Completely agree, I also would have a hard time using a device that I just received for important work, especially if I was on TV. The problem still lays with Microsoft though, if they wanted people using their products they should have offered proper training.
Exactly why Microsoft failed. Give a two-year old child or a 99-year old elderly person an iPad and they can figure it out. Give them a Windows PC and they need "proper training." Welcome to the 1970s paradigm of computing.
There was this TV show that I was following some time ago called Under The Dome. After a while, the ridiculously obvious product placements of Microsoft devices popping up all over that show made it unwatchable and totally unrealistic. I think that they even have a new season of that show, but I don't really give a crap, because I'm done with it.
I watched that show and noticed the same thing. In the late Dallas TV series, it was not unusual to hear an Apple ringtone coming from a non-Apple phone. In an episode of The Middle earlier this year or last, Frankie was using an antiquated laptop in bed that was obviously not an Apple, yet it the screen shot was obviously Mac OS X. These inconsistencies really detract from what little viewing experience exists in the first place of modern, mindless television programs.
There was this TV show that I was following some time ago called Under The Dome. After a while, the ridiculously obvious product placements of Microsoft devices popping up all over that show made it unwatchable and totally unrealistic. I think that they even have a new season of that show, but I don't really give a crap, because I'm done with it.
It's such a shame too, because I really enjoyed the book (on my iPad).
necrophilia was never going to make it to over-the-air tv
Exactly why Microsoft failed. Give a two-year old child or a 99-year old elderly person an iPad and they can figure it out. Give them a Windows PC and they need "proper training." Welcome to the 1970s paradigm of computing.
Exactly.
I've mentioned this before, but a few years ago, I gave my mom an iPad 2, and she is extremely computer illiterate. She has a PC laptop from work, but she can not even do the simplest tasks on it, even though she's had it for years.
An iPad is so easy to use, even a monkey can use it, literally speaking. And if a monkey can use it, then so can just about all humans, from young to old.
That is true, but it's realistic, because tons of people do actually use Apple devices. Are those paid placements by Apple? I'm asking, because I'm not sure. I don't know how much paid product placement Apple does.
It is totally unrealistic to have a whole town where the population only uses Microsoft phones and tablets.
I've heard 4 stories through my sister (friends with a few props/set design people)
1) Apple gladly pays for on screen placement of their equipment.... by providing lots of devices (not much $$... only when you see 'promotional consideration' is when $$ is spent). ( See Number 4)
2) Set designers love that that there are no words or Intel inside stickers on apple products that are visible from a distance, and in post production, they can easily remove the apple logos and product word words if they are actually being funded/sponsored by an HP/Dell/Microsoft
3) Apple products look cool and functional without looking overtly technical and visually attracting. <<<<< Directors and DP/DC's want the 'look' of a computer in a scene to be there and add to the depth of the visual, without becoming the visual.
4) Most writers/producers/directors are mac/iPad/iPhone users. (see Number 1, they feed their jones by getting the top of the line swag from Apple - See Stephen Colbert).
Get the point, but to be fair... I also see tons of Apple devices in movies and TV shows.
That is true, but it's realistic, because tons of people do actually use Apple devices. Are those paid placements by Apple? I'm asking, because I'm not sure. I don't know how much paid product placement Apple does.
Not mention the fact that the use of Apple devices signals taste and class....
On Apple and paid product placements, afaik: zero, zip, zilch.
Well Apple did spend $3B on Beats to be cool- just sayin.
I wasn't crazy about the Beats deal either, and I wasn't afraid to say so before, but it's a done deal now, and you obviously must suffer from a severe case of tunnel vision, because that's practically all that you keep talking about.
The Beats deal is a minor thing for Apple and doesn't affect anything in the grand scheme of things. To keep harping on that minor detail shows that you don't have a good understanding of Apple in general.
I got a new touchscreen computer yesterday. I will not be putting my data on it until I know I like it and have figured out all of the little idiosyncracies of it. Maybe the news people didn't have a lot of time to become familiar with the Surface tablets and used their familiar iPads. I played with Windoz 8 two times and each time found the navigation to be clunky and annoying. It must take time for somebody to learn to get around on one of those Surface tablets.
I see plenty of Apple product placement and plenty of Microsux product placement. For Microsux they always show a machine with the Windoz 8 tiles on the screen before they begin doing anything with it. For Apple they always show the rear of the tablet or iMac so the Apple logo is shown. No product label gets on screen without paying for it.
I still don't understand how so many people can continue to like Windoz. I find it OK and useful but not pleasant to use. It is a functional software package. It just isn't intuitive and consistent. I'm enjoying Chrome OS but it isn't perfect. It is basic yet easy to use. The OS has fewer choices and yet I like it a lot better than Windoz. The OS makes sense for what it is designed to do. There is even a program (Chrome app) to allow me to view Flash movies.
I've heard 4 stories through my sister (friends with a few props/set design people)
1) Apple gladly pays for on screen placement of their equipment.... by providing lots of devices (not much $$... only when you see 'promotional consideration' is when $$ is spent). ( See Number 4)
2) Set designers love that that there are no words or Intel inside stickers on apple products that are visible from a distance, and in post production, they can easily remove the apple logos and product word words if they are actually being funded/sponsored by an HP/Dell/Microsoft
3) Apple products look cool and functional without looking overtly technical and visually attracting. <<<<< Directors and DP/DC's want the 'look' of a computer in a scene to be there and add to the depth of the visual, without becoming the visual.
4) Most writers/producers/directors are mac/iPad/iPhone users. (see Number 1, they feed their jones by getting the top of the line swag from Apple - See Stephen Colbert).
Uh-Huh.
Which one of the four reasons above explains why those CNN anchors were secretly using iPads?
Yeah apple has to pay people to use their devices. /s
Apple devices are the standard. Do you expect film directors to use a piece of cardboard as a tablet and maybe a toilet seat as a laptop?
Bottom line is, I can GUARANTEE you Apple doesn't pay these directors to use an iPad etc. it's what they already use and need for the scene.
Same reason why you see those CNN commentators using iPads. Oh wait, you probably think Apple paid for that placement too....
I never understood why the Apple logo is taped over on TV shows a lot. If the only reason people use Apple products is due to rampant product placement, why tape over the logo?
Comments
Whew! I was worried for a moment that people used Apple products. Glad to hear that it's just product placement.
Exactly why Microsoft failed. Give a two-year old child or a 99-year old elderly person an iPad and they can figure it out. Give them a Windows PC and they need "proper training." Welcome to the 1970s paradigm of computing.
I do.
There was this TV show that I was following some time ago called Under The Dome. After a while, the ridiculously obvious product placements of Microsoft devices popping up all over that show made it unwatchable and totally unrealistic. I think that they even have a new season of that show, but I don't really give a crap, because I'm done with it.
I watched that show and noticed the same thing. In the late Dallas TV series, it was not unusual to hear an Apple ringtone coming from a non-Apple phone. In an episode of The Middle earlier this year or last, Frankie was using an antiquated laptop in bed that was obviously not an Apple, yet it the screen shot was obviously Mac OS X. These inconsistencies really detract from what little viewing experience exists in the first place of modern, mindless television programs.
necrophilia was never going to make it to over-the-air tv
Product placement's funny...
When Fallon switched from 'Late Night' to 'Tonight',
I noticed that the Apple logo disappeared from the MBPro on his desk.
The other night, I think I saw it had returned, but I don't watch that regularly, so,
not sure when it returned, or whether it's permanent.
On the other hand, I was very gratified to notice "all Apple" in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. labs.
I thought it was excellent to associate it with a high-tech, sophisticated milieu
(for those who like to say they aren't serious machines).
Exactly why Microsoft failed. Give a two-year old child or a 99-year old elderly person an iPad and they can figure it out. Give them a Windows PC and they need "proper training." Welcome to the 1970s paradigm of computing.
Exactly.
I've mentioned this before, but a few years ago, I gave my mom an iPad 2, and she is extremely computer illiterate. She has a PC laptop from work, but she can not even do the simplest tasks on it, even though she's had it for years.
An iPad is so easy to use, even a monkey can use it, literally speaking. And if a monkey can use it, then so can just about all humans, from young to old.
That is true, but it's realistic, because tons of people do actually use Apple devices. Are those paid placements by Apple? I'm asking, because I'm not sure. I don't know how much paid product placement Apple does.
It is totally unrealistic to have a whole town where the population only uses Microsoft phones and tablets.
I've heard 4 stories through my sister (friends with a few props/set design people)
1) Apple gladly pays for on screen placement of their equipment.... by providing lots of devices (not much $$... only when you see 'promotional consideration' is when $$ is spent). ( See Number 4)
2) Set designers love that that there are no words or Intel inside stickers on apple products that are visible from a distance, and in post production, they can easily remove the apple logos and product word words if they are actually being funded/sponsored by an HP/Dell/Microsoft
3) Apple products look cool and functional without looking overtly technical and visually attracting. <<<<< Directors and DP/DC's want the 'look' of a computer in a scene to be there and add to the depth of the visual, without becoming the visual.
4) Most writers/producers/directors are mac/iPad/iPhone users. (see Number 1, they feed their jones by getting the top of the line swag from Apple - See Stephen Colbert).
Lumping Beats headphones with IPads? That's a bit of a stretch AI.
Uh...they are "lumping" product placement issues...
How is that a stretch?
Get the point, but to be fair... I also see tons of Apple devices in movies and TV shows.
That is true, but it's realistic, because tons of people do actually use Apple devices. Are those paid placements by Apple? I'm asking, because I'm not sure. I don't know how much paid product placement Apple does.
Not mention the fact that the use of Apple devices signals taste and class....
On Apple and paid product placements, afaik: zero, zip, zilch.
Well Apple did spend $3B on Beats to be cool- just sayin.
Because the players weren't wearing Beats over a Bose headset?
It's pazuzu.
Well Apple did spend $3B on Beats to be cool- just sayin.
I wasn't crazy about the Beats deal either, and I wasn't afraid to say so before, but it's a done deal now, and you obviously must suffer from a severe case of tunnel vision, because that's practically all that you keep talking about.
The Beats deal is a minor thing for Apple and doesn't affect anything in the grand scheme of things. To keep harping on that minor detail shows that you don't have a good understanding of Apple in general.
I got a new touchscreen computer yesterday. I will not be putting my data on it until I know I like it and have figured out all of the little idiosyncracies of it. Maybe the news people didn't have a lot of time to become familiar with the Surface tablets and used their familiar iPads. I played with Windoz 8 two times and each time found the navigation to be clunky and annoying. It must take time for somebody to learn to get around on one of those Surface tablets.
I see plenty of Apple product placement and plenty of Microsux product placement. For Microsux they always show a machine with the Windoz 8 tiles on the screen before they begin doing anything with it. For Apple they always show the rear of the tablet or iMac so the Apple logo is shown. No product label gets on screen without paying for it.
I still don't understand how so many people can continue to like Windoz. I find it OK and useful but not pleasant to use. It is a functional software package. It just isn't intuitive and consistent. I'm enjoying Chrome OS but it isn't perfect. It is basic yet easy to use. The OS has fewer choices and yet I like it a lot better than Windoz. The OS makes sense for what it is designed to do. There is even a program (Chrome app) to allow me to view Flash movies.
Uh-Huh.
Which one of the four reasons above explains why those CNN anchors were secretly using iPads?
Hahahah!!!
Yeah apple has to pay people to use their devices. /s
Apple devices are the standard. Do you expect film directors to use a piece of cardboard as a tablet and maybe a toilet seat as a laptop?
Bottom line is, I can GUARANTEE you Apple doesn't pay these directors to use an iPad etc. it's what they already use and need for the scene.
Same reason why you see those CNN commentators using iPads. Oh wait, you probably think Apple paid for that placement too....
So iPads were instrumental to the crushing defeat of Democrats yesterday?
I never understood why the Apple logo is taped over on TV shows a lot. If the only reason people use Apple products is due to rampant product placement, why tape over the logo?
insanely powerful iPad
The iPad might be many things, but "insanely powerful"? If the iPad is insanely powerful, the Surface is a God Machine.