Asia is into hardware; Lat Am into booze and movies; the Europeans, they like their fancy outfits, cheap calls, and mobile phones; Americans love to surf and sip coffee!
When there are so many of them that some of them are across the street from each other, then I'd call it influential.
Whoa thats weird...my keyboard wouldn't let me type in the forum box, yet my hotkey for Quicksilver worked?
Anyways how does starbucks influence my life? I don't drink coffee or tea or anything, but if I did and starbucks wasn't around, wouldn't another company have one someplace? To me a starbucks is like a gas station that grew bigger than it's competitors. You see a lot of them, but it doesn't really matter if they were a different company...they are just there. Apple and Google however change the way I work, and play. It changes me, it influences me. I really don't see starbucks being influential.
Unless of course they allow Apple and Google workers to work longer~
Aha! So the European list only includes European brands (Well, eBay bought Skype, but still), the Asian only includes Asian brands etc...
How on earth are the top picks in the US and Canada also the Global top picks then...
I mean if Sony is #1 in Asia... and China has 1.2 billion people in it... etc... its just not mathematically possible for the US and Canadian top picks to be global... esspecially considering they arnt top for Europe or any other region. I think this survey is at best flawed and at worst horribly bias.
Yes i guess you can make the argument that "well maybe Apple was #7 in Asia and #6 in Europe and thus it makes the global" yeah okay... seems highly unlikely and the math is still tough. If you are talking the number of people who think the brand is influential, it just doesnt make sense.
the list for the euro zone is IMO complete shite! and it includes africa???
zara? skype? who the fuck are they?
I've vaguely heard of skype, I doubt most people have a clue of them.
Sky corporation would definately need to be in there and probably Tesco too.
How come wallmart doesn't figure in the list?
Zara = spanish fashion company
Skype = leader in personal VOIP software
And why do you assume that everybody in Europe should know Tesco? That's a purely UK based company, if I recall things correctly. But if you wanted to say that the UK actually IS Europe?!?
How on earth are the top picks in the US and Canada also the Global top picks then...
I mean if Sony is #1 in Asia... and China has 1.2 billion people in it... etc... its just not mathematically possible for the US and Canadian top picks to be global... esspecially considering they arnt top for Europe or any other region. I think this survey is at best flawed and at worst horribly bias.
Yes i guess you can make the argument that "well maybe Apple was #7 in Asia and #6 in Europe and thus it makes the global" yeah okay... seems highly unlikely and the math is still tough. If you are talking the number of people who think the brand is influential, it just doesnt make sense.
Hmm, you are confusing yourself. Here is a theoretical. Suppose Apple is #1 in US but 10th in asia. Suppose further that 100,000,000 people live in america (yes, obviously, this is just a number i chose, the U.S population is greater). Suppose further that Sony is #10 in america and #1 in asia. Suppose all of asia has a bllion people. (again, we are using nice round numbers for the example here).
In U.S. Number of people who rate Apple #1. 75 million out of 100 million
number of people who rate Sony #1 = 5 million but still placing them 10th.
In asia, number of people rating Sony #1. 100 million
(apple is 10th in this example cause 8 other companies other than sony had more than 50 million people state they are number 1).
Total nmber of people rating apple #1. 75 million + 50 million = 125 million
Total number of people rating Sony #1 is 5 million + 100 million = 105 million
Notice that Sony had twice the number of people rating them higher in asia but still placed behind apple when the figures are combined. Expand this example globally and you get the picture.
Raw numbers mean nothing unless you understand how they are manipulated.
Hmm, you are confusing yourself. Here is a theoretical. Suppose Apple is #1 in US but 10th in asia. Suppose further that 100,000,000 people live in america (yes, obviously, this is just a number i chose, the U.S population is greater). Suppose further that Sony is #10 in america and #1 in asia. Suppose all of asia has a bllion people. (again, we are using nice round numbers for the example here).
In U.S. Number of people who rate Apple #1. 75 million out of 100 million
number of people who rate Sony #1 = 5 million but still placing them 10th.
In asia, number of people rating Sony #1. 100 million
(apple is 10th in this example cause 8 other companies other than sony had more than 50 million people state they are number 1).
Total nmber of people rating apple #1. 75 million + 50 million = 125 million
Total number of people rating Sony #1 is 5 million + 100 million = 105 million
Notice that Sony had twice the number of people rating them higher in asia but still placed behind apple when the figures are combined. Expand this example globally and you get the picture.
Raw numbers mean nothing unless you understand how they are manipulated.
Consider this lesson in statistics well learned.
That's not a lesson in statistics, it's a stacked deck.
You posit Apple's number 1 position in America to represent a whopping 75% of the populace, but then arbitrarily make Sony's number 1 position represent a meager 10% of their regional population.
Which has the effect of accounting for Apple's global ranking but doesn't actually make any sense.
It particularly doesn't make any sense since the survey stipulates a sampling of about 1,500 people per region, which obliges the authors of the survey to weight the results according to population, not make up percentages.
I have to assume that regional results reflect some kind of stipulation that you have to vote for regional vendors, and that you also get to vote for global choices, separately, although nothing in the article makes that clear.
Otherwise there's pretty much no way numbers derived from regional votes could account for the global rankings.
That's not a lesson in statistics, it's a stacked deck.
You posit Apple's number 1 position in America to represent a whopping 75% of the populace, but then arbitrarily make Sony's number 1 position represent a meager 10% of their regional population.
Which has the effect of accounting for Apple's global ranking but doesn't actually make any sense.
It particularly doesn't make any sense since the survey stipulates a sampling of about 1,500 people per region, which obliges the authors of the survey to weight the results according to population, not make up percentages.
I have to assume that regional results reflect some kind of stipulation that you have to vote for regional vendors, and that you also get to vote for global choices, separately, although nothing in the article makes that clear.
Otherwise there's pretty much no way numbers derived from regional votes could account for the global rankings.
Yes, the numbers are skewed but the original poster was confused about how apple could be #1 worldwide and not #1 in asia considering the populaton differences.
As to reginal results.. what is confusing to you about that?. Why would someone have to vote for regional vendors?. I know it seems hard but apple is not known everywhere and even if it is, it popularity varies. One can ask the same question to everyone and get different answers. The assumption about reginal vendors is baseless. Why should the study author even mention that when it shouldn't even be a question and nothing in the study would even lead one to remotely conlude this was a factor unless one was such an apple fanatic that one needed some inprobable excuse as to why apple is not in the top 10 in every part the world. Gee.. no, it's not possible that people in india prefer some other brand than apple.. no!!!.. the only reason must be cause they had to vote for reginonal vendors (hope you recognize the sarcasm there).
Your last statement shows you still do not understand statistics. I could talk till i was blue in the face and you still would not get it. Yeah, we should all agree with your last statement cause you are an expert in statistics or work in some related field such that you could unequivocally state that regional votes could not account for global rankings.. yeah, ok there professor..
Yes, the numbers are skewed but the original poster was confused about how apple could be #1 worldwide and not #1 in asia considering the populaton differences.
As to reginal results.. what is confusing to you about that?. Why would someone have to vote for regional vendors?. I know it seems hard but apple is not known everywhere and even if it is, it popularity varies. One can ask the same question to everyone and get different answers. The assumption about reginal vendors is baseless. Why should the study author even mention that when it shouldn't even be a question and nothing in the study would even lead one to remotely conlude this was a factor unless one was such an apple fanatic that one needed some inprobable excuse as to why apple is not in the top 10 in every part the world. Gee.. no, it's not possible that people in india prefer some other brand than apple.. no!!!.. the only reason must be cause they had to vote for reginonal vendors (hope you recognize the sarcasm there).
Your last statement shows you still do not understand statistics. I could talk till i was blue in the face and you still would not get it. Yeah, we should all agree with your last statement cause you are an expert in statistics or work in some related field such that you could unequivocally state that regional votes could not account for global rankings.. yeah, ok there professor..
WTF are you talking about? I only mentioned the possibility of regional voting to account for the fact that Apple would poll #2 globally (or Google #1, for that matter) when they did not make a single regional top ten list outside of North America. To twist that into some kind of North American provincialism, or Apple fan boyism, suggests you're just being a dick for the hell of it or you can't read.
Again, I mean just the opposite of what you apparently think: I don't know how Apple ranks #2 globally if they don't make any of the regional top ten lists, unless either the votes have some kind of regional limitations or the numbers are disproportionately weighted towards North American.
I actually don't even know what you're on about regarding "statistics" since that's not really what's in play here. Just percentages and how populations are weighted.
Hmm, you are confusing yourself. Here is a theoretical. Suppose Apple is #1 in US but 10th in asia. Suppose further that 100,000,000 people live in america (yes, obviously, this is just a number i chose, the U.S population is greater). Suppose further that Sony is #10 in america and #1 in asia. Suppose all of asia has a bllion people. (again, we are using nice round numbers for the example here).
In U.S. Number of people who rate Apple #1. 75 million out of 100 million
number of people who rate Sony #1 = 5 million but still placing them 10th.
In asia, number of people rating Sony #1. 100 million
(apple is 10th in this example cause 8 other companies other than sony had more than 50 million people state they are number 1).
Total nmber of people rating apple #1. 75 million + 50 million = 125 million
Total number of people rating Sony #1 is 5 million + 100 million = 105 million
Notice that Sony had twice the number of people rating them higher in asia but still placed behind apple when the figures are combined. Expand this example globally and you get the picture.
Raw numbers mean nothing unless you understand how they are manipulated.
Consider this lesson in statistics well learned.
yeah good example... except it doesnt match up with the numbers given proportionally. Apple recieved 30% vote in the USA. So in your example it would be 30 million out of 100 for the USA... not 75 million. Your given statistics would say that 75% of americans voted Apple-- not even close to the case. Sorry i see what your trying to say, but it doesnt make sense here.
Lets try this (rough numbers):
US/Canada = 400 mil
Asia = 2 Billion
We know that Apple = 30% in Us/Canada,
so Apple has 130 million votes.
We know Sony is #1 in Asia-- we can guess lets say they get 10%-20% (conservative numbers id say for Sony) this is 200 million to 400 million votes.
again, sure maybe Apple got position 6 in asia and picked up votes... but the way the numbers seem to go is that the top 5 pick up most of the percent of the people, with #1 picking up 30% and #2 picking up 20% and #3 picking up 18%-- there isnt a lot of room left at the bottom for other brands.
This is why i find the numbers hard that everything that hit #1-5 in the US/Canada made the global list almost exactly-- nevermind if Sony got the same 30% in Asia that Apple got in the US/Canada
Yes, the numbers are skewed but the original poster was confused about how apple could be #1 worldwide and not #1 in asia considering the populaton differences.
As to reginal results.. what is confusing to you about that?. Why would someone have to vote for regional vendors?. I know it seems hard but apple is not known everywhere and even if it is, it popularity varies. One can ask the same question to everyone and get different answers. The assumption about reginal vendors is baseless. Why should the study author even mention that when it shouldn't even be a question and nothing in the study would even lead one to remotely conlude this was a factor unless one was such an apple fanatic that one needed some inprobable excuse as to why apple is not in the top 10 in every part the world. Gee.. no, it's not possible that people in india prefer some other brand than apple.. no!!!.. the only reason must be cause they had to vote for reginonal vendors (hope you recognize the sarcasm there).
Your last statement shows you still do not understand statistics. I could talk till i was blue in the face and you still would not get it. Yeah, we should all agree with your last statement cause you are an expert in statistics or work in some related field such that you could unequivocally state that regional votes could not account for global rankings.. yeah, ok there professor..
Please read the original post again--- my problem was more i couldnt see how the US/Canadian results are the global results given the population differences of the regions--
The point is again that their was no proportional weight given to populations of the given regions with the global rankings...
[QUOTE=mike12309;1033593]Please read the original post again--- my problem was more i couldnt see how the US/Canadian results are the global results given the population differences of the regions--
Deleted prior post. I wrote something here in a fit of frustration but then i decided it would just lead to back and forth. If i was discussing this with a bunch of qualified people, it would be more interesting, as is, it is merely amusing. I shall leave everyone to their "armchair statistics" and continue to read with amusement.
yeah good example... except it doesnt match up with the numbers given proportionally. Apple recieved 30% vote in the USA. So in your example it would be 30 million out of 100 for the USA... not 75 million. Your given statistics would say that 75% of americans voted Apple-- not even close to the case. Sorry i see what your trying to say, but it doesnt make sense here.
Lets try this (rough numbers):
US/Canada = 400 mil
Asia = 2 Billion
We know that Apple = 30% in Us/Canada,
so Apple has 130 million votes.
We know Sony is #1 in Asia-- we can guess lets say they get 10%-20% (conservative numbers id say for Sony) this is 200 million to 400 million votes.
again, sure maybe Apple got position 6 in asia and picked up votes... but the way the numbers seem to go is that the top 5 pick up most of the percent of the people, with #1 picking up 30% and #2 picking up 20% and #3 picking up 18%-- there isnt a lot of room left at the bottom for other brands.
This is why i find the numbers hard that everything that hit #1-5 in the US/Canada made the global list almost exactly-- nevermind if Sony got the same 30% in Asia that Apple got in the US/Canada
The only problem with this is taking the entire population into account. As you may know (and assume).. the survey was not done with everyone.. the problem of course is that even though there are billions more people in asia, not many of them have internet access (the U.S for example, still has more net users in raw numbers than china, even though china has 3 times more people). That is why i keep saying, population numbers are deceiving. if you look at that, yes, it is confusing. So even if sony is #1 in asia, their total numbers may be less due to various factors (people in asia are less education and many might not have even heard of sony or apple).. apple appeals to a higher income bracket, etc. Everyone is jumping on this report without even so much as thinking beyond the surface.
the list for the euro zone is IMO complete shite! and it includes africa???
zara? skype? who the fuck are they?
I've vaguely heard of skype, I doubt most people have a clue of them.
Sky corporation would definately need to be in there and probably Tesco too.
How come wallmart doesn't figure in the list?
where do u live??
Europeans put real world brands in their top lists. Clothing: Zara, furniture: Ikea, ... haven't you heard of Skype???? This is the one brand even my mother in law knows, families get spread out around the wordl and how do you think they communicate???
Btw: it seems like good ol' american dream is translating in all bubble brands, let's see in 10 years... it's probably a bias (internet polling, internet results). But isn't perception more important than reality?
Hmm, you are confusing yourself. Here is a theoretical. Suppose Apple is #1 in US but 10th in asia. Suppose further that 100,000,000 people live in america (yes, obviously, this is just a number i chose, the U.S population is greater). Suppose further that Sony is #10 in america and #1 in asia. Suppose all of asia has a bllion people. (again, we are using nice round numbers for the example here).
In U.S. Number of people who rate Apple #1. 75 million out of 100 million
number of people who rate Sony #1 = 5 million but still placing them 10th.
In asia, number of people rating Sony #1. 100 million
(apple is 10th in this example cause 8 other companies other than sony had more than 50 million people state they are number 1).
Total nmber of people rating apple #1. 75 million + 50 million = 125 million
Total number of people rating Sony #1 is 5 million + 100 million = 105 million
Notice that Sony had twice the number of people rating them higher in asia but still placed behind apple when the figures are combined. Expand this example globally and you get the picture.
Raw numbers mean nothing unless you understand how they are manipulated.
Consider this lesson in statistics well learned.
so wouldn't statistics mean that you correct for bias response rates (in your example over 75 percent in us and only 10 % in Asia) Or do you think in Asia they all responded different brands and the graph is more spread out? Wow that would mean brand interest in a more post-communism part of the world is more differentiated than the number one freedom of choice country?
Comments
Starbucks = nectar of the Gods ;P
Starbucks..... nectar? Eeeeeeww.......
Really interesting.
Asia is into hardware; Lat Am into booze and movies; the Europeans, they like their fancy outfits, cheap calls, and mobile phones; Americans love to surf and sip coffee!
When there are so many of them that some of them are across the street from each other, then I'd call it influential.
Whoa thats weird...my keyboard wouldn't let me type in the forum box, yet my hotkey for Quicksilver worked?
Anyways how does starbucks influence my life? I don't drink coffee or tea or anything, but if I did and starbucks wasn't around, wouldn't another company have one someplace? To me a starbucks is like a gas station that grew bigger than it's competitors. You see a lot of them, but it doesn't really matter if they were a different company...they are just there. Apple and Google however change the way I work, and play. It changes me, it influences me. I really don't see starbucks being influential.
Unless of course they allow Apple and Google workers to work longer~
Aha! So the European list only includes European brands (Well, eBay bought Skype, but still), the Asian only includes Asian brands etc...
Aha! So the European list only includes European brands (Well, eBay bought Skype, but still), the Asian only includes Asian brands etc...
How on earth are the top picks in the US and Canada also the Global top picks then...
I mean if Sony is #1 in Asia... and China has 1.2 billion people in it... etc... its just not mathematically possible for the US and Canadian top picks to be global... esspecially considering they arnt top for Europe or any other region. I think this survey is at best flawed and at worst horribly bias.
Yes i guess you can make the argument that "well maybe Apple was #7 in Asia and #6 in Europe and thus it makes the global" yeah okay... seems highly unlikely and the math is still tough. If you are talking the number of people who think the brand is influential, it just doesnt make sense.
nevermind. edited post.
We're all intrigued, please tell.
the list for the euro zone is IMO complete shite! and it includes africa???
zara? skype? who the fuck are they?
I've vaguely heard of skype, I doubt most people have a clue of them.
Sky corporation would definately need to be in there and probably Tesco too.
How come wallmart doesn't figure in the list?
the list for the euro zone is IMO complete shite! and it includes africa???
zara? skype? who the fuck are they?
I've vaguely heard of skype, I doubt most people have a clue of them.
Sky corporation would definately need to be in there and probably Tesco too.
How come wallmart doesn't figure in the list?
Zara = spanish fashion company
Skype = leader in personal VOIP software
And why do you assume that everybody in Europe should know Tesco? That's a purely UK based company, if I recall things correctly. But if you wanted to say that the UK actually IS Europe?!?
How on earth are the top picks in the US and Canada also the Global top picks then...
I mean if Sony is #1 in Asia... and China has 1.2 billion people in it... etc... its just not mathematically possible for the US and Canadian top picks to be global... esspecially considering they arnt top for Europe or any other region. I think this survey is at best flawed and at worst horribly bias.
Yes i guess you can make the argument that "well maybe Apple was #7 in Asia and #6 in Europe and thus it makes the global" yeah okay... seems highly unlikely and the math is still tough. If you are talking the number of people who think the brand is influential, it just doesnt make sense.
Hmm, you are confusing yourself. Here is a theoretical. Suppose Apple is #1 in US but 10th in asia. Suppose further that 100,000,000 people live in america (yes, obviously, this is just a number i chose, the U.S population is greater). Suppose further that Sony is #10 in america and #1 in asia. Suppose all of asia has a bllion people. (again, we are using nice round numbers for the example here).
In U.S. Number of people who rate Apple #1. 75 million out of 100 million
number of people who rate Sony #1 = 5 million but still placing them 10th.
In asia, number of people rating Sony #1. 100 million
Number of people who rate Apple #1. 50 million
(apple is 10th in this example cause 8 other companies other than sony had more than 50 million people state they are number 1).
Total nmber of people rating apple #1. 75 million + 50 million = 125 million
Total number of people rating Sony #1 is 5 million + 100 million = 105 million
Notice that Sony had twice the number of people rating them higher in asia but still placed behind apple when the figures are combined. Expand this example globally and you get the picture.
Raw numbers mean nothing unless you understand how they are manipulated.
Consider this lesson in statistics well learned.
Sky corporation would definately need to be in there and probably Tesco too.
Sorry, but nobody outside the UK knows or cares about Tesco, and Sky (assuming you mean the TV network) is fairly UK-specific as well.
Hmm, you are confusing yourself. Here is a theoretical. Suppose Apple is #1 in US but 10th in asia. Suppose further that 100,000,000 people live in america (yes, obviously, this is just a number i chose, the U.S population is greater). Suppose further that Sony is #10 in america and #1 in asia. Suppose all of asia has a bllion people. (again, we are using nice round numbers for the example here).
In U.S. Number of people who rate Apple #1. 75 million out of 100 million
number of people who rate Sony #1 = 5 million but still placing them 10th.
In asia, number of people rating Sony #1. 100 million
Number of people who rate Apple #1. 50 million
(apple is 10th in this example cause 8 other companies other than sony had more than 50 million people state they are number 1).
Total nmber of people rating apple #1. 75 million + 50 million = 125 million
Total number of people rating Sony #1 is 5 million + 100 million = 105 million
Notice that Sony had twice the number of people rating them higher in asia but still placed behind apple when the figures are combined. Expand this example globally and you get the picture.
Raw numbers mean nothing unless you understand how they are manipulated.
Consider this lesson in statistics well learned.
That's not a lesson in statistics, it's a stacked deck.
You posit Apple's number 1 position in America to represent a whopping 75% of the populace, but then arbitrarily make Sony's number 1 position represent a meager 10% of their regional population.
Which has the effect of accounting for Apple's global ranking but doesn't actually make any sense.
It particularly doesn't make any sense since the survey stipulates a sampling of about 1,500 people per region, which obliges the authors of the survey to weight the results according to population, not make up percentages.
I have to assume that regional results reflect some kind of stipulation that you have to vote for regional vendors, and that you also get to vote for global choices, separately, although nothing in the article makes that clear.
Otherwise there's pretty much no way numbers derived from regional votes could account for the global rankings.
That's not a lesson in statistics, it's a stacked deck.
You posit Apple's number 1 position in America to represent a whopping 75% of the populace, but then arbitrarily make Sony's number 1 position represent a meager 10% of their regional population.
Which has the effect of accounting for Apple's global ranking but doesn't actually make any sense.
It particularly doesn't make any sense since the survey stipulates a sampling of about 1,500 people per region, which obliges the authors of the survey to weight the results according to population, not make up percentages.
I have to assume that regional results reflect some kind of stipulation that you have to vote for regional vendors, and that you also get to vote for global choices, separately, although nothing in the article makes that clear.
Otherwise there's pretty much no way numbers derived from regional votes could account for the global rankings.
Yes, the numbers are skewed but the original poster was confused about how apple could be #1 worldwide and not #1 in asia considering the populaton differences.
As to reginal results.. what is confusing to you about that?. Why would someone have to vote for regional vendors?. I know it seems hard but apple is not known everywhere and even if it is, it popularity varies. One can ask the same question to everyone and get different answers. The assumption about reginal vendors is baseless. Why should the study author even mention that when it shouldn't even be a question and nothing in the study would even lead one to remotely conlude this was a factor unless one was such an apple fanatic that one needed some inprobable excuse as to why apple is not in the top 10 in every part the world. Gee.. no, it's not possible that people in india prefer some other brand than apple.. no!!!.. the only reason must be cause they had to vote for reginonal vendors (hope you recognize the sarcasm there).
Your last statement shows you still do not understand statistics. I could talk till i was blue in the face and you still would not get it. Yeah, we should all agree with your last statement cause you are an expert in statistics or work in some related field such that you could unequivocally state that regional votes could not account for global rankings.. yeah, ok there professor..
Yes, the numbers are skewed but the original poster was confused about how apple could be #1 worldwide and not #1 in asia considering the populaton differences.
As to reginal results.. what is confusing to you about that?. Why would someone have to vote for regional vendors?. I know it seems hard but apple is not known everywhere and even if it is, it popularity varies. One can ask the same question to everyone and get different answers. The assumption about reginal vendors is baseless. Why should the study author even mention that when it shouldn't even be a question and nothing in the study would even lead one to remotely conlude this was a factor unless one was such an apple fanatic that one needed some inprobable excuse as to why apple is not in the top 10 in every part the world. Gee.. no, it's not possible that people in india prefer some other brand than apple.. no!!!.. the only reason must be cause they had to vote for reginonal vendors (hope you recognize the sarcasm there).
Your last statement shows you still do not understand statistics. I could talk till i was blue in the face and you still would not get it. Yeah, we should all agree with your last statement cause you are an expert in statistics or work in some related field such that you could unequivocally state that regional votes could not account for global rankings.. yeah, ok there professor..
WTF are you talking about? I only mentioned the possibility of regional voting to account for the fact that Apple would poll #2 globally (or Google #1, for that matter) when they did not make a single regional top ten list outside of North America. To twist that into some kind of North American provincialism, or Apple fan boyism, suggests you're just being a dick for the hell of it or you can't read.
Again, I mean just the opposite of what you apparently think: I don't know how Apple ranks #2 globally if they don't make any of the regional top ten lists, unless either the votes have some kind of regional limitations or the numbers are disproportionately weighted towards North American.
I actually don't even know what you're on about regarding "statistics" since that's not really what's in play here. Just percentages and how populations are weighted.
Hmm, you are confusing yourself. Here is a theoretical. Suppose Apple is #1 in US but 10th in asia. Suppose further that 100,000,000 people live in america (yes, obviously, this is just a number i chose, the U.S population is greater). Suppose further that Sony is #10 in america and #1 in asia. Suppose all of asia has a bllion people. (again, we are using nice round numbers for the example here).
In U.S. Number of people who rate Apple #1. 75 million out of 100 million
number of people who rate Sony #1 = 5 million but still placing them 10th.
In asia, number of people rating Sony #1. 100 million
Number of people who rate Apple #1. 50 million
(apple is 10th in this example cause 8 other companies other than sony had more than 50 million people state they are number 1).
Total nmber of people rating apple #1. 75 million + 50 million = 125 million
Total number of people rating Sony #1 is 5 million + 100 million = 105 million
Notice that Sony had twice the number of people rating them higher in asia but still placed behind apple when the figures are combined. Expand this example globally and you get the picture.
Raw numbers mean nothing unless you understand how they are manipulated.
Consider this lesson in statistics well learned.
yeah good example... except it doesnt match up with the numbers given proportionally. Apple recieved 30% vote in the USA. So in your example it would be 30 million out of 100 for the USA... not 75 million. Your given statistics would say that 75% of americans voted Apple-- not even close to the case. Sorry i see what your trying to say, but it doesnt make sense here.
Lets try this (rough numbers):
US/Canada = 400 mil
Asia = 2 Billion
We know that Apple = 30% in Us/Canada,
so Apple has 130 million votes.
We know Sony is #1 in Asia-- we can guess lets say they get 10%-20% (conservative numbers id say for Sony) this is 200 million to 400 million votes.
again, sure maybe Apple got position 6 in asia and picked up votes... but the way the numbers seem to go is that the top 5 pick up most of the percent of the people, with #1 picking up 30% and #2 picking up 20% and #3 picking up 18%-- there isnt a lot of room left at the bottom for other brands.
This is why i find the numbers hard that everything that hit #1-5 in the US/Canada made the global list almost exactly-- nevermind if Sony got the same 30% in Asia that Apple got in the US/Canada
Yes, the numbers are skewed but the original poster was confused about how apple could be #1 worldwide and not #1 in asia considering the populaton differences.
As to reginal results.. what is confusing to you about that?. Why would someone have to vote for regional vendors?. I know it seems hard but apple is not known everywhere and even if it is, it popularity varies. One can ask the same question to everyone and get different answers. The assumption about reginal vendors is baseless. Why should the study author even mention that when it shouldn't even be a question and nothing in the study would even lead one to remotely conlude this was a factor unless one was such an apple fanatic that one needed some inprobable excuse as to why apple is not in the top 10 in every part the world. Gee.. no, it's not possible that people in india prefer some other brand than apple.. no!!!.. the only reason must be cause they had to vote for reginonal vendors (hope you recognize the sarcasm there).
Your last statement shows you still do not understand statistics. I could talk till i was blue in the face and you still would not get it. Yeah, we should all agree with your last statement cause you are an expert in statistics or work in some related field such that you could unequivocally state that regional votes could not account for global rankings.. yeah, ok there professor..
Please read the original post again--- my problem was more i couldnt see how the US/Canadian results are the global results given the population differences of the regions--
The point is again that their was no proportional weight given to populations of the given regions with the global rankings...
Deleted prior post. I wrote something here in a fit of frustration but then i decided it would just lead to back and forth. If i was discussing this with a bunch of qualified people, it would be more interesting, as is, it is merely amusing. I shall leave everyone to their "armchair statistics" and continue to read with amusement.
yeah good example... except it doesnt match up with the numbers given proportionally. Apple recieved 30% vote in the USA. So in your example it would be 30 million out of 100 for the USA... not 75 million. Your given statistics would say that 75% of americans voted Apple-- not even close to the case. Sorry i see what your trying to say, but it doesnt make sense here.
Lets try this (rough numbers):
US/Canada = 400 mil
Asia = 2 Billion
We know that Apple = 30% in Us/Canada,
so Apple has 130 million votes.
We know Sony is #1 in Asia-- we can guess lets say they get 10%-20% (conservative numbers id say for Sony) this is 200 million to 400 million votes.
again, sure maybe Apple got position 6 in asia and picked up votes... but the way the numbers seem to go is that the top 5 pick up most of the percent of the people, with #1 picking up 30% and #2 picking up 20% and #3 picking up 18%-- there isnt a lot of room left at the bottom for other brands.
This is why i find the numbers hard that everything that hit #1-5 in the US/Canada made the global list almost exactly-- nevermind if Sony got the same 30% in Asia that Apple got in the US/Canada
The only problem with this is taking the entire population into account. As you may know (and assume).. the survey was not done with everyone.. the problem of course is that even though there are billions more people in asia, not many of them have internet access (the U.S for example, still has more net users in raw numbers than china, even though china has 3 times more people). That is why i keep saying, population numbers are deceiving. if you look at that, yes, it is confusing. So even if sony is #1 in asia, their total numbers may be less due to various factors (people in asia are less education and many might not have even heard of sony or apple).. apple appeals to a higher income bracket, etc. Everyone is jumping on this report without even so much as thinking beyond the surface.
the list for the euro zone is IMO complete shite! and it includes africa???
zara? skype? who the fuck are they?
I've vaguely heard of skype, I doubt most people have a clue of them.
Sky corporation would definately need to be in there and probably Tesco too.
How come wallmart doesn't figure in the list?
where do u live??
Europeans put real world brands in their top lists. Clothing: Zara, furniture: Ikea, ... haven't you heard of Skype???? This is the one brand even my mother in law knows, families get spread out around the wordl and how do you think they communicate???
Btw: it seems like good ol' american dream is translating in all bubble brands, let's see in 10 years... it's probably a bias (internet polling, internet results). But isn't perception more important than reality?
Hmm, you are confusing yourself. Here is a theoretical. Suppose Apple is #1 in US but 10th in asia. Suppose further that 100,000,000 people live in america (yes, obviously, this is just a number i chose, the U.S population is greater). Suppose further that Sony is #10 in america and #1 in asia. Suppose all of asia has a bllion people. (again, we are using nice round numbers for the example here).
In U.S. Number of people who rate Apple #1. 75 million out of 100 million
number of people who rate Sony #1 = 5 million but still placing them 10th.
In asia, number of people rating Sony #1. 100 million
Number of people who rate Apple #1. 50 million
(apple is 10th in this example cause 8 other companies other than sony had more than 50 million people state they are number 1).
Total nmber of people rating apple #1. 75 million + 50 million = 125 million
Total number of people rating Sony #1 is 5 million + 100 million = 105 million
Notice that Sony had twice the number of people rating them higher in asia but still placed behind apple when the figures are combined. Expand this example globally and you get the picture.
Raw numbers mean nothing unless you understand how they are manipulated.
Consider this lesson in statistics well learned.
so wouldn't statistics mean that you correct for bias response rates (in your example over 75 percent in us and only 10 % in Asia) Or do you think in Asia they all responded different brands and the graph is more spread out? Wow that would mean brand interest in a more post-communism part of the world is more differentiated than the number one freedom of choice country?