I don't see what Apple of 2010 has to do with IBM of 1984.
Nothing much at all.
The 1984 commercial was about lack of vision and lock-down in the computer world. It was about companies that dominate the landscape, but who are not willing to let you have any choice in computing. These companies don't have your interests at heart, they aren't creative, they have no vision, but they want to stop anyone else from offering you anything other than the dreck they've been force feeding you for years.
That was sort of what IBM (and others) were like at the time. It was a total mind-set. The commercial has absolutely nothing to do with the "real" 1984, ("pmz" below), and nothing really to do with Apple today.
I mean it's not even close. Apple could not seriously be considered to be doing any of that. In fact they are doing the opposite.
The only close comparison is if you separate out the app store from the rest of their products and services, then the "total control belongs to us" aspect is there. The trouble is the stuff they are selling is not dreck. It's imaginative, interesting, well-loved stuff. So even there, it's just not the same.
Apple has strayed off it's path with the app store rules, but 1984? Not really. Long way to go yet.
I understand that its a HUGE pain for developers, but they'll just wait till release and fix everything. It depends on the developer how fast they can test the real product. I think Apple provided enough details and tools to get the APP to almost complete state. Apple understands that. That's why they ported and allowed all apps to run in the small screen.
Well its not like IBM as an awful Market Cap. I believe IBM is about the 165 billion mark and Apple just about at 200, MSFT at about 260. Its not like IBM is hurting.
Market Cap doesn't tell the entire store, While Apple is doing well all the way around right now a good example of a company with a good Market Cap yet has killed its shareholders is GE. Market Cap of close to 200 billion yet their stock has dropped about 80% over the years.
It is kind of paranoic. And it is only about marketing. But it is undeniable that Apple is genius at their marketing strategy. But I do sometimes ask myself if they overdo this kind of secrecy.
You think Apple's demands of developers chaining their loaner iPads to the floor in a secret isolated room with blacked out windows and sending Apple photographic proof of their implementation is overdoing it? Now really?!
I made no comment about IBM current valuation. My comment regarding Apple in 1984using it's position in relation to IBM and the coincidental book title about a dystopian future to market itself as the innovate underdog to IBM's "big brother" and how their success negates using that same market strategy today. Regardless of IBM's market cap Apple would still not be seen as an underdog in 2010.
The big Brother reference is a real reach, and Karma Chameleon is a reference to a closeted gay man. You're not making much sense as usual.
People, people! Get a grip here. This is TEKSTUD we're dealing with, and possibly a sock puppet of iGenius. His intent is not to make sense. His intent is to post stupid stuff and wait for the reaction. This inflates his self esteem and ego. It's what he lives for. It's all he has.
Its not like they haven't supplied DEVs with an SDK including the device emulator which lets you run and test your apps. OK, you don't get a 100% feel for how it will be in your hand but you can compile and test for your target device.
So that nobody knows what? The iPad has been annoucned. It's been used by thousands - albeit in a limited fashion at a trade show. Why is Apple still acting like the device is a big secret?
Because otherwise people would blab! Only Apple know's who can be trusted. And I trust Apple.
The 1984 commercial was about lack of vision and lock-down in the computer world. It was about companies that dominate the landscape, but who are not willing to let you have any choice in computing. These companies don't have your interests at heart, they aren't creative, they have no vision, but they want to stop anyone else from offering you anything other than the dreck they've been force feeding you for years.
I mean it's not even close. Apple could not seriously be considered to be doing any of that. In fact they are doing the opposite.
Exactly. I'm GLAD that no softwear will ruin my iPhone because I can only buy it from Apple!
I wish that my Mac was the same way, and that the only softwear it run's is available at the iTunes Store.
The iPod and iTunes had the advantage of almost zero fear from competitors. They simply didn't see this coming. That was then, this is now.
Today, almost everyone expects Apple to come out with killer devices and they have their copy machines all warmed up and ready. The pre-order scheme brilliantly gets Apple out ahead and solidifies the "first mover" advantage to a large but not sufficient degree.
On the other hand, application developers who could accelerate the adoption curve significantly have to make do with the SDK. Content developers are even more handicapped because there is so little information on how ePub might be extended by Apple, whether iTines LP frameworks will have a role to play, whether podcasting will be a viable delivery vehicle and so on.
Apple has decided to err on the side of conservatism or caution and there is a price to pay for that. Presumably, they understand what that price is and are willing to pay it. Informed consent.
Its not like they haven't supplied DEVs with an SDK including the device emulator which lets you run and test your apps.
And all the secrecy led to an iPad demo with the SDK released at the same time. Without the secrecy we'd have some attempt to sway the market with a mockup like the HP Slate or vaporware like MS Courier without any real product to work with while waiting for a date that can't possibly be given with any relative certainty. We bitch about Apple delaying a product by a 4 days from a promised date but the alternative really is worse. I can see how it sucks but the alternative seems much worse.
You think Apple's demands of developers chaining their loaner iPads to the floor in a secret isolated room with blacked out windows and sending Apple photographic proof of their implementation is overdoing it? Now really?!
The only thing that they could do better is to have anybody who goes into the room sequestered until the iPad is released. They could have rented out a big hotel and kept them all there.
Umm, we KNOW what the iPad looks like; it's been announced and photos are on Apple's site. So why all the secrecy?
Are they going to ship it with extra features they haven't announced and surprise us? Curious.
The IPad on pictures and on stage i january probably has flaws. They were in developing. And they do not want any perception of the product to be shaded by flaws they know about and intend to remove.
How f--n hard can that be to understand?
And it's a proven success in terms of marketing aproach. You all may be tech nerds but cant you open the door to reality sometimes?
I made no comment about IBM current valuation. My comment regarding Apple in 1984using it's position in relation to IBM and the coincidental book title about a dystopian future to market itself as the innovate underdog to IBM's "big brother" and how their success negates using that same market strategy today. Regardless of IBM's market cap Apple would still not be seen as an underdog in 2010.
Well actually if you look at some of these companies Market Cap back in 1999-2001 if Apple had their current Market Cap compared to say MSFT or GE when they had a Market cap of over 500 billion they would be seen as as an underdog to some degree. The reality is Apple has had steady growth and has not suffered the beating many of these companies have over the years.
In many cases Apple looks even stronger because so many have taken major hits and look very weak. However as far as the future no one had a clue what the future holds even more so in the tech sector. So for someone to try and base it on history is pointless.
Apple has strayed off it's path with the app store rules, but 1984? Not really. Long way to go yet.
Not sure what path that is, but I guess somebody has to mention that Apple's portrayal of IBM as an oppressive quasi-government force in the fabled 1984 Mac ad was way over the top to begin with. Quite a few people said as much at the time. How this one TV ad became for some the touchstone and the yardstick for everything Apple is and should be forever after, is the real question.
I think some have got their heads too clogged up with popular culture. It's got a way of inhibiting critical thought processes.
Exactly. I'm GLAD that no softwear will ruin my iPhone because I can only buy it from Apple!
I wish that my Mac was the same way, and that the only softwear it run's is available at the iTunes Store.
That would be the best.
Agree!
Some time ago one of the gadget sites pulled a statement from Steve when he explained Walt Disney's brand and how that was kind of a guarantee to parents about content. Remember?
This is exactly what Steve tries to do with Apple. And as a CEO in a small company I really like that. My employees has iPhones and MacBook Pros. And I trust Apple to keep the gadgets free from malware and instead they are working. Don't need Symantec. Don't need a huge IT department. I trust Apple. In a way I just can't trust Microsoft. Or Google. Or HTC.
As a share holder I believe in this value proposition and I think Apple is the company to get big doing it.
Comments
I would guess it was alot better then Apple market cap back in 1984.
That is my point.
I wonder if there are features (front facing cam?) that will be in the shipping model.
I don't see what Apple of 2010 has to do with IBM of 1984.
Nothing much at all.
The 1984 commercial was about lack of vision and lock-down in the computer world. It was about companies that dominate the landscape, but who are not willing to let you have any choice in computing. These companies don't have your interests at heart, they aren't creative, they have no vision, but they want to stop anyone else from offering you anything other than the dreck they've been force feeding you for years.
That was sort of what IBM (and others) were like at the time. It was a total mind-set. The commercial has absolutely nothing to do with the "real" 1984, ("pmz" below),
I mean it's not even close. Apple could not seriously be considered to be doing any of that. In fact they are doing the opposite.
The only close comparison is if you separate out the app store from the rest of their products and services, then the "total control belongs to us" aspect is there. The trouble is the stuff they are selling is not dreck. It's imaginative, interesting, well-loved stuff. So even there, it's just not the same.
Apple has strayed off it's path with the app store rules, but 1984? Not really. Long way to go yet.
That is my point.
Well its not like IBM as an awful Market Cap. I believe IBM is about the 165 billion mark and Apple just about at 200, MSFT at about 260. Its not like IBM is hurting.
Market Cap doesn't tell the entire store, While Apple is doing well all the way around right now a good example of a company with a good Market Cap yet has killed its shareholders is GE. Market Cap of close to 200 billion yet their stock has dropped about 80% over the years.
It is kind of paranoic. And it is only about marketing. But it is undeniable that Apple is genius at their marketing strategy. But I do sometimes ask myself if they overdo this kind of secrecy.
You think Apple's demands of developers chaining their loaner iPads to the floor in a secret isolated room with blacked out windows and sending Apple photographic proof of their implementation is overdoing it? Now really?!
Well its not like IBM as an awful Market Cap.
I made no comment about IBM current valuation. My comment regarding Apple in 1984using it's position in relation to IBM and the coincidental book title about a dystopian future to market itself as the innovate underdog to IBM's "big brother" and how their success negates using that same market strategy today. Regardless of IBM's market cap Apple would still not be seen as an underdog in 2010.
Dude, think before you post.
The big Brother reference is a real reach, and Karma Chameleon is a reference to a closeted gay man. You're not making much sense as usual.
People, people! Get a grip here. This is TEKSTUD we're dealing with, and possibly a sock puppet of iGenius. His intent is not to make sense. His intent is to post stupid stuff and wait for the reaction. This inflates his self esteem and ego. It's what he lives for. It's all he has.
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/19/...ricted-access/
Its not like they haven't supplied DEVs with an SDK including the device emulator which lets you run and test your apps. OK, you don't get a 100% feel for how it will be in your hand but you can compile and test for your target device.
Apple did it exactly right. As usual.
So that nobody knows what? The iPad has been annoucned. It's been used by thousands - albeit in a limited fashion at a trade show. Why is Apple still acting like the device is a big secret?
Because otherwise people would blab! Only Apple know's who can be trusted. And I trust Apple.
The 1984 commercial was about lack of vision and lock-down in the computer world. It was about companies that dominate the landscape, but who are not willing to let you have any choice in computing. These companies don't have your interests at heart, they aren't creative, they have no vision, but they want to stop anyone else from offering you anything other than the dreck they've been force feeding you for years.
I mean it's not even close. Apple could not seriously be considered to be doing any of that. In fact they are doing the opposite.
Exactly. I'm GLAD that no softwear will ruin my iPhone because I can only buy it from Apple!
I wish that my Mac was the same way, and that the only softwear it run's is available at the iTunes Store.
That would be the best.
Today, almost everyone expects Apple to come out with killer devices and they have their copy machines all warmed up and ready. The pre-order scheme brilliantly gets Apple out ahead and solidifies the "first mover" advantage to a large but not sufficient degree.
On the other hand, application developers who could accelerate the adoption curve significantly have to make do with the SDK. Content developers are even more handicapped because there is so little information on how ePub might be extended by Apple, whether iTines LP frameworks will have a role to play, whether podcasting will be a viable delivery vehicle and so on.
Apple has decided to err on the side of conservatism or caution and there is a price to pay for that. Presumably, they understand what that price is and are willing to pay it. Informed consent.
Its not like they haven't supplied DEVs with an SDK including the device emulator which lets you run and test your apps.
And all the secrecy led to an iPad demo with the SDK released at the same time. Without the secrecy we'd have some attempt to sway the market with a mockup like the HP Slate or vaporware like MS Courier without any real product to work with while waiting for a date that can't possibly be given with any relative certainty. We bitch about Apple delaying a product by a 4 days from a promised date but the alternative really is worse. I can see how it sucks but the alternative seems much worse.
You think Apple's demands of developers chaining their loaner iPads to the floor in a secret isolated room with blacked out windows and sending Apple photographic proof of their implementation is overdoing it? Now really?!
The only thing that they could do better is to have anybody who goes into the room sequestered until the iPad is released. They could have rented out a big hotel and kept them all there.
Loose Lips could ruin everything.
Umm, we KNOW what the iPad looks like; it's been announced and photos are on Apple's site. So why all the secrecy?
Are they going to ship it with extra features they haven't announced and surprise us? Curious.
The IPad on pictures and on stage i january probably has flaws. They were in developing. And they do not want any perception of the product to be shaded by flaws they know about and intend to remove.
How f--n hard can that be to understand?
And it's a proven success in terms of marketing aproach. You all may be tech nerds but cant you open the door to reality sometimes?
I made no comment about IBM current valuation. My comment regarding Apple in 1984using it's position in relation to IBM and the coincidental book title about a dystopian future to market itself as the innovate underdog to IBM's "big brother" and how their success negates using that same market strategy today. Regardless of IBM's market cap Apple would still not be seen as an underdog in 2010.
Well actually if you look at some of these companies Market Cap back in 1999-2001 if Apple had their current Market Cap compared to say MSFT or GE when they had a Market cap of over 500 billion they would be seen as as an underdog to some degree. The reality is Apple has had steady growth and has not suffered the beating many of these companies have over the years.
In many cases Apple looks even stronger because so many have taken major hits and look very weak. However as far as the future no one had a clue what the future holds even more so in the tech sector. So for someone to try and base it on history is pointless.
Oh what a headline can do. The MacRumors posting gives us a rather different impression of the situation.
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/19/...ricted-access/
I would have to say the Macrumors site article is most likely more accurate.
Apple has strayed off it's path with the app store rules, but 1984? Not really. Long way to go yet.
Not sure what path that is, but I guess somebody has to mention that Apple's portrayal of IBM as an oppressive quasi-government force in the fabled 1984 Mac ad was way over the top to begin with. Quite a few people said as much at the time. How this one TV ad became for some the touchstone and the yardstick for everything Apple is and should be forever after, is the real question.
I think some have got their heads too clogged up with popular culture. It's got a way of inhibiting critical thought processes.
Exactly. I'm GLAD that no softwear will ruin my iPhone because I can only buy it from Apple!
I wish that my Mac was the same way, and that the only softwear it run's is available at the iTunes Store.
That would be the best.
Agree!
Some time ago one of the gadget sites pulled a statement from Steve when he explained Walt Disney's brand and how that was kind of a guarantee to parents about content. Remember?
This is exactly what Steve tries to do with Apple. And as a CEO in a small company I really like that. My employees has iPhones and MacBook Pros. And I trust Apple to keep the gadgets free from malware and instead they are working. Don't need Symantec. Don't need a huge IT department. I trust Apple. In a way I just can't trust Microsoft. Or Google. Or HTC.
As a share holder I believe in this value proposition and I think Apple is the company to get big doing it.