks. and oh yes, a third-rate fingerprint sensor and gold plastic case - with dimples!

so what does the tech press do? gush about it! no real reviews yet but lots of hype about what a solid "evolutionary" improvement it is.

i guess "evolutionary" in only bad when Apple does it. if this same package were the 5S last year, it would have been branded a "total fail."

i can't wait to read the reviews of this blatant dog and see how they BS their way thru it all.

I've actually seen a lot of negative hands-on. People aren't excited about their new phone, even on Samsung boards.
Knowing that the S4 sold less than Shamesung expected, I wonder if that means the S5 will sell even worse. I'd say it will.
post #263 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

You can't really compare the terms Crapple and Scamsung. Apple products aren't crappy. But Samsung IS a fraudulent company, and even a trial showed that.

I agree that Samsung's tactics are very shady and I would also agree that Apple's quality is much better but I still don't think that excuses the usage from anyone.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #264 of 281
Since we've gotten back to Samsung ( and let's agree the Galaxy series is crap - I didn't realise just how bad until I had to use an S3 or 4 at work. The camera doesn't focus, it's shite, the plastic, the laggardnes, the empty screens which do nothing, the screens which are advertising copy) can we find where there are "gushing reviews?". Relevant to this debate, I would have assumed.

On the subject of trolls - in the football (soccer) fan site I moderate ( which gets 100k views a day) accusations of trolling are considered personal attacks and are warned and then banned. Starxd probably is an Apple user, and probably has interesting things to say. The long term viability of the site - the forums at least - depend on new posters getting a civic welcome. He didn't.

We do mod actual trolls too.

It easier to find actual trolls here, if someone is posting from a Samsung device and is negative, or uses obvious codes words ( fanboy) they can disappear. I bet starxd was, in fact posting from a mac or an iDevice.

Accusations of trolling , particularly of newbies, are not just bullying tactics but a form of back seat moderation.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #265 of 281
Well I knew the media can be bought. See how Samsung's Galaxy gets smart phone of the year when iPhone is better and even much better Android phones out there (HTC One X, Google Nexus). This is how Samsung rolls and is willing to do anything to get on top. Funny thing is that consumers are not as dumb as Samsung believes and we can see the underhanded moves they make. Laughable.
post #266 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Can you point to "gushing reviews"?

 

"See all 4,148 articles.":

 

http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&topic=tc&ncl=dHyyRHyrC2uh-mMq-VeRLwRq8ni-M

post #267 of 281

Oh is 4,148 articles proof of gushing?

The first result opines.

Samsung Galaxy S5: A sturdy, snappy phone, but where's the innovation?

None of the rest of the titles - I can't be assed reading them all - "gushes".
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #268 of 281
post #269 of 281
post #270 of 281
ugh.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #271 of 281

PCMag goes straight to the heart of Gush - the specs:

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2454105,00.asp

post #272 of 281
post #273 of 281

here's my favorite Gush. it's not a major tech site, just one of those others that SS can buy outright:

 

http://www.latintimes.com/samsung-galaxy-s5-vs-iphone-5s-compare-features-specs-price-and-more-poll-155273

post #274 of 281
All selective links. You can find critical articles on all of these sites. In fact your link proved the point.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #275 of 281

yes, there are a lot of lukewarm or wait and see S5 reactions too. but a lame product like this from Apple would have gotten a scathing reaction instantly. the point of this DED Editorial is that Samsung gets favorable media coverage no matter what thanks to its ad budget.

post #276 of 281

Thank you AppleInsider for recognizing this! Long, but a very good post! Like they say - Apple we continue doing the right thing no matter how all the media out there is take pot shot at it!

post #277 of 281

Maybe I'm dumb or something but I couldn't find evidence of a 'gushing' review.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #278 of 281

This whole article starts from the very questionable premiss that Samsung and Apple’s businesses are similar enough to compare advertising spend and draw conclusions without drilling down deeper.

 

Samsung is a massive conglomerate that makes everything from raw components to household appliances, many of which are businesses in which Apple has zero presence. You can’t compare their advertising spend with Apple’s unless you can break it down by division or sector.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
post #279 of 281

Great article!!! I completely agree with what was written. I do think that Apple needs to be more vocal about what is going on and not just keeping quiet. They are probably being the bigger man and turning the other cheek but as a multi billion dollar company they need to at least do or say something about the situation!!!

post #280 of 281
I think in general the media has been corrupted with "you advertise with us, we create good articles" -- it's basically a protection racket.

After BP had it's oil gusher in the Gulf, we suddenly saw a lot more "we care" ads on CNN and other news agencies. Lot's of gentle deer frolicking in woods next to oil pumps, as if it were the Rebel Alliance camouflaging a base and using their force powers to imbue it with extra nature love you long time.

For some reason, Apple got a reputation as being one of the ONLY sweat shop exploiters in China, and there's a lot of hype about their expensive products and captive market.

You can only prove these issues anecdotally, however, but anyone with a passing knowledge of the media knows the pay-for-play nature of coverage in most ad driven magazines and news outlets.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola