I seem to recall reading that Apple never pays for product placement. (Anyone remember the source for this?)
Hum... I seem to recall reading that when Nimoy was making Star Trek 4 (1986), he wanted to use an Amiga as the computer Scotty used to demonstrate "transparent aluminum". But Commodore would only let them use one if they bought it at full price.
Apple offered to let them use a Macintosh for free.
I guess, given the attitude of the industry at the time, that's just about equivalent to paying for a placement - it was money out of Apple's pockets.
That is because most people on the forum will never be happy with anything. Even if they introduced a teleportation and time traveling device that fits in you pocket, someone would still complain about it.
Just think of the quote, "If your not having fun, lower your standards."
Yep, if someone disagrees with you, they're just a complainer.
No. It's there because it's paid for. That how all products get on Tv. movies, and even other commercials.
When you see Mac's in other product's commercials, it because Apple's product placement agency paid for it to be there. On a couple of shows that used Macs, you will now see Dells. Why? Because they outbid.
Coolness has nothing to do with it, though it seems nice to think so.
It's all about the money.
Think about it. Several years ago you NEVER saw a brand name, unless it was something like a car, which was too obvious to conceal. And even then the auto makers paid for that.
It's become very prevalent today, with every brand you see having been paid for.
It's in response to the backlash against the continuing onslaught of advertising. Some shows on Tv are even using the products as part of the show, mentioning names etc.
There is consideration of having shows without ads at all. The show time would be paid instead by active use of products during the show itself. You're seeing bits of it emerge now. Even in film.
That was taboo years ago.
Wrong.
Just because you're old doesn't necessarily mean that you know stuff.
Maybe you could quote some of these people. Or are you just talking out of your ass again?
he just means that some people were expecting some massive jump. But to what? There's only so much you can do with an AIO design. About the only thing left that could impress people expecting a massive jump is to make an invisible computer with floating-in-air monitor.
That's odd, it also seems to be the most-used Apple desktop as a movie or TV show prop. I don't remember seeing the G5 or newer models as often, the one time was on War at Home.
Almost every computer shown in the HBO show Entourage is an iMac. I know someone who works on the show. The Exec Producer is an Apple fan. Apple gives them the computers for free they don't pay for product placement.
PowerBooks and Mac Book Pro receive the greatest amount of screen time in film and television. But on the desktop you see far more Cinema Displays in film and television than you do iMac's. I believe the reason for that from a set design standpoint. Cinema display with its muted grey color is sleek and professional looking without being overly distracting to the eye.
The iMac being pearlescent white calls too much attention to itself. Now that they are black and aluminum we will see if they get any more screen time.
Here is an article about Macs being in film and television, Washington Post
Also notice in graphic design. Most of the time when you see a web browser in an advertisement or picture its either Safari or Firefox for Mac.
Really, you should take the time to use proper spelling, punctuation, etc.
And you should be more considerate of those who are reading your posts.
I gave up on your message very quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
guess I had allot to say... overall point is... I'll be buying old imacs off of ebay or some other source for my studio. hate the glossy display, hate the black border! sorry if you don't have the attention span; I thought this was a web forum. Should I really be concerned about formatting? I just type as I think on places like this but I suppose I'm busier than many other dorks out there... or I'm not and you're just overly sensative... I've seen plenty of misspellings and contrived confabulation left and right and I don't take time out of my day to criticize poor grammar , formatting and punctuation on a web forum. Are you the MLA authority for web forums? lighten up dude if you don't want to read it skip it!
i think a big problem with this design is it's similarity with the previous iMac, which most of us hated... i, for one, was expecting something breath taking... and got this.
it's so bad it looks like it was made by dell
I bought my iMac in April or May. I absolutely love the design, and everything about it.
I don't understand why people complain about "The Chin." I prefer that over having a huge computer case and CRT monitor, etc.
I've had CRT monitors with glass screens... There is such a thing as a non-glare glass screen.
This Glossy Screen is a mistake, plain and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emoeric87
Once Again. I'm reiterating. The display is glossy because it's glass! Not like the Macbook glossy screens that you can't put stuff on without risking damage. It's glass, which can be easily cleaned, and easily made non-glossy (if you want to.
I bought my first Macintosh iMac, in April. I just love it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpiddly
That is because most people on the forum will never be happy with anything. Even if they introduced a teleportation and time traveling device that fits in you pocket, someone would still complain about it.
I hope it looks a lot better in the flesh so to speak because I'm not impressed with the photos I've seen. It looks a mess. Black and silver together and it's still got a chin!
Almost every computer shown in the HBO show Entourage is an iMac. I know someone who works on the show. The Exec Producer is an Apple fan. Apple gives them the computers for free they don't pay for product placement.
PowerBooks and Mac Book Pro receive the greatest amount of screen time in film and television. But on the desktop you see far more Cinema Displays in film and television than you do iMac's. I believe the reason for that from a set design standpoint. Cinema display with its muted grey color is sleek and professional looking without being overly distracting to the eye.
The iMac being pearlescent white calls too much attention to itself. Now that they are black and aluminum we will see if they get any more screen time.
Here is an article about Macs being in film and television, Washington Post
Also notice in graphic design. Most of the time when you see a web browser in an advertisement or picture its either Safari or Firefox for Mac.
The truth is that most everyone on the film crew (in advertising especially) are Mac users. We put Macs in our films becuase we like them and support the cause. Mostly it's the art director/production designer who decide what to use in the set and I can't remember the last time I met an art director who uses a PC.
I have been waiting and waiting for this announcement to replace my aging G5 iMac. But a glossy screen? Come on! I mostly use my computer for photo editing and having a glossy screen is a no no. Oh well, I guess I will be waiting a little longer until I can save up enough for a Mac Pro and a real monitor. I suppose that is what Jobs had i mind the whole time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Actually, you're wrong. I had the photo editing areas in my company controlled as to lighting and color. You aren't supposed to do color work with a bright lighting setup impinging the screen.
If you keep the lights down as you are supposed to do, and keep them from directly lighting the screen, then you'll be fine. Glossy screens actually give better color and contrast, with deeper blacks.
Your recommendation is fine for very specific environments, however, in most situations we don't have perfect (or any) control over our lighting levels (let alone color).
I'm not sure yet if this is a deal-killer for an upgrade to my wife's iMac G5, we'll have to get a look at one in-person and consider where it physically resides. But for my work, which I normally do on a laptop, changing locations a few times/day, a glossy screen is a 100% deal killer. I would hope Apple understands this, since they've chosen to keep both options available for the MacBook Pros, but I am worried as I see a trend. I would have already picked up a MacBook for some specific test purposes, but I just can't tolerate the screen.
i read somewhere that apple didn't pay them for product placement... which would explain why the G4 and G3 models are more featured than the most recent ones...
if apple DOES pay for product placement, wouldn't they want to have the most recent product on set?
i think they might pay for some and might not for others... i will shamefully admit that i watched the OC and when the series first started, there were iMacs G4 everywhere. the houses, the school... as it progressed, it changed to the G5... the same place that was once occupied by a G4 on the kid's desk, there was now a G5. however there was constantly a sticky on top of the apple logo god knows why that was there. it's clearly a mac
queer as folk was another good example. it started out full of colored iMacs and by the end of the series you could see iMac G4s and Cubes all over the place...
They pay. It would be extremely rare for a product to get on in todays world without paying. The companies would have to have some other commonality.
Sometimes having the most recent model isn't realistic for that point in the program.
For example. The other night I watched a recorded segment of "The Dead Zone". If you know anything about the program, you would know that the sheriff, who had just been killed, used a Mac laptop.
The new sheriff came to his wife's home to collect it.
Now, she could have said that she came for the laptop, but she didn't.
What she said (I'm paraphrasing) was: " I'm here to pick up the 2003 Mac G4 Powerbook".
That is product placement. Everyone who watched the show knew that the sheriff had that machine.
Many companies and governmental departments simply don't buy new machines every year.
The point was that the name MAC was invoked. The fact that the sherriff was still using an older model also points to the longevity of Macs, not a bad thing either.
Why would Apple pay for the product placement where the logo is hidden or obscured? Why would Apple pay for product placement where the obsolete product is shown? Especially one that is supposedly considered an ugly failure?
That's what used to happen before product placement became an industry.
Do you remember when cameras used by photographers and police departments used to have the name blanked out?
That was before product placement, or after, when the product had to be used, a photographer does use a camera after all, but they didn't get paid to use a particular brand.
Now, when you see a camera, you see the brand name. If you watch carefully, you can even notice that products are displayed in just a bit too obvious a fashion. The can of beer is always held so that the label is out, rather than hidden, etc.
When a product is used but not placed, you will see it, but you won't see a logo. Or, the product will be angled so that it becomes more difficult to recognize to the average public, which is the point. Those who know the models well will always recognize them, and that can't be helped.
Comments
For a side-by-side comparison of the new iMac versus my preferred look:
THEIRS...
YOURS...
Impressive. I especially like what you did with the logo. Less distracting.
I seem to recall reading that Apple never pays for product placement. (Anyone remember the source for this?)
Hum... I seem to recall reading that when Nimoy was making Star Trek 4 (1986), he wanted to use an Amiga as the computer Scotty used to demonstrate "transparent aluminum". But Commodore would only let them use one if they bought it at full price.
Apple offered to let them use a Macintosh for free.
I guess, given the attitude of the industry at the time, that's just about equivalent to paying for a placement - it was money out of Apple's pockets.
Obviously everyone was expecting the "floating in thin air display, with invisible enclosure".
Maybe you could quote some of these people. Or are you just talking out of your ass again?
That is because most people on the forum will never be happy with anything. Even if they introduced a teleportation and time traveling device that fits in you pocket, someone would still complain about it.
Just think of the quote, "If your not having fun, lower your standards."
Yep, if someone disagrees with you, they're just a complainer.
No. It's there because it's paid for. That how all products get on Tv. movies, and even other commercials.
When you see Mac's in other product's commercials, it because Apple's product placement agency paid for it to be there. On a couple of shows that used Macs, you will now see Dells. Why? Because they outbid.
Coolness has nothing to do with it, though it seems nice to think so.
It's all about the money.
Think about it. Several years ago you NEVER saw a brand name, unless it was something like a car, which was too obvious to conceal. And even then the auto makers paid for that.
It's become very prevalent today, with every brand you see having been paid for.
It's in response to the backlash against the continuing onslaught of advertising. Some shows on Tv are even using the products as part of the show, mentioning names etc.
There is consideration of having shows without ads at all. The show time would be paid instead by active use of products during the show itself. You're seeing bits of it emerge now. Even in film.
That was taboo years ago.
Wrong.
Just because you're old doesn't necessarily mean that you know stuff.
Rumble, eject. Operation EARTHQUAKE.
Wilco, eject. Operation STFU.
Maybe you could quote some of these people. Or are you just talking out of your ass again?
That's odd, it also seems to be the most-used Apple desktop as a movie or TV show prop. I don't remember seeing the G5 or newer models as often, the one time was on War at Home.
Almost every computer shown in the HBO show Entourage is an iMac. I know someone who works on the show. The Exec Producer is an Apple fan. Apple gives them the computers for free they don't pay for product placement.
PowerBooks and Mac Book Pro receive the greatest amount of screen time in film and television. But on the desktop you see far more Cinema Displays in film and television than you do iMac's. I believe the reason for that from a set design standpoint. Cinema display with its muted grey color is sleek and professional looking without being overly distracting to the eye.
The iMac being pearlescent white calls too much attention to itself. Now that they are black and aluminum we will see if they get any more screen time.
Here is an article about Macs being in film and television, Washington Post
Also notice in graphic design. Most of the time when you see a web browser in an advertisement or picture its either Safari or Firefox for Mac.
$70 actually and its top of the line name brand stuff.
Maxed out memory is $850.
You can get a 2gb dimm at new egg for $110 ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227236 )
Looks like about $600 saving to me.
And you should be more considerate of those who are reading your posts.
I gave up on your message very quickly.
guess I had allot to say... overall point is... I'll be buying old imacs off of ebay or some other source for my studio. hate the glossy display, hate the black border! sorry if you don't have the attention span; I thought this was a web forum. Should I really be concerned about formatting? I just type as I think on places like this but I suppose I'm busier than many other dorks out there... or I'm not and you're just overly sensative... I've seen plenty of misspellings and contrived confabulation
i think a big problem with this design is it's similarity with the previous iMac, which most of us hated... i, for one, was expecting something breath taking... and got this.
it's so bad it looks like it was made by dell
I bought my iMac in April or May. I absolutely love the design, and everything about it.
I don't understand why people complain about "The Chin." I prefer that over having a huge computer case and CRT monitor, etc.
I've had CRT monitors with glass screens... There is such a thing as a non-glare glass screen.
This Glossy Screen is a mistake, plain and simple.
Once Again. I'm reiterating. The display is glossy because it's glass! Not like the Macbook glossy screens that you can't put stuff on without risking damage. It's glass, which can be easily cleaned, and easily made non-glossy (if you want to.
I bought my first Macintosh iMac, in April. I just love it.
That is because most people on the forum will never be happy with anything. Even if they introduced a teleportation and time traveling device that fits in you pocket, someone would still complain about it.
Almost every computer shown in the HBO show Entourage is an iMac. I know someone who works on the show. The Exec Producer is an Apple fan. Apple gives them the computers for free they don't pay for product placement.
PowerBooks and Mac Book Pro receive the greatest amount of screen time in film and television. But on the desktop you see far more Cinema Displays in film and television than you do iMac's. I believe the reason for that from a set design standpoint. Cinema display with its muted grey color is sleek and professional looking without being overly distracting to the eye.
The iMac being pearlescent white calls too much attention to itself. Now that they are black and aluminum we will see if they get any more screen time.
Here is an article about Macs being in film and television, Washington Post
Also notice in graphic design. Most of the time when you see a web browser in an advertisement or picture its either Safari or Firefox for Mac.
The truth is that most everyone on the film crew (in advertising especially) are Mac users. We put Macs in our films becuase we like them and support the cause. Mostly it's the art director/production designer who decide what to use in the set and I can't remember the last time I met an art director who uses a PC.
I have been waiting and waiting for this announcement to replace my aging G5 iMac. But a glossy screen? Come on! I mostly use my computer for photo editing and having a glossy screen is a no no. Oh well, I guess I will be waiting a little longer until I can save up enough for a Mac Pro and a real monitor. I suppose that is what Jobs had i mind the whole time!
Actually, you're wrong. I had the photo editing areas in my company controlled as to lighting and color. You aren't supposed to do color work with a bright lighting setup impinging the screen.
If you keep the lights down as you are supposed to do, and keep them from directly lighting the screen, then you'll be fine. Glossy screens actually give better color and contrast, with deeper blacks.
Your recommendation is fine for very specific environments, however, in most situations we don't have perfect (or any) control over our lighting levels (let alone color).
I'm not sure yet if this is a deal-killer for an upgrade to my wife's iMac G5, we'll have to get a look at one in-person and consider where it physically resides. But for my work, which I normally do on a laptop, changing locations a few times/day, a glossy screen is a 100% deal killer. I would hope Apple understands this, since they've chosen to keep both options available for the MacBook Pros, but I am worried as I see a trend. I would have already picked up a MacBook for some specific test purposes, but I just can't tolerate the screen.
i read somewhere that apple didn't pay them for product placement... which would explain why the G4 and G3 models are more featured than the most recent ones...
if apple DOES pay for product placement, wouldn't they want to have the most recent product on set?
i think they might pay for some and might not for others... i will shamefully admit that i watched the OC and when the series first started, there were iMacs G4 everywhere. the houses, the school... as it progressed, it changed to the G5... the same place that was once occupied by a G4 on the kid's desk, there was now a G5. however there was constantly a sticky on top of the apple logo
queer as folk was another good example. it started out full of colored iMacs and by the end of the series you could see iMac G4s and Cubes all over the place...
They pay. It would be extremely rare for a product to get on in todays world without paying. The companies would have to have some other commonality.
Sometimes having the most recent model isn't realistic for that point in the program.
For example. The other night I watched a recorded segment of "The Dead Zone". If you know anything about the program, you would know that the sheriff, who had just been killed, used a Mac laptop.
The new sheriff came to his wife's home to collect it.
Now, she could have said that she came for the laptop, but she didn't.
What she said (I'm paraphrasing) was: " I'm here to pick up the 2003 Mac G4 Powerbook".
That is product placement. Everyone who watched the show knew that the sheriff had that machine.
Many companies and governmental departments simply don't buy new machines every year.
The point was that the name MAC was invoked. The fact that the sherriff was still using an older model also points to the longevity of Macs, not a bad thing either.
Why would Apple pay for the product placement where the logo is hidden or obscured? Why would Apple pay for product placement where the obsolete product is shown? Especially one that is supposedly considered an ugly failure?
That's what used to happen before product placement became an industry.
Do you remember when cameras used by photographers and police departments used to have the name blanked out?
That was before product placement, or after, when the product had to be used, a photographer does use a camera after all, but they didn't get paid to use a particular brand.
Now, when you see a camera, you see the brand name. If you watch carefully, you can even notice that products are displayed in just a bit too obvious a fashion. The can of beer is always held so that the label is out, rather than hidden, etc.
When a product is used but not placed, you will see it, but you won't see a logo. Or, the product will be angled so that it becomes more difficult to recognize to the average public, which is the point. Those who know the models well will always recognize them, and that can't be helped.