Well the OP said "The PC USER was never brought into the comparison in Apple's ads, only the machines" and I was pointing out that they indeed mocked the PC user.
And if you'll note, my original reply was specifically in reference to a message about the MAC/PC campaign.
F U Samscum!! At the end of the day it doesn't matter who sells more phones.. or who makes the most profit.. quality products will always have a market. Even if Apple sells a Million phones per quarter.. It will still be a relevant brand and people who appreciate and are loyal to that brand will always purchase their products. Just like how different brands of cars sell differently in volume. Ford sells X amounts more than Mercs but do Mercedes give a pigs shit?
I must also stress.. the reason why the S4 is so shit and lack of any innovation is because they are always waiting on Apple to bring out the next big functionality so they can copy it.
And if you think about it, all the US has to do is pull its troops off the peninsula and say, "have at 'er," to really mess with the order of things. I'm sure Samsung wouldn't mind communism; they already operate under the belief that no one owns anything.
Not over a copyist. Besides, commercial interests aren't enough to motivate troop movements. The cold war is still on with North Korea, and a withdraw would not be wise for the security of the entire region.
Samsung's cheek in advertising may come back to bite them in the rear. You know, what goes around %u2026
Based on their copying and infringing antics and marketing tactics I will never buy any product Samsung manufactures. They should think about how customers react to negative business tactics.
Not over a copyist. Besides, commercial interests aren't enough to motivate troop movements. The cold war is still on with North Korea, and a withdraw would not be wise for the security of the entire region.
No, no; of course not. I brought it up to highlight that they're equally idiotic statements.
Hint: Apple LICENSED what they got from Xerox. They didn't steal it.
Not according to Xerox.
In their lawsuit against Apple, Xerox stated that they had only licensed Apple for a joint Smalltalk project.
Quote:
"In November of 1979, Steven Jobs, then-president of Apple, visited PARC with other Apple employees for a demonstration of Smalltalk.
On June 9, 1981, Xerox granted Apple a license pursuant to which Apple agreed to "participate in a project with the Learning Research Group at PARC/Xerox for the purpose of implementing the Smalltalk-80 language and system on a hardware system to be developed by [Apple]."
Shortly thereafter, Apple began developing its "Lisa" computer for use with Smalltalk."
...
Another Xerox research project, Star, was developed at PARC in the late 1970s. Star included a mouse-driven computer that was allegedly the first to introduce fanciful visual displays and graphical images to aid user interaction with the computer.
Star was first published by Xerox on April 27, 1981 and since then has contained a notice of copyright. Xerox applied for copyright registration of the Star 8010 Professional Workstation program on April 28, 1986, and was granted Registration No. TX 2-428-306.
This program was never licensed to Apple.
...
On May 1, 1987, Apple applied for copyright registration for the Lisa and received Registration No. PA 336-104. Lisa was first published in 1983, two years after publication of Star.
Xerox' lawsuit claimed that "Apple unlawfully copied portions of Xerox' Star work" and "purposefully failed to identify" Lisa and Finder as "derivative works of Star and Smalltalk."
Attack and attack is all Samsung can do instead of proofing they are better which actually not. Their resell value down while iPhone's up, this should tell you what to choose. Attacking is also a strategy to regain loosing point in the football game by the loosing team and Apple the winning team will even score more by digging into the affordable segment of the market by selling an entry level iPhones coming next. And this may scares competitor even more, just wait and see.
Samsung definitely gained a lot of momentum and especially share when it comes to phones. They move a ton of them, no question.
However, instead of even considering using the phrase "valuable brand", I'd rather associate their recent success with the incredible shitload of money they spend on advertising. Both classic advertising, as well as smear campaigns against competitors, false reviews and carrier provisions. All of this aggressive marketing is naturally paying off.
However, I would not even think for a minute that Samsung is highly considered as a brand, especially not even close when compared to Apple. People buy Samsung either because of price or because of their marketing push, not because they think Samsung is such a great brand.
Next time we see a list of most valuable brands as per consumer perception, I'm sure Samsung won't be amongst them. Samsung is a quantity leader, not an industry leader, not inspiring and not innovative in any way and I don't think people actually perceive Samsung to be any of those.
That says all about the Samscum's corporate ethics.
One bozo is up at the Samsung executive desk. Wow!
It wasn't really all that long ago that Apple's entire ad campaign was about paying tribute to "the crazy ones" who messed with the order of things. And now it's a slam on a company's ethics? Or more recently the Mac vs PC ads which poked fun at PCs like Samsung is poking fun at iDevices now. And you are crticizing their use of the same technique in their ads?
What you should be doing is slamming Samsung for copying yet another aspect of Apple...the advertising from last decade. At least that would be relevent to the article you are replying to.
(BTW: way to get sucked into AI's scheme to get all Samsung and Google haters to click on as many pages as possible to increase their ad revenue. LOL)
Sorry. I don't get how ads that insult the user make me want to use their product. And I think ads like these fly right over the heads of people who aren't "techie enough" to be aligned with any particular platform.
Well believe it or not (many here will be in denial), there are people out their who have iPhones and don't like them for whatever reason. And don't forget there are people out there, again, believe it or not, who don't yet own a smartphone. Both of those groups of people are targets for ads saying that it's a mistake to buy an iPhone (or which support their belief they made a wrong purchasing decision). Someone who loves the iPhone they already have obviously is not the target for those ads.
Samsung with the help from Google steals iPhone design thoroughly thus became successful. For most consumers they don't care they are buying counterfeit products from Samsung. I don't think Apple should try hard to switch these types of consumers back to iPhone.
Totally agree with you there. The people who buy Samsung crap aren't discerning enough to deserve anything better.
In their lawsuit against Apple, Xerox stated that they had only licensed Apple for a joint Smalltalk project.
Xerox' lawsuit claimed that "Apple unlawfully copied portions of Xerox' Star work" and "purposefully failed to identify" Lisa and Finder as "derivative works of Star and Smalltalk."
Ya, companies never claim different things afterwards once they realize they missed the boat or made bad/wrong decisions.
Whether there are ideas that Apple used or not I can't say either way but this idea that Apple just ripped off Xerox grows more legendary as time goes on.
For starters, the Lisa project actually started significantly before Apple visited Xerox.
I wonder how many people that just regurgitate that Apple just stole the GUI from Xerox have actually seen Xerox Star in video or pictures and know of it's limitations in comparison to even Mac OS 1.0.
If Mac OS is just a copied Xerox Star, then these same people should be screaming that Android is a blatant copy of iOS, because it's a slam dunk if using such vague ideas. (for example, it has icons, not command line, it's a copy)
<span style="line-height:1.231;">In their lawsuit against Apple, Xerox stated that they had only licensed Apple for a joint Smalltalk project.</span>
Xerox' lawsuit claimed that "Apple unlawfully copied portions of Xerox' Star work" and "purposefully failed to identify" Lisa and Finder as "derivative works of Star and Smalltalk."
I hate to say it, but a good ad campaign is one that yields the desired results. I was insulted when I saw those ads, but the numbers don't lie. Clearly the ad campaign is working, so yeah, this exec should be proud of himself.
I hate to say it, but a good ad campaign is one that yields the desired results. I was insulted when I saw those ads, but the numbers don't lie. Clearly the ad campaign is working, so yeah, this exec should be proud of himself.
You'd have to prove the campaign had anything to do with it first.
Apple used to be the "underdog", now they are top dog. I hope Apple don't forget that. I very much dislike Samsung, not because of their blatant rip offs but because of the rubbish service they gave me after I purchased one of their TVs. As for mobile phone technologies, keep Samsung and others at the heel of Apple, it might actually keep Apple moving forward.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla
Negative advertising is all they got. Nobody wants a Samsung.
So whowere those 100 million galaxy s+s2+s3+s4+note+note2 users?
A whole lot of nobodies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Well the OP said "The PC USER was never brought into the comparison in Apple's ads, only the machines" and I was pointing out that they indeed mocked the PC user.
And if you'll note, my original reply was specifically in reference to a message about the MAC/PC campaign.
F U Samscum!! At the end of the day it doesn't matter who sells more phones.. or who makes the most profit.. quality products will always have a market. Even if Apple sells a Million phones per quarter.. It will still be a relevant brand and people who appreciate and are loyal to that brand will always purchase their products. Just like how different brands of cars sell differently in volume. Ford sells X amounts more than Mercs but do Mercedes give a pigs shit?
I must also stress.. the reason why the S4 is so shit and lack of any innovation is because they are always waiting on Apple to bring out the next big functionality so they can copy it.
Not over a copyist. Besides, commercial interests aren't enough to motivate troop movements. The cold war is still on with North Korea, and a withdraw would not be wise for the security of the entire region.
Based on their copying and infringing antics and marketing tactics I will never buy any product Samsung manufactures. They should think about how customers react to negative business tactics.
New Androids handsets come out weekly..
Only goes to show, you throw enough shit at the walls, eventually some sticks I guess.
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Not over a copyist. Besides, commercial interests aren't enough to motivate troop movements. The cold war is still on with North Korea, and a withdraw would not be wise for the security of the entire region.
No, no; of course not. I brought it up to highlight that they're equally idiotic statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Hint: Apple LICENSED what they got from Xerox. They didn't steal it.
Not according to Xerox.
In their lawsuit against Apple, Xerox stated that they had only licensed Apple for a joint Smalltalk project.
Quote:
"In November of 1979, Steven Jobs, then-president of Apple, visited PARC with other Apple employees for a demonstration of Smalltalk.
On June 9, 1981, Xerox granted Apple a license pursuant to which Apple agreed to "participate in a project with the Learning Research Group at PARC/Xerox for the purpose of implementing the Smalltalk-80 language and system on a hardware system to be developed by [Apple]."
Shortly thereafter, Apple began developing its "Lisa" computer for use with Smalltalk."
...
Another Xerox research project, Star, was developed at PARC in the late 1970s. Star included a mouse-driven computer that was allegedly the first to introduce fanciful visual displays and graphical images to aid user interaction with the computer.
Star was first published by Xerox on April 27, 1981 and since then has contained a notice of copyright. Xerox applied for copyright registration of the Star 8010 Professional Workstation program on April 28, 1986, and was granted Registration No. TX 2-428-306.
This program was never licensed to Apple.
...
On May 1, 1987, Apple applied for copyright registration for the Lisa and received Registration No. PA 336-104. Lisa was first published in 1983, two years after publication of Star.
- Xerox
Xerox' lawsuit claimed that "Apple unlawfully copied portions of Xerox' Star work" and "purposefully failed to identify" Lisa and Finder as "derivative works of Star and Smalltalk."
Samsung definitely gained a lot of momentum and especially share when it comes to phones. They move a ton of them, no question.
However, instead of even considering using the phrase "valuable brand", I'd rather associate their recent success with the incredible shitload of money they spend on advertising. Both classic advertising, as well as smear campaigns against competitors, false reviews and carrier provisions. All of this aggressive marketing is naturally paying off.
However, I would not even think for a minute that Samsung is highly considered as a brand, especially not even close when compared to Apple. People buy Samsung either because of price or because of their marketing push, not because they think Samsung is such a great brand.
Next time we see a list of most valuable brands as per consumer perception, I'm sure Samsung won't be amongst them. Samsung is a quantity leader, not an industry leader, not inspiring and not innovative in any way and I don't think people actually perceive Samsung to be any of those.
That says all about the Samscum's corporate ethics.
One bozo is up at the Samsung executive desk. Wow!
It wasn't really all that long ago that Apple's entire ad campaign was about paying tribute to "the crazy ones" who messed with the order of things. And now it's a slam on a company's ethics? Or more recently the Mac vs PC ads which poked fun at PCs like Samsung is poking fun at iDevices now. And you are crticizing their use of the same technique in their ads?What you should be doing is slamming Samsung for copying yet another aspect of Apple...the advertising from last decade. At least that would be relevent to the article you are replying to.
(BTW: way to get sucked into AI's scheme to get all Samsung and Google haters to click on as many pages as possible to increase their ad revenue. LOL)
Sorry. I don't get how ads that insult the user make me want to use their product. And I think ads like these fly right over the heads of people who aren't "techie enough" to be aligned with any particular platform.
Well believe it or not (many here will be in denial), there are people out their who have iPhones and don't like them for whatever reason. And don't forget there are people out there, again, believe it or not, who don't yet own a smartphone. Both of those groups of people are targets for ads saying that it's a mistake to buy an iPhone (or which support their belief they made a wrong purchasing decision). Someone who loves the iPhone they already have obviously is not the target for those ads.Advertising is intended to compliment well-designed products that literally sell themselves.
This has got to be one of the silliest things I've read on AI. And there have been some doozies. LOLTotally agree with you there. The people who buy Samsung crap aren't discerning enough to deserve anything better.
Quote:
Not according to Xerox.
In their lawsuit against Apple, Xerox stated that they had only licensed Apple for a joint Smalltalk project.
Xerox' lawsuit claimed that "Apple unlawfully copied portions of Xerox' Star work" and "purposefully failed to identify" Lisa and Finder as "derivative works of Star and Smalltalk."
Ya, companies never claim different things afterwards once they realize they missed the boat or made bad/wrong decisions.
Whether there are ideas that Apple used or not I can't say either way but this idea that Apple just ripped off Xerox grows more legendary as time goes on.
For starters, the Lisa project actually started significantly before Apple visited Xerox.
I wonder how many people that just regurgitate that Apple just stole the GUI from Xerox have actually seen Xerox Star in video or pictures and know of it's limitations in comparison to even Mac OS 1.0.
If Mac OS is just a copied Xerox Star, then these same people should be screaming that Android is a blatant copy of iOS, because it's a slam dunk if using such vague ideas. (for example, it has icons, not command line, it's a copy)
And what was the result of that lawsuit?
Originally Posted by politicalslug
I hate to say it, but a good ad campaign is one that yields the desired results. I was insulted when I saw those ads, but the numbers don't lie. Clearly the ad campaign is working, so yeah, this exec should be proud of himself.
You'd have to prove the campaign had anything to do with it first.