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?
You're right, they're not mutually exclusive, and you're also correct that Apple has done similar things in the past, though I do not recall anything in the past meeting anywhere close to the level of current celebrity endorsements.
you're also correct that Apple has done similar things in the past, though I do not recall anything in the past meeting anywhere close to the level of current celebrity endorsements.
they've been doing it since 1984, but you didn't have a score of 24-hour rumor sites to monitor everything apple-related back then. thats it, thats the difference.
any sort of hand-waiving about this is akin to "zomg Apple is going downhill" and "Apple is doomed!" rhetoric nonsense.
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.
Does that make it worse? Seems like people's problem with this is its "unfairness" (whatever that means). Maybe instead of seeing it as Apple gifting celebrities seeing it as simply Apple hiring celebrities for publicity would calm the hysteria...
So no celebrity likes Apple products, and are only seen with one because they are shallow and because Apple paid them to?
I think that a far better celebrity promotion would be for famous celebrities to be seen wearing Apple Watches, that they were not gifted, and that they bought themselves. What's a few hundred dollars or even a few thousands dollars for somebody who makes millions? It's like 5 cents.
It's not like the celebrities have much choice. What other smart watch would they possibly choose? I think that a celebrity choosing an Apple watch and paying for it themselves, because they wanted one, sends a much better signal and would be better promotion.
I don't like all these celebrities getting Apple hardware for free, and before the products are even released for sale.
If I were a celebrity, would I accept an Apple Watch from Apple? Hell yeah.
But since I'm not, and since I don't get any Apple products for free or before they are released, I am going to give this article two thumbs down.
I think that it's sad that Apple is jumping on the celebrity bandwagon. Apple doesn't need any "celebrities" to be using their products or to be seen wearing their products. Apple products are great enough to stand on their own.
Isn't Apple all about equality and diversity and all that liberal mumbo jumbo that some people like to talk about?
Well, I don't think that certain Apple customers should come before other Apple customers. Hell, these celebrities aren't even customers, if they get their shit for free.
The Apple Watch is the first Apple product where fashion is and integral part of it's function. Fashion is about identity and desirability, which are intangible qualities that Apple can't ship with the product, but must imbue externally through promotions like this. It makes perfect sense.
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.
Why are you so bitter?
I'm sure what you said was hyperbole, but the question still stands.
I think that a far better celebrity promotion would be for famous celebrities to be seen wearing Apple Watches, that they were not gifted, and that they bought themselves. What's a few hundred dollars or even a few thousands dollars for somebody who makes millions? It's like 5 cents.
It's not like the celebrities have much choice. What other smart watch would they possibly choose? I think that a celebrity choosing an Apple watch and paying for it themselves, because they wanted one, sends a much better signal and would be better promotion.
You sound like a very jealous, very troubled person.
And you really need to learn how this business works.
I'm still waiting for a call from Maxfield (Los Angeles) to set up a time to bring the watches to my house so I can select one to wear this weekend. I have my credit card ready. So far, all I know is that Maxfield will sell them in the store April 24, 2015.
I'm sure what you said was hyperbole, but the question still stands.
I think that you are confusing politics with bitterness.
It is the other side that is bitter, and I am merely stating that if I ever get into the position of influence or having vast sums of money, then I will crush them and destroy them.
So no celebrity likes Apple products, and are only seen with one because they are shallow and because Apple paid them to?
Nicely twisted there. Whether the celebrities like Apple products or not is not an issue. Many clearly do. These celebrities are seen with Apple products, not because they have bought them, but because they were given them with obvious intention of promotion. I believe celebrities whose incomes are in the tens of millions per year and who would have agents in many cases ensuring they receive adequate payment for endorsements, are not going to lend their services to further Apples wealth for essentially nothing - which relative to their wealth is what the manufacturing cost of these watches amounts to. If you consider a celebrity trading on their status as a source of income is shallow, that is your prerogative.
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.
(edited a couple of typos.... corrected autocorrect...)
Actually APPLE has chased celebrity forever: just about every movie and television show glimpse of that Apple logo was and is the direct result of their efforts in that chase. It's just we've all gotten a lot more sophisticated and can more easily spot the "product placement" than back when TWA was plastered all over 2001 A Space Odyssey.
I don't recall anything like this happening with the iPod, iPhone, iPad*.
I think you are quite wrong.
I remember very specifically that celebrities were profiled about their iPod use when they were first coming out. Apple was having iPods placed in "swag-bags" given to celebs at events such as the Oscars and the Grammys. I don't know for sure that Apple gifted those for free, but I would be very surprised if that was not the case.
Again, I don't have any documentation, but I remember celebrity placement was a key strategy with the creation of awareness before the iPod had broken into the mainstream.
Does that make it worse? Seems like people's problem with this is its "unfairness" (whatever that means). Maybe instead of seeing it as Apple gifting celebrities seeing it as simply Apple hiring celebrities for publicity would calm the hysteria...
No, it does not make it worse - I meant that from Apple ]['s expressed point of view it would seem worse. I don't see it as any different to any other form of paid advertising.
When celebrities carry iPhones, they usually does not appear in photos because most of the time iPhones are stashed in pockets or purses. In the future, Apple Watch will appear in lots of celebrity photos and serve as a kind of product-placement ad for iPhone. I think Apple should give a stainless steel watch to every celebrity.
I remember very specifically that celebrities were profiled about their iPod use when they were first coming out. Apple was having iPods placed in "swag-bags" given to celebs at events such as the Oscars and the Grammys. I don't know for sure that Apple gifted those for free, but I would be very surprised if that was not the case.
Again, I don't have any documentation, but I remember celebrity placement was a key strategy with the creation of awareness before the iPod had broken into the mainstream.
I do not recall that at all, but you may well be right.
Were they special edition iPods (like these watches seem to be)?
Comments
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?
You're right, they're not mutually exclusive, and you're also correct that Apple has done similar things in the past, though I do not recall anything in the past meeting anywhere close to the level of current celebrity endorsements.
It wouldn't be illegal, and I have the same right to make my voice heard as anybody else.
No one said anything would be illegal. Or that you don't have the right to say what you want.
Just like it's not illegal for me to say that I wouldn't help pull you out of a ditch if your life depended on it.
they've been doing it since 1984, but you didn't have a score of 24-hour rumor sites to monitor everything apple-related back then. thats it, thats the difference.
any sort of hand-waiving about this is akin to "zomg Apple is going downhill" and "Apple is doomed!" rhetoric nonsense.
Does that make it worse? Seems like people's problem with this is its "unfairness" (whatever that means). Maybe instead of seeing it as Apple gifting celebrities seeing it as simply Apple hiring celebrities for publicity would calm the hysteria...
So no celebrity likes Apple products, and are only seen with one because they are shallow and because Apple paid them to?
I think that a far better celebrity promotion would be for famous celebrities to be seen wearing Apple Watches, that they were not gifted, and that they bought themselves. What's a few hundred dollars or even a few thousands dollars for somebody who makes millions? It's like 5 cents.
It's not like the celebrities have much choice. What other smart watch would they possibly choose? I think that a celebrity choosing an Apple watch and paying for it themselves, because they wanted one, sends a much better signal and would be better promotion.
No one said anything would be illegal. Or that you don't have the right to say what you want.
Just like it's not illegal for me to say that I wouldn't help pull you out of a ditch if your life depended on it.
I'm sure that the feeling is mutual.
I don't like all these celebrities getting Apple hardware for free, and before the products are even released for sale.
If I were a celebrity, would I accept an Apple Watch from Apple? Hell yeah.
But since I'm not, and since I don't get any Apple products for free or before they are released, I am going to give this article two thumbs down.
I think that it's sad that Apple is jumping on the celebrity bandwagon. Apple doesn't need any "celebrities" to be using their products or to be seen wearing their products. Apple products are great enough to stand on their own.
Isn't Apple all about equality and diversity and all that liberal mumbo jumbo that some people like to talk about?
Well, I don't think that certain Apple customers should come before other Apple customers. Hell, these celebrities aren't even customers, if they get their shit for free.
The Apple Watch is the first Apple product where fashion is and integral part of it's function. Fashion is about identity and desirability, which are intangible qualities that Apple can't ship with the product, but must imbue externally through promotions like this. It makes perfect sense.
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.
Why are you so bitter?
I'm sure what you said was hyperbole, but the question still stands.
I think that a far better celebrity promotion would be for famous celebrities to be seen wearing Apple Watches, that they were not gifted, and that they bought themselves. What's a few hundred dollars or even a few thousands dollars for somebody who makes millions? It's like 5 cents.
It's not like the celebrities have much choice. What other smart watch would they possibly choose? I think that a celebrity choosing an Apple watch and paying for it themselves, because they wanted one, sends a much better signal and would be better promotion.
You sound like a very jealous, very troubled person.
And you really need to learn how this business works.
I would like to see some accounting from Apple, detailing just how much they have used towards pampering these various celebrities.
Ha I see what you're doing. You're actually trying to fool us into thinking that you're bitter and ignorant when in fact you aren't. Well played, sir!
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.
Nonsense? Really? Pulling out an example from when Apple was just getting started and company that no one had heard of, is not?
C'mon....
I don't recall anything like this happening with the iPod, iPhone, iPad*.
*with the iPad, some celebrities -- e.g., I recall Colbert at some awards show -- were given it, but they had to return it.
I'm still waiting for a call from Maxfield (Los Angeles) to set up a time to bring the watches to my house so I can select one to wear this weekend. I have my credit card ready. So far, all I know is that Maxfield will sell them in the store April 24, 2015.
*with the iPad, some celebrities -- e.g., I recall Colbert at some awards show -- were given it, but they had to return it.
Colbert had to return it as soon as he got off stage I believe. There were people waiting to retrieve it.
Why are you so bitter?
I'm sure what you said was hyperbole, but the question still stands.
I think that you are confusing politics with bitterness.
It is the other side that is bitter, and I am merely stating that if I ever get into the position of influence or having vast sums of money, then I will crush them and destroy them.
So no celebrity likes Apple products, and are only seen with one because they are shallow and because Apple paid them to?
Nicely twisted there. Whether the celebrities like Apple products or not is not an issue. Many clearly do. These celebrities are seen with Apple products, not because they have bought them, but because they were given them with obvious intention of promotion. I believe celebrities whose incomes are in the tens of millions per year and who would have agents in many cases ensuring they receive adequate payment for endorsements, are not going to lend their services to further Apples wealth for essentially nothing - which relative to their wealth is what the manufacturing cost of these watches amounts to. If you consider a celebrity trading on their status as a source of income is shallow, that is your prerogative.
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.
(edited a couple of typos.... corrected autocorrect...)
Actually APPLE has chased celebrity forever: just about every movie and television show glimpse of that Apple logo was and is the direct result of their efforts in that chase. It's just we've all gotten a lot more sophisticated and can more easily spot the "product placement" than back when TWA was plastered all over 2001 A Space Odyssey.
I think you are quite wrong.
I remember very specifically that celebrities were profiled about their iPod use when they were first coming out. Apple was having iPods placed in "swag-bags" given to celebs at events such as the Oscars and the Grammys. I don't know for sure that Apple gifted those for free, but I would be very surprised if that was not the case.
Again, I don't have any documentation, but I remember celebrity placement was a key strategy with the creation of awareness before the iPod had broken into the mainstream.
Does that make it worse? Seems like people's problem with this is its "unfairness" (whatever that means). Maybe instead of seeing it as Apple gifting celebrities seeing it as simply Apple hiring celebrities for publicity would calm the hysteria...
No, it does not make it worse - I meant that from Apple ]['s expressed point of view it would seem worse. I don't see it as any different to any other form of paid advertising.
I think you are quite wrong.
I remember very specifically that celebrities were profiled about their iPod use when they were first coming out. Apple was having iPods placed in "swag-bags" given to celebs at events such as the Oscars and the Grammys. I don't know for sure that Apple gifted those for free, but I would be very surprised if that was not the case.
Again, I don't have any documentation, but I remember celebrity placement was a key strategy with the creation of awareness before the iPod had broken into the mainstream.
I do not recall that at all, but you may well be right.
Were they special edition iPods (like these watches seem to be)?