Does anyone else find it funny that Apple ][ just so happened to turn from his usual 'survival of the fittest' 'to the victor goes the spoils' stance to one of an egalitarian hippie on 4/20/2015? Coincidence?
C'mon Apple ][, the fact that every single troll is saying the same thing should be a big clue that you might be off on this one.
Yes, I did mention that Macintosh story earlier in the thread. People keep mentioning that same story, which I think kind of proves that this is rare for Apple, and not something that was widely done.
no, it's mentioned because its *not* something unheard of. when you have a brand new product, you want to get it into the hands of influential people. thats a no-brainer. these recepipients command huge audiences and shape public opinion. to not do so, for fear of what some techies might say on a rumors site, would be stupid.
you didnt hear about it when Jobs did it because this site and its news cycle didnt exist then. it does now.
And what is that class? Tiny, clumsy screens that are accessories to a smartphone that's easier to use.
What actual use has either the Apple Phone or any of it's kin? It lets those who rather neurotically check their iPhone screen every few minutes look at their watch instead. Apple's claiming that'll be better in a social setting, that others will find it less irritating.
Not so, when others see someone looking at their smartphone, they assume they're waiting for an important message. When that person keeps looking at their watch, they assume, "This person is so bored with me. He keeps checking watch for the time when he can leave."
There are actually some good ideas behind this, including a wrist or ankle device that signals specific events with a silent, selective vibration that others aren't aware of. That'll be a handy product but it's isn't one that has to sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars.
what on earth are you smoking? the watch already does this -- the taptic feedback engine is silent. one of the points of the AW is that it reduces notifications to the importance thresholds you set. reviewers cite looking at their devices *less*, not more.
and thats only one use fo the device. my primary use case has nothing to do w/ notificiations (which wasnt even one of Cooks thee main tentpoles), and is activity tracking for my overly sedentary lifestyle. get a grip.
but his point stands -- gifting products to influential people makes sense. whining about being one of the have-nots on a rumors site and suggesting it means apple is doomed, going down hill, that SJ would never, etc, doesnt make sense.
thats the point. and it stands, regardless of how we feel about the poster or his style.
Does anyone else find it funny that Apple ][ just so happened to turn from his usual 'survival of the fittest' 'to the victor goes the spoils' stance to one of an egalitarian hippie on 4/20/2015? Coincidence? :smokey:
C'mon Apple ][, the fact that every single troll is saying the same thing should be a big clue that you might be off on this one.
thats a great point! usuall A2 is all about "the marketplace" and "pulling yourself up the bootstraps", and other conservative dogma. now all of a sudden he's no different than all the trolls on sites like MacRumors, complaining about the mean-weanie-wich-peeple getting stuff before the little guy. how odd. is he letting personal bias (he has to wait for an apple watch) get in the way of his pro-libertarian dogma!?
It's not wealth that is the factor here, it's being a "name."
I don't know when this began, but I do remember the influence the Beatles had at the peak of their debute. The boots they wore, the jackets they were seen in, even their choice of haircuts made an impact on the public's choices. This is still going on but in a more defused way. Famous icons drive markets.
Being a name has been a thing since the 1800s. Athletes, Singers, Theater, vaudeville acts were used to sell products before TV and radio even existed. Mass media just amplified this phenomena. Newspapers and mass advertising really took off in the 1800s and producers that sold their wares needed celeb endorsements, just like today.
It's not wealth that is the factor here, it's being a "name."
bingo. the recipients arent targeted because theyre wealthy (there are tons of wealthy people in the phone book), theyre targeted because theyre influential -- they have followers, an audience, a brand.
this is as old as advertising. that smart people are complaining about it hundreds of years later is nuts.
Tech reviewers get iPods, iPads, iPhones, and Macbooks before regular people.
It is something that is widely done.
You are wrong. Admit it.
Yes they do in order to review the device and write about it. Often they are given back. I'm just curious as I haven't seen any technical or even fashion reviews from these celebs....
The way Beyonce is wearing the Apple Watch, how do you use the digital crown without blocking the screen with your hand? Seems like a classic case of doing-it-wrong unless I'm missing something here.
Yes, you can wear it on either wrist, but the proper orientation is to have the digital crown always facing your wrist unless you magically grow a third hand.
It doesn't matter. She wears it anyway she wants. It is not at all difficult to use your thumb or index finger on either side of the watch to adjust the digital crown or press the button. Have you tried one yet?
Yes, I did mention that Macintosh story earlier in the thread. People keep mentioning that same story, which I think kind of proves that this is rare for Apple, and not something that was widely done.
Why else would Apple send these early units to tech reviewers? They do it to build up early hype.
Giving early access to Celebs and Tech Reviewers have the same purpose - build up HYPE.
Maybe but as I think about it, I'm not do sure. The tech reviewers have known outlets where they publish and/or present their reviews. So far the only celeb marketing we've seen are paparazzi and random media photos of them wearing the watch. No formal marketing is being done as is with the tech reviewers
If you want only to impress someone by showing your wealth on your wrist there is a cheaper option for Apple Watch. You can gold-plate it in pure gold and it will look exactly the same. AppleWatchGoldplated provides this service in UK for very decent price.
Why else would Apple send these early units to tech reviewers? They do it to build up early hype.
Giving early access to Celebs and Tech Reviewers have the same purpose - build up HYPE.
Maybe but as I think about it, I'm not do (sic) sure. The tech reviewers have known outlets where they publish and/or present their reviews. So far the only celeb marketing we've seen are paparazzi and random media photos of them wearing the watch. No formal marketing is being done as is with the tech reviewers
Few people read the tech reviews directly. They get better coverage when a major media outlet picks up the story and repeats the gist of the review. However, with luxury products tech reviews mean little compared to "yuppy" factor. Six month to a year out some fashionista will be in a terrible accident and be crying over his crushed Beemer. Someone will run up to them and tell them they have a lot more to cry over as they are missing their whole left arm... the fashionista will go, "OMG, what happened to my ?Watch...!"
NO they do not add value, when PAYING customers have to wait to get their watch, and apple gives them to hollywood and fashion people
(most of whom you never heard off)
It's Apple, with a capital A. Wh...what are you even doing with your life?
Comments
Does anyone else find it funny that Apple ][ just so happened to turn from his usual 'survival of the fittest' 'to the victor goes the spoils' stance to one of an egalitarian hippie on 4/20/2015? Coincidence?
C'mon Apple ][, the fact that every single troll is saying the same thing should be a big clue that you might be off on this one.
no, it's mentioned because its *not* something unheard of. when you have a brand new product, you want to get it into the hands of influential people. thats a no-brainer. these recepipients command huge audiences and shape public opinion. to not do so, for fear of what some techies might say on a rumors site, would be stupid.
you didnt hear about it when Jobs did it because this site and its news cycle didnt exist then. it does now.
what on earth are you smoking? the watch already does this -- the taptic feedback engine is silent. one of the points of the AW is that it reduces notifications to the importance thresholds you set. reviewers cite looking at their devices *less*, not more.
and thats only one use fo the device. my primary use case has nothing to do w/ notificiations (which wasnt even one of Cooks thee main tentpoles), and is activity tracking for my overly sedentary lifestyle. get a grip.
but his point stands -- gifting products to influential people makes sense. whining about being one of the have-nots on a rumors site and suggesting it means apple is doomed, going down hill, that SJ would never, etc, doesnt make sense.
thats the point. and it stands, regardless of how we feel about the poster or his style.
thats a great point! usuall A2 is all about "the marketplace" and "pulling yourself up the bootstraps", and other conservative dogma. now all of a sudden he's no different than all the trolls on sites like MacRumors, complaining about the mean-weanie-wich-peeple getting stuff before the little guy. how odd. is he letting personal bias (he has to wait for an apple watch) get in the way of his pro-libertarian dogma!?
It's not wealth that is the factor here, it's being a "name."
I don't know when this began, but I do remember the influence the Beatles had at the peak of their debute. The boots they wore, the jackets they were seen in, even their choice of haircuts made an impact on the public's choices. This is still going on but in a more defused way. Famous icons drive markets.
Being a name has been a thing since the 1800s. Athletes, Singers, Theater, vaudeville acts were used to sell products before TV and radio even existed. Mass media just amplified this phenomena. Newspapers and mass advertising really took off in the 1800s and producers that sold their wares needed celeb endorsements, just like today.
bingo. the recipients arent targeted because theyre wealthy (there are tons of wealthy people in the phone book), theyre targeted because theyre influential -- they have followers, an audience, a brand.
this is as old as advertising. that smart people are complaining about it hundreds of years later is nuts.
Yes they do in order to review the device and write about it. Often they are given back. I'm just curious as I haven't seen any technical or even fashion reviews from these celebs....
The way Beyonce is wearing the Apple Watch, how do you use the digital crown without blocking the screen with your hand? Seems like a classic case of doing-it-wrong unless I'm missing something here.
Yes, you can wear it on either wrist, but the proper orientation is to have the digital crown always facing your wrist unless you magically grow a third hand.
It doesn't matter. She wears it anyway she wants. It is not at all difficult to use your thumb or index finger on either side of the watch to adjust the digital crown or press the button. Have you tried one yet?
Or it's not rare.
Maybe but as I think about it, I'm not do sure. The tech reviewers have known outlets where they publish and/or present their reviews. So far the only celeb marketing we've seen are paparazzi and random media photos of them wearing the watch. No formal marketing is being done as is with the tech reviewers
Tech reviewers get iPods, iPads, iPhones, and Macbooks before regular people.
It is something that is widely done.
You are wrong. Admit it.
And presidents got pre-release iPads personally delivered by Steve Jobs. Well, one did.
Giggle: those photos of people like Beyonce got more views in their first hour than any tech blogger review posted where-ever will ever receive.
And marketing is all about the eyeballs.
If you want only to impress someone by showing your wealth on your wrist there is a cheaper option for Apple Watch. You can gold-plate it in pure gold and it will look exactly the same. AppleWatchGoldplated provides this service in UK for very decent price.
Do not comment if you believe that the highest paid music artist on Earth doesn't add astronomical value to Apple by wearing the Watch.
NO they do not add value, when PAYING customers have to wait to get their watch, and apple gives them to hollywood and fashion people
(most of whom you never heard off)
Do not comment if you believe that the highest paid music artist on Earth doesn't add astronomical value to Apple by wearing the Watch.
NO they do not add value, when PAYING customers have to wait to get their watch, and apple gives them to hollywood and fashion people
(most of whom you never heard off)
You will never be one of the beautiful people if you keep lurking under that rock...
But those reviews are also MARKETING.
Why else would Apple send these early units to tech reviewers? They do it to build up early hype.
Giving early access to Celebs and Tech Reviewers have the same purpose - build up HYPE.
Maybe but as I think about it, I'm not do (sic) sure. The tech reviewers have known outlets where they publish and/or present their reviews. So far the only celeb marketing we've seen are paparazzi and random media photos of them wearing the watch. No formal marketing is being done as is with the tech reviewers
Few people read the tech reviews directly. They get better coverage when a major media outlet picks up the story and repeats the gist of the review. However, with luxury products tech reviews mean little compared to "yuppy" factor. Six month to a year out some fashionista will be in a terrible accident and be crying over his crushed Beemer. Someone will run up to them and tell them they have a lot more to cry over as they are missing their whole left arm... the fashionista will go, "OMG, what happened to my ?Watch...!"
It's Apple, with a capital A. Wh...what are you even doing with your life?