I agree with your premise but not the Apple Mac ad you choose. The clearly purpose was the Power Mac G3 was faster than the Pentium II. I think a better example would be the I'm a Mac campaign that also did compare Macs to WinPCs, but in an indirect way.
Sure, that wasn't meant as an example of indirect humour, just humour. Indirect for Apple would be this one:
[VIDEO]
Not actually made by them. The old ones are the best though:
This is low class. Like most of Samsung's ads lately, they have focused on poking fun at Apple and sometimes outright insult Apple users.
What if Apple runs a counter-ads "what would Samsung copy if we stop innovating"?
Well that is the culture war.
I hope it backfires. I don't think so many things should be copyrighted and patented -- but making something such a clone of another companies stifles innovation and penalizes those who invested the time and effort to make it.
They thrive in the market while other companies that DIDN'T copy Apple did not -- so obviously, the chose the right path from a business standpoint. I'm guessing they also spent well on PR to poison the well on Apple -- because NOBODY else uses sweat shops in China or conducts lawsuits. Forbes has been in someone's pocket for a while and they consistently single out Apple without noting that they were the ones pushing for improvements or the other companies doing the same thing (not that I justify behavior that way -- it's just curious they'd be so myopic.
Here's a US company that is innovating, and Samsung, the sweat shop king is cloning their stuff and then making fun of it on commercials. That's pretty low class. I can only imagine that more companies will find that manipulating public perception is a cost effective way to compete.
That was hilarious. It makes me wonder tho - if Samsung keeps going down this road if Apple will get pissed and open a big can of "I'm an iPhone, I'm Android" ads like they did to Microsoft. Apple has a knack for attacking with humor while highlighting it's products.
That "ugly copy" ad springs to mind. I vaguely remember them doing one with "it's just as good" and it was some hairy dude dressed up exactly as a super model.
I'd like to see some takeoff of the "stalker roommate" who wears everything that the person she obsesses over wears. Stalker is bickering at Apple as it gets on a train; "I'm not copying you. I'm not following you. Where do you get off?" Then you see them staring at another train where the super model gave them the slip. A text message reads; "I got off at the last exit." The Samsung stalker was following another of it's clones --- "Yeah, hey, I'm your last years model which you've already forgotten about, I've given up following and now I just slum it. You want some of my Deep fried Twinkie?"
The problem is that your inference doesn't hold water. Can you demonstrate that the people who clicked on 'like' represent the entire list of millions of viewers? Obviously not.
Sorry for responding so late. It actually holds plenty of water. If the sample size is greater than 30, the chance that the sample mean (the average value of a sample) differs significantly from the population mean (the average value of the population) rapidly approaches 0 no matter how large the population. In the case of this video with several thousand ratings, it's quite safe to assume that the opinion of the population (in this case all those who viewed the video) on average is within tenths if not hundredths of a percent of the average rating you see below the video.
1984,1984... 1984. Jesus, wasn't that almost 3 decades ago ?? I bet this site has readers that weren't even born back then!!!!
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?
Sorry for responding so late. It actually holds plenty of water. If the sample size is greater than 30, the chance that the sample mean (the average value of a sample) differs significantly from the population mean (the average value of the population) rapidly approaches 0 no matter how large the population. In the case of this video with several thousand ratings, it's quite safe to assume that the opinion of the population (in this case all those who viewed the video) on average is within tenths if not hundredths of a percent of the average rating you see below the video.
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.
Oh come off it, J rag. That was funny for anyone that doesn't have a chip on their shoulder or a stick up their keister.
Supreme humour comes from being willing and able to make fun of oneself, not others.
Until an element of self-deprecation comes into Samsung (and come to think of it, most SouthEast Asian companies') adverts (and don't tell me it's a face thing; several Japanese gameshow programs are insanely self-satirising) I can't even crack a smile at these snarky spiteful ads.
I've been a little worried ever since Cook made that apology.
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'
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'
I still don't get the whining about Apple Maps. Bing Maps has roughly ten roads in Seoul. This is just passed over because… I mean, it's not like Microsoft is a big company or anything.
The outrageous Doritos, Go Daddy, Budweiser etc ads of recent years really served a purpose?
But those other ads actually showed the product. Or at least a logo of it.
If this teaser is any sign of what the ad will be like, it won't do either. Which is not effective advertising anymore than spending more time talking about the other boys than yourself is not either.
add to this various blogs trying to paint this as a jab on Apple suing the company when any idiot with one ear can tell no it isn't, its about the NFL's trademark use terms, is annoying.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My point is that it's piling on a recognized stereotype. If they made the ad with absolutely no intention of the dumb blonde stereotype it's means they are not guilty of that slander even if it can be perceived that way. For the example with a middle-aged male not being to use a computer that is the agist stereotype with technology. These can be offensive to people but I would bet it's less common. The "race" stereotype seems to be the most offensive, then gender, and the rest falling in place far below the top two.
I had just never seen Apple go that route with an ad. The closest might be the short lived Genius ads but that was just an Apple tech expert helping out the average person. In fact, in one ad the guy he was helping was able to help others after being shown how to do a task. I think that is pretty common when it come to Apple's products.
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.
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.
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'
Worked for Jobs. "Just avoid holding it in that way."
Apologies just perpetuate the "myth" that a problem actually exists (or are all the people on here saying that Maps is fine just a myth as well). Forever till the end of time people can use the "Cook apologized for Maps" argument to show how shitty it is. Thank you, Tim Cook, for pointing to a problem that might have been questionable before you apologized and therefore told us that Maps really is crap.
I'd rather hear Cook say that Apple is always improving its products than hear him say, "Sorry, we made a shitty product."
Companies are always damned if they do, damned if they don't. I just feel that Cook handled it wrong by apologizing.
Comments
Sure, that wasn't meant as an example of indirect humour, just humour. Indirect for Apple would be this one:
[VIDEO]
Not actually made by them. The old ones are the best though:
[VIDEO]
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.
This is low class. Like most of Samsung's ads lately, they have focused on poking fun at Apple and sometimes outright insult Apple users.
What if Apple runs a counter-ads "what would Samsung copy if we stop innovating"?
Well that is the culture war.I hope it backfires. I don't think so many things should be copyrighted and patented -- but making something such a clone of another companies stifles innovation and penalizes those who invested the time and effort to make it.
They thrive in the market while other companies that DIDN'T copy Apple did not -- so obviously, the chose the right path from a business standpoint. I'm guessing they also spent well on PR to poison the well on Apple -- because NOBODY else uses sweat shops in China or conducts lawsuits. Forbes has been in someone's pocket for a while and they consistently single out Apple without noting that they were the ones pushing for improvements or the other companies doing the same thing (not that I justify behavior that way -- it's just curious they'd be so myopic.
Here's a US company that is innovating, and Samsung, the sweat shop king is cloning their stuff and then making fun of it on commercials. That's pretty low class. I can only imagine that more companies will find that manipulating public perception is a cost effective way to compete.
That was hilarious. It makes me wonder tho - if Samsung keeps going down this road if Apple will get pissed and open a big can of "I'm an iPhone, I'm Android" ads like they did to Microsoft. Apple has a knack for attacking with humor while highlighting it's products.
That "ugly copy" ad springs to mind. I vaguely remember them doing one with "it's just as good" and it was some hairy dude dressed up exactly as a super model.I'd like to see some takeoff of the "stalker roommate" who wears everything that the person she obsesses over wears. Stalker is bickering at Apple as it gets on a train; "I'm not copying you. I'm not following you. Where do you get off?" Then you see them staring at another train where the super model gave them the slip. A text message reads; "I got off at the last exit." The Samsung stalker was following another of it's clones --- "Yeah, hey, I'm your last years model which you've already forgotten about, I've given up following and now I just slum it. You want some of my Deep fried Twinkie?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The problem is that your inference doesn't hold water. Can you demonstrate that the people who clicked on 'like' represent the entire list of millions of viewers? Obviously not.
Sorry for responding so late. It actually holds plenty of water. If the sample size is greater than 30, the chance that the sample mean (the average value of a sample) differs significantly from the population mean (the average value of the population) rapidly approaches 0 no matter how large the population. In the case of this video with several thousand ratings, it's quite safe to assume that the opinion of the population (in this case all those who viewed the video) on average is within tenths if not hundredths of a percent of the average rating you see below the video.
1984,1984... 1984. Jesus, wasn't that almost 3 decades ago ?? I bet this site has readers that weren't even born back then!!!!
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.
Most Apple users are not on this thread. They've never even heard of this website.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenstjohn/2012/02/02/the-super-bowl-ad-that-almost-killed-apple/
This is the world we live in. People/consumers are fickle. Today you are on top of the world tomorrow you are underneath it!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
Oh come off it, J rag. That was funny for anyone that doesn't have a chip on their shoulder or a stick up their keister.
Supreme humour comes from being willing and able to make fun of oneself, not others.
Until an element of self-deprecation comes into Samsung (and come to think of it, most SouthEast Asian companies') adverts (and don't tell me it's a face thing; several Japanese gameshow programs are insanely self-satirising) I can't even crack a smile at these snarky spiteful ads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
I've been a little worried ever since Cook made that apology.
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 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'
I still don't get the whining about Apple Maps. Bing Maps has roughly ten roads in Seoul. This is just passed over because… I mean, it's not like Microsoft is a big company or anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
The outrageous Doritos, Go Daddy, Budweiser etc ads of recent years really served a purpose?
But those other ads actually showed the product. Or at least a logo of it.
If this teaser is any sign of what the ad will be like, it won't do either. Which is not effective advertising anymore than spending more time talking about the other boys than yourself is not either.
add to this various blogs trying to paint this as a jab on Apple suing the company when any idiot with one ear can tell no it isn't, its about the NFL's trademark use terms, is annoying.
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.
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.
My point is that it's piling on a recognized stereotype. If they made the ad with absolutely no intention of the dumb blonde stereotype it's means they are not guilty of that slander even if it can be perceived that way. For the example with a middle-aged male not being to use a computer that is the agist stereotype with technology. These can be offensive to people but I would bet it's less common. The "race" stereotype seems to be the most offensive, then gender, and the rest falling in place far below the top two.
I had just never seen Apple go that route with an ad. The closest might be the short lived Genius ads but that was just an Apple tech expert helping out the average person. In fact, in one ad the guy he was helping was able to help others after being shown how to do a task. I think that is pretty common when it come to Apple's products.
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.
Quote:
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'
Worked for Jobs. "Just avoid holding it in that way."
Apologies just perpetuate the "myth" that a problem actually exists (or are all the people on here saying that Maps is fine just a myth as well). Forever till the end of time people can use the "Cook apologized for Maps" argument to show how shitty it is. Thank you, Tim Cook, for pointing to a problem that might have been questionable before you apologized and therefore told us that Maps really is crap.
I'd rather hear Cook say that Apple is always improving its products than hear him say, "Sorry, we made a shitty product."
Companies are always damned if they do, damned if they don't. I just feel that Cook handled it wrong by apologizing.
When hasn't Apple been ripped to shreds...