But the next time that I discriminate against a group of people on this forum, I will expect to not meet any resistance from anybody, since Apple is also in the discrimination business.
But obviously you didn't know what a Mac was at some point right? And so Apple had to do something to get their product into your mind so that you'd decide to purchase it (advertising, word of mouth, etc). The something that works tends to be different for everyone.
It was the first computer that I ever used and it was the first computer that I was exposed to. There was an Apple ][ in my classroom.
Apple is basically saying that not all people are equal, and we as a company will treat certain people better than you.
Not at all. You are projecting the ideas of "better" and "equality" into this.
I think the key idea, rather, is "visibility."
Apple could give out 200 watches to the posters of this forum and it wouldn't be noticed by nearly as many people around the world as if they gave one to some celebrity. That is just a fact--there is no value judgement implied.
As others have mentioned, apple is positioning the watch as a fashion accessory--this is a first for them. Therefore people should not be surprised if they approach things differently.
However, I recall an awful lot of celebrities with iPods back when they first came out. I bet that if someone did some digging they would find that this isn't nearly the "new tactic" that people are complaining about!
Yeah, because someone like Katy Perry or J.J. Abrams can't afford to buy one for themselves.
Just to put these sorts of things into perspective, Taylor Swift made $66M last year alone. Gisele made $45M. If you think people like that need free stuff, you're living in a fantasy land.
Yes, many of them make tons of money and they can certainly afford to buy whatever they please.
However, why would somebody who makes millions of dollars a year need to be given a watch?
If the Apple Watch was that great, don't you think that these celebrities would just go and buy one themselves?
It was the first computer that I ever used and it was the first computer that I was exposed to. There was an Apple ][ in my classroom.
Right, and I believe that was a big part of Apple's early marketing strategy: get their computers into schools so that it would become many people's first experience with a computer. Assuming that would build fond memories (again an emotional connection of some sort) or that people wouldn't bother to compare with other types of computers.
He was blocked from getting home by all the protesters on Central Park West yesterday.
Luckily, I haven't run into any of those moronic protesters and lowlifes lately.
They really piss me off, and if I didn't care about their cause before, I definitely don't give a crap about their cause now, and they are now definitely my enemy.
Luckily, I haven't run into any of those moronic protesters and lowlifes lately.
They really piss me off, and if I didn't care about their cause before, I definitely don't give a crap about their cause now, and they are now definitely my enemy.
I'd bet that the majority of those people haven't lived in NYC for over 5 years.
But the next time that I discriminate against a group of people on this forum, I will expect to not meet any resistance from anybody, since Apple is also in the discrimination business.
Calling celebrity gifting discrimination is as moronic as calling discrimination because Apple only hires extremely competent engineers instead of random people.
If one discriminates based on who is best suited/most qualified for a job, that is fine.
If one discriminates based on race, religion, gender, age or any other non-relevant factor that is not fine.
If one cannot see the difference between the two, one should refrain from displaying their ignorance in public...
I'd bet that the majority of those people haven't lived in NYC for over 5 years.
You're probably right.
One day I hope to become filthy rich. I wouldn't be using my money for philanthropy, like certain other people do. There are so many groups and causes out there that I would like to crush and destroy. That's what I would donate money towards.
If one discriminates based on race, religion, gender, age or any other non-relevant factor that is not fine.
I don't really see much of a difference.
Apple is discriminating against their loyal and paying customers, by providing special products to other people who have more money and more fame than average people.
Why do they do this? I am told by the replies on this forum, that it is good promotion and good publicity, which in turn is good for business.
So why shouldn't a business discriminate based on the other factors that you list, as long as it's good for business and good for the bottom line?
One day I hope to become filthy rich. I wouldn't be using my money for philanthropy, like certain other people do. There are so many groups and causes out there that I would like to crush and destroy. That's what I would donate money towards.
Thanks. I've been around, I've just been busy with a few other things that I also have to take care of.
I agree that it's probably good publicity, but I'm just not a big fan of the celebrity worship culture that is prevalent in our society, and I am disappointed to see Apple jumping on it. It's the same reason that I don't like the Beats ads. Who gives a crap about some sports celebrities wearing headphones? Is that really the shallow crowd that Apple is marketing to?
Apple is basically saying that not all people are equal, and we as a company will treat certain people better than you.
It's probably far worse than you think. I doubt these celebrities were just given a few trinkets in the hope they wore them in public. They likely are also being paid hefty fees to ensure they do wear them in public.
It's probably far worse than you think. I doubt these celebrities were just given a few trinkets in the hope they wore them in public. They likely are also being paid hefty fees to ensure they do wear them in public.
I would like to see some accounting from Apple, detailing just how much they have used towards pampering these various celebrities.
Apple hasn't always played by "the way the world works." That's what made them different. I am not exactly ticked off (tocked off? haha) by this celebrity-chasing, as much as feeling a bit ambivalent about, and let-down by it.
what nonsense -- apple has been doing this since at least the original Macintosh days. by Jobs own hand...:
I've always seen celebrity promotion as one of the lowest common demominator and simplest forms of advertising. It's used by all sorts of crappy companies, especially those with terrible products.
I would just prefer to see Apple focus on the products, because it's Apple's products that have made it into the company that it is today.
Are you implying that giving celebrities a free Apple Watch and focusing on products are mutually exclusive activities at Apple? Or can Apple do both? Historically, haven't they?
It's probably far worse than you think. I doubt these celebrities were just given a few trinkets in the hope they wore them in public. They likely are also being paid hefty fees to ensure they do wear them in public.
So no celebrity likes Apple products, and are only seen with one because they are shallow and because Apple paid them to?
Comments
And they are right
I've never thought that all people were equal.
But the next time that I discriminate against a group of people on this forum, I will expect to not meet any resistance from anybody, since Apple is also in the discrimination business.
But obviously you didn't know what a Mac was at some point right? And so Apple had to do something to get their product into your mind so that you'd decide to purchase it (advertising, word of mouth, etc). The something that works tends to be different for everyone.
It was the first computer that I ever used and it was the first computer that I was exposed to. There was an Apple ][ in my classroom.
I think the key idea, rather, is "visibility."
Apple could give out 200 watches to the posters of this forum and it wouldn't be noticed by nearly as many people around the world as if they gave one to some celebrity. That is just a fact--there is no value judgement implied.
As others have mentioned, apple is positioning the watch as a fashion accessory--this is a first for them. Therefore people should not be surprised if they approach things differently.
However, I recall an awful lot of celebrities with iPods back when they first came out. I bet that if someone did some digging they would find that this isn't nearly the "new tactic" that people are complaining about!
He was blocked from getting home by all the protesters on Central Park West yesterday.
Yeah, because someone like Katy Perry or J.J. Abrams can't afford to buy one for themselves.
Just to put these sorts of things into perspective, Taylor Swift made $66M last year alone. Gisele made $45M. If you think people like that need free stuff, you're living in a fantasy land.
Yes, many of them make tons of money and they can certainly afford to buy whatever they please.
However, why would somebody who makes millions of dollars a year need to be given a watch?
If the Apple Watch was that great, don't you think that these celebrities would just go and buy one themselves?
It was the first computer that I ever used and it was the first computer that I was exposed to. There was an Apple ][ in my classroom.
Right, and I believe that was a big part of Apple's early marketing strategy: get their computers into schools so that it would become many people's first experience with a computer. Assuming that would build fond memories (again an emotional connection of some sort) or that people wouldn't bother to compare with other types of computers.
He was blocked from getting home by all the protesters on Central Park West yesterday.
Luckily, I haven't run into any of those moronic protesters and lowlifes lately.
They really piss me off, and if I didn't care about their cause before, I definitely don't give a crap about their cause now, and they are now definitely my enemy.
I'd bet that the majority of those people haven't lived in NYC for over 5 years.
Yes, many of them make tons of money and they can certainly afford to buy whatever they please.
However, why would somebody who makes millions of dollars a year need to be given a watch?
If the Apple Watch was that great, don't you think that these celebrities would just go and buy one themselves?
You completely don't understand how fashion and advertising work, do you?
If one discriminates based on who is best suited/most qualified for a job, that is fine.
If one discriminates based on race, religion, gender, age or any other non-relevant factor that is not fine.
If one cannot see the difference between the two, one should refrain from displaying their ignorance in public...
I'd bet that the majority of those people haven't lived in NYC for over 5 years.
You're probably right.
One day I hope to become filthy rich. I wouldn't be using my money for philanthropy, like certain other people do. There are so many groups and causes out there that I would like to crush and destroy. That's what I would donate money towards.
If one discriminates based on race, religion, gender, age or any other non-relevant factor that is not fine.
I don't really see much of a difference.
Apple is discriminating against their loyal and paying customers, by providing special products to other people who have more money and more fame than average people.
Why do they do this? I am told by the replies on this forum, that it is good promotion and good publicity, which in turn is good for business.
So why shouldn't a business discriminate based on the other factors that you list, as long as it's good for business and good for the bottom line?
You're probably right.
One day I hope to become filthy rich. I wouldn't be using my money for philanthropy, like certain other people do. There are so many groups and causes out there that I would like to crush and destroy. That's what I would donate money towards.
You sound like a real class act.
Thanks. I've been around, I've just been busy with a few other things that I also have to take care of.
I agree that it's probably good publicity, but I'm just not a big fan of the celebrity worship culture that is prevalent in our society, and I am disappointed to see Apple jumping on it. It's the same reason that I don't like the Beats ads. Who gives a crap about some sports celebrities wearing headphones? Is that really the shallow crowd that Apple is marketing to?
Apple is basically saying that not all people are equal, and we as a company will treat certain people better than you.
It's probably far worse than you think. I doubt these celebrities were just given a few trinkets in the hope they wore them in public. They likely are also being paid hefty fees to ensure they do wear them in public.
You sound like a real class act.
It wouldn't be illegal, and I have the same right to make my voice heard as anybody else.
It's probably far worse than you think. I doubt these celebrities were just given a few trinkets in the hope they wore them in public. They likely are also being paid hefty fees to ensure they do wear them in public.
I would like to see some accounting from Apple, detailing just how much they have used towards pampering these various celebrities.
he is a crazy person.
what nonsense -- apple has been doing this since at least the original Macintosh days. by Jobs own hand...:
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=A_Mac_For_Mick.txt
...so time to reverse your disappointment.
and why wouldnt Jobs/Apple do this? it's advertising that comes at the cost of a few wholesale devices. no brainer.
Are you implying that giving celebrities a free Apple Watch and focusing on products are mutually exclusive activities at Apple? Or can Apple do both? Historically, haven't they?
So no celebrity likes Apple products, and are only seen with one because they are shallow and because Apple paid them to?