Despite all of the hoopla, phones are just meant to get one to sign on with a service.
The concept has always been for good reason, for the cell provider to advertise that they have a "hot" phone to go with that service.
Normally, most phones have been available for most providers, though not always at first. So the provider advertises that they have that "hot" phone, and look at the advantages you will get by coming with us.
At the same time, the phone maker, if it has a "hot" phone, advertises that phone in tandem, to keep the phone in people's face.
You must remember the "Only With Moto" ads? Samsung did the same thing when they first came out with the i300 Palmphone.
BUT, it's the carriers that sell 90% of these phones, and so they do the heavy lifting.
Most people don't change carriers for a phone, except for unusual circumstances.
This time it's different. ONLY ATT will be carrying the phone, so one would expect that they would certainly heft the expense, and direction, for the ads. Then Apple would do some of their own as well.
But, Apple is apparently insisting that it's the phone that will sell, not the provider, and so they won the right to control the ads—so far.
hi melgross, i didnt re-read the thread like you wanted, i didnt see it necessary.
you see, its my opinion that this isnt like anything before. there has never been such a device in the cell market. apple has changed the game.
its apples product its apple thats creating the drive its apples ball game.
you see, its my opinion that this isnt like anything before. there has never been such a device in the cell market. apple has changed the game.
Judging by Melgross' previous posts, he is well aware of how Apple's iPhone has turned the cell industry on its ear. The only thing to be debated is which company will be controlling the advertising.
I really have no opinion on this matter. This new cell phone paradigm of the manufacturer having a vested interest in the longevity and usefulness of the consumer hardware has, unfortunately, made it impossible for me to make predictions based on my current level of knowledge.
Depends. If the iPhone will do something that you need to do, but that other phones don't do, then yes.
Otherwise, no.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say the iPhone is going to do something that other phones don't. It will make calls, play music/videos, send text messages/email, browse the web, take pictures...etc. These are all things that phones have done for years. But it's HOW the iPhone does it...remember, user experience, ease of use, great engineering, beautiful design. These are the things, I think, everyone is excited about. And what makes something an Apple product. (Not to mention their very memorable commercials.)
If all you're going to go by is "does it do what I need to do", well then, you don't need an iPhone or an iPod or a Mac for that matter. \
thank god. cingular/att ads suck and make me not want to use their products/services. especially their "least amount of dropped calls" commercials which have been airing for way too long.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say the iPhone is going to do something that other phones don't. It will make calls, play music/videos, send text messages/email, browse the web, take pictures...etc. These are all things that phones have done for years. But it's HOW the iPhone does it...remember, user experience, ease of use, great engineering, beautiful design. These are the things, I think, everyone is excited about. And what makes something an Apple product. (Not to mention their very memorable commercials.)
If all you're going to go by is "does it do what I need to do", well then, you don't need an iPhone or an iPod or a Mac for that matter. \
Well, this is somewhat different of course. But, usually, that's the only real reason to switch to get a different phone for most people, at least.
Mac's are different than the case for the iPhone.
It's not just a matter of desire.
There is the malware problem. The fact that Mac's are more reliable, and work better with many pro apps, etc.
are you trying to provoke me? anyway, not interested. like i said this is a pretty useless article.....to ME. sorta like one of those useless facts.
I would NEVER do that!
Just pointing out that this has already been discussed at length. Your questions and statements were already answered. This seems to happen a lot. We will have ten or even twenty posts about a single idea, finish with it from most all angles, and then, just a few posts after we have finished the hours long back and forth, someone posts something that was already thoroughly dealt with.
And then we have to start all over again.
We often suggest that people skim through earlier posts first.
ok i went back and read the posts before mine, all 25 of them. i wasnt too late to the discussion, i was only 11 posts after you. matter of fact you guys hadnt even come to an agreement. but anyway, i think they should both advertise yet ATT would need to stick to Apple guidelines. i cant wait.
Love how you generalize. Guess you must think I'm evil. I work in Advertising.
Bwahahahha. Evil? (Dr. Evil pose)
w00master
You're not evil, you're just an enabler ... ... whose job I assume lies in the gray area between product education and creating artificial demand. It did seem to make Daren in "Bewitched" so awfully stressed most of the time that they needed two actors ... but if you can come home to martini each evening to a cute blonde ...
I actually think advertising would be a fun profession as long as you aren't forced to Halliburtin or Head-On products palatable to the general public. By the way, what is it that you pimp ... I mean advertise?
What exactly is it saying? That Apple's favorite ad agency will run Apple's ads for the Apple phone? That Apple has already used them before, and are happy with them? That the manufacturer of the phone will tout it more effectively than a dealer? (See., e.g., Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia........)
Am I missing something, or is this 'news' item merely stating the obvious?
Comments
Despite all of the hoopla, phones are just meant to get one to sign on with a service.
The concept has always been for good reason, for the cell provider to advertise that they have a "hot" phone to go with that service.
Normally, most phones have been available for most providers, though not always at first. So the provider advertises that they have that "hot" phone, and look at the advantages you will get by coming with us.
At the same time, the phone maker, if it has a "hot" phone, advertises that phone in tandem, to keep the phone in people's face.
You must remember the "Only With Moto" ads? Samsung did the same thing when they first came out with the i300 Palmphone.
BUT, it's the carriers that sell 90% of these phones, and so they do the heavy lifting.
Most people don't change carriers for a phone, except for unusual circumstances.
This time it's different. ONLY ATT will be carrying the phone, so one would expect that they would certainly heft the expense, and direction, for the ads. Then Apple would do some of their own as well.
But, Apple is apparently insisting that it's the phone that will sell, not the provider, and so they won the right to control the ads—so far.
hi melgross, i didnt re-read the thread like you wanted, i didnt see it necessary.
you see, its my opinion that this isnt like anything before. there has never been such a device in the cell market. apple has changed the game.
its apples product its apple thats creating the drive its apples ball game.
you see, its my opinion that this isnt like anything before. there has never been such a device in the cell market. apple has changed the game.
Judging by Melgross' previous posts, he is well aware of how Apple's iPhone has turned the cell industry on its ear. The only thing to be debated is which company will be controlling the advertising.
I really have no opinion on this matter. This new cell phone paradigm of the manufacturer having a vested interest in the longevity and usefulness of the consumer hardware has, unfortunately, made it impossible for me to make predictions based on my current level of knowledge.
Don't you think this is one of those unusual circumstances?
Depends. If the iPhone will do something that you need to do, but that other phones don't do, then yes.
Otherwise, no.
hi melgross, i didnt re-read the thread like you wanted, i didnt see it necessary.
More knowledge is better than less knowledge.
Depends. If the iPhone will do something that you need to do, but that other phones don't do, then yes.
Otherwise, no.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say the iPhone is going to do something that other phones don't. It will make calls, play music/videos, send text messages/email, browse the web, take pictures...etc. These are all things that phones have done for years. But it's HOW the iPhone does it...remember, user experience, ease of use, great engineering, beautiful design. These are the things, I think, everyone is excited about. And what makes something an Apple product. (Not to mention their very memorable commercials.)
If all you're going to go by is "does it do what I need to do", well then, you don't need an iPhone or an iPod or a Mac for that matter.
More knowledge is better than less knowledge.
are you trying to provoke me? anyway, not interested.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say the iPhone is going to do something that other phones don't. It will make calls, play music/videos, send text messages/email, browse the web, take pictures...etc. These are all things that phones have done for years. But it's HOW the iPhone does it...remember, user experience, ease of use, great engineering, beautiful design. These are the things, I think, everyone is excited about. And what makes something an Apple product. (Not to mention their very memorable commercials.)
If all you're going to go by is "does it do what I need to do", well then, you don't need an iPhone or an iPod or a Mac for that matter.
Well, this is somewhat different of course. But, usually, that's the only real reason to switch to get a different phone for most people, at least.
Mac's are different than the case for the iPhone.
It's not just a matter of desire.
There is the malware problem. The fact that Mac's are more reliable, and work better with many pro apps, etc.
are you trying to provoke me? anyway, not interested.
I would NEVER do that!
Just pointing out that this has already been discussed at length. Your questions and statements were already answered. This seems to happen a lot. We will have ten or even twenty posts about a single idea, finish with it from most all angles, and then, just a few posts after we have finished the hours long back and forth, someone posts something that was already thoroughly dealt with.
And then we have to start all over again.
We often suggest that people skim through earlier posts first.
No insult intended.
ok i went back and read the posts before mine, all 25 of them. i wasnt too late to the discussion, i was only 11 posts after you. matter of fact you guys hadnt even come to an agreement. but anyway, i think they should both advertise yet ATT would need to stick to Apple guidelines. i cant wait.
but anyway, i think they should both advertise yet ATT would need to stick to Apple guidelines. i cant wait.
I agree with that. It's exactly what I've been saying.
Love how you generalize. Guess you must think I'm evil. I work in Advertising.
Bwahahahha. Evil? (Dr. Evil pose)
w00master
You're not evil, you're just an enabler ...
I actually think advertising would be a fun profession as long as you aren't forced to Halliburtin or Head-On products palatable to the general public. By the way, what is it that you pimp ... I mean advertise?
Odd 'news' item.
What exactly is it saying? That Apple's favorite ad agency will run Apple's ads for the Apple phone? That Apple has already used them before, and are happy with them? That the manufacturer of the phone will tout it more effectively than a dealer? (See., e.g., Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia........)
Am I missing something, or is this 'news' item merely stating the obvious?
good .nice relpy~just like what i think