Apple Moves Up to #20 on 'Best Global Brands' List

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/21/apple-moves-up-to-20-on-best-global-brands-list/)

Macsimum News notes (http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/apple_number_20_on_best_global_brands_list/) that Apple has moved up to #20 on market research firm Interbrand's annual 'Best Global Brands' list (http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx?year=2009&langid=1000). Interbrand pegged Apple's "brand" at a value of $US15.4 billion, up 12% from 2008 and enough to boost Apple to #20 from #24 in the rankings.The recession won't take a bite out of this Apple. Declining Mac sales and fears for the company's future without brand visionary Steve Jobs, were outweighed by record high iPod sales, doubling sales for the iPod Touch, and all-time high market share for Mac OS software. Price might be a barrier for cost-conscious consumers, but Apple responded quickly with high margin, low-priced products like the US $99 iPhone and a new, voice-activated iPod Shuffle. The Apple brand is the most supported within its industry, and among the most iconic of relatively young brands in the world.The 2009 list was headed by Coca-Cola, IBM, and Microsoft, although Apple had the second-greatest increase in brand value (by percentage) after Google's 25% increase among the top 25 companies on the list.

Article Link: Apple Moves Up to #20 on 'Best Global Brands' List (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/21/apple-moves-up-to-20-on-best-global-brands-list/)

[SAMTATSICPRO]

thats awesome... i knew it!

[thegoldenmackid]

Yes Marlboro went up to 17.

[Donz0r]

*music* Movin on up! Mooovin on uuup */music*

[TranceNW]

Yes Marlboro went up to 17.

:D:D:D

I always thought Apple were higher on the list than 20.. :confused: Guess not

[AngryApple]

I've always wondered: who is Eric Slivka? Every once in a while I'll see an article written by Arn, so it can't be one of Arn's pen names..

[jav6454]

With the iPhone out, I wonder why this wasn't reported earlier.

[ss957916]

Apple's brand getting 'better' = their products will get even more badly built, have even more problems and their customer service will get even worse.

[amac4me]

Apple will crack the top 10 in the next 5 years

[swingerofbirch]

When it comes to sugar water flavored with a touch of phosphoric acid, I trust no brand more than Coca Cola!

And Marlboro, come on. A company that everyone knows purposefully lied about the safety of their products for years is even on the list? How can they possibly leverage their brand? Would anyone in their right mind buy Marlboro baby formula? The only thing they can use their brand on are products people already know are poisonous. Like maybe Marlboro pesticides or fertilizer or gasoline.....

[dXTC]

*music* Movin on up! Mooovin on uuup */music*

I can only assume that's from the theme song to The Jeffersons.

My '90s Eurodance-loving self is now humming the tune to Dreamworld's "Movin' Up." Time to fire up the new nano... :D

And Marlboro, come on. A company that everyone knows purposefully lied about the safety of their products for years is even on the list? How can they possibly leverage their brand? Would anyone in their right mind buy Marlboro baby formula? The only thing they can use their brand on are products people already know are poisonous. Like maybe Marlboro pesticides or fertilizer or gasoline.....

Marlboro is a very well-known brand in many countries outside the U.S. A colleague at one of my previous jobs, a very "country" fellow who often wore plaid shirts, jeans and cowboy boots went to Japan for a vendor conference. When he came back, he said that just about everybody on the street would point to him, saying "Marlboro Man!"

[inkswamp]

Apple's brand getting 'better' = their products will get even more badly built, have even more problems and their customer service will get even worse.

Apple had about 2-3% market share the end of the 90s. Their product quality back then was not nearly as good as it is now. The quality of their products have increased dramatically in the intervening years.

Given that, what do you base your statement on? The fact that other tech companies have gone down that same path? If so, explain to me why I should accept that Apple is just like other tech companies out there when we have a full decade that shows us they are anything but.

[nwcs]

And Marlboro, come on. A company that everyone knows...

That's why they are on the list. Everyone knows them. And judging from all the times I've been outside of the US many people who smoke are smoking Marlboros. And in some places of the world if there is no sign forbidding smoking then it is mandatory. If there is a sign forbidding smoking it just means it is optional.

[Spanky Deluxe]

What companies are 91, 16 and 4? I recognise the logos/names of all the others.

[Chaszmyr]

The list isn't completely wrong, but I can't really take anything seriously after IBM at #2.

[mcmlxix]

Apparently selling sugared water to children still has better "brand" than changing the world...at least the Coke rather than Pepsi version...sorry Scully.

[Fulgham]

What companies are 91, 16 and 4? I recognise the logos/names of all the others.

4= general electric
16= Luis Vutton
91=Lancome

[meester.nid]

The 2009 list was headed by Coca-Cola, IBM, and Microsoft, although Apple had the second-greatest increase in brand value (by percentage) after Google's 25% increase among the top 25 companies on the list.

Article Link: Apple Moves Up to #20 on 'Best Global Brands' List (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/21/apple-moves-up-to-20-on-best-global-brands-list/)

Amazon was actually second with 22% increase in brand value...

[punitnaker]

What companies are 91, 16 and 4? I recognise the logos/names of all the others.

91 - Lancome - Cosmetic and Fashion Brand
16 - Louis Vuitton - Fashion Brand
4 - General Electric - Loads of things

[punitnaker]

Amazon was actually second with 22% increase in brand value...

Amongst the top 25. Amazon was 43

[nick9191]

That list seems theoretical not realistic. I mean except us geeks, who's heard of Cisco? And who's heard of GE outside of the US?

I would easily place Apple in the top 5.

Coca Cola
McDonalds
Microsoft
Apple
Google

[3goldens]

Who cares!

Most of the top brands have lousy customer service and that's where headed with Apple!
Bigger does not mean better!

[jzuena]

What companies are 91, 16 and 4? I recognise the logos/names of all the others.

If you are looking at the full list, there is a + button at the end that you can click on to get more information on the company. #4 GE is General Electric, which used to be the world's largest company (and some lists still have it there). They are into everything, but we see their modalities everywhere in the hospitals I have worked in, so healthcare hardware (MRI machines, X-ray machines, and electronic imaging systems to go with them) is a big area for them.

[Jeffacme]

Just another example of an agency/research firm that has no clue what brand value is. GE is a great brand but in terms of it's products and innovation, take away healthcare, and they have been sucking wind for the past five years.

Microsoft is dogshit! Yet that crappy do nothing brand with 35% more marketcap 1/4 of the earnings per share and -13.8% as opposed to +11.72 EPS growth compared to Apple sits at #3

The takeaway buy more APPL today and when Apple the brand gets to #3 get off and enjoy your retirement.

[Spanky Deluxe]

4= general electric
16= Luis Vutton
91=Lancome

91 - Lancome - Cosmetic and Fashion Brand
16 - Louis Vuitton - Fashion Brand
4 - General Electric - Loads of things

If you are looking at the full list, there is a + button at the end that you can click on to get more information on the company. #4 GE is General Electric, which used to be the world's largest company (and some lists still have it there). They are into everything, but we see their modalities everywhere in the hospitals I have worked in, so healthcare hardware (MRI machines, X-ray machines, and electronic imaging systems to go with them) is a big area for them.

Aha cheers. I know who General Electric are but don't think I've ever seen the logo before. Louis Vuitton I've of course heard of too but didn't recognise the logo. I've never heard of Lancome though but I guess that's getting pretty far down the list.

[tcampb01]

That list seems theoretical not realistic. I mean except us geeks, who's heard of Cisco? And who's heard of GE outside of the US?

I would easily place Apple in the top 5.

Coca Cola
McDonalds
Microsoft
Apple
Google

I thought EXACTLY the same thing when I saw Cisco on the list. Cisco just flat out shouldn't be in the top 100 on anybody's list. Not that Cisco is a bad company, but they don't make products that make it into consumer households (well... they do own Linksys now, but why isn't Linksys on the list?). If you're not in the IT field, you probably wouldn't have any exposure to them.

I suspect the study involved too many people in certain careers, age groups, or countries.

If you ask someone in Guatemala what Coca Cola is, they've heard of it and they know what it is. Ask them what "H&M" is and people in MOST OF THE WORLD haven't the foggiest. Many of these top-100's just shouldn't be there.

[jgbhardy]

This kind of old news, these results on brand value were published on Friday.
Something to remember about this table is that the value is based on financial value, so to those who are shocked that Apple isn't higher, it's because they don't take in as much money as the other companies. They could well be one of the more well known companies, because who has heard of GE (general electrics) before? But that doesn't matter this survey is based on financial value, so companies like cisco may not be none to general public but the other business probably bring in a lot more money into companies like cisco.

It's not about how well known the company is, it's about how much money they are worth. Stop being so shocked

All though oddly you would think that those companies who are more exposed and well known would get more business but apparently not. So stop going on about how something should be higher or lower!!!!!

[Bubba Satori]

http://content.pyzam.com/funnypics/b/pyzamcareometer.png

Somebody wake me up when Apple updates their miniscule, prehistoric computer lineup.

[CleverClock]

:apple: should be at Number 1 really..

[Erwin-Br]

That list seems theoretical not realistic. I mean except us geeks, who's heard of Cisco? And who's heard of GE outside of the US?

Are you kidding? I see GE trucks driving around every day.

[spritelyjim]

who has heard of GE (general electrics) before?

Um... have you ever looked at a frickin' light bulb?

[Erwin-Br]

Um... have you ever looked at a frickin' light bulb?

Actually, in Europe light bulbs are mostly associated with Osram or Philips.

Oh, and 2 Dutch companies made it on the list! Not bad for such a small country. I expected Shell to be higher up, though.

[hhaeschen]

wonder why it is only listed as "computer hardware" producer. it's also the software that makes apple popular. just try to imagine running windows (only) on a beautiful mac! :eek:

[Westside guy]

C'mon, Accenture is on this list? Most people have no idea who that is.

This is an exercise in silly self-promotion on the part of Interbrand.

[spritelyjim]

Actually, in Europe light bulbs are mostly associated with Osram or Philips.


Ah. That makes sense. Though I lived in Chile for a while and it seems GE sells a lot in South America too.

[kingtj]

Bigger doesn't always mean better. Totally agree there. But saying Apple becoming a "top brand" automatically means bad customer service? Doesn't have to be the case at all....

It's more difficult to have great customer service when a company is really successful, because you have to handle the logistics of keeping call hold times low, having enough knowledgeable staff in your stores to answer questions from a large number of customers, enough techs. on staff to turn around repairs quickly, etc. etc. But it's all POSSIBLE as long as you're making enough money in the additional sales to cover it.

Most companies fail here out of pure greed, IMHO. Look at Dell, for example. They're more concerned about getting as big as possible than about being known for "great customer service". Top-notch customer service simply doesn't add-up financially as being as "effective" as finding that "sweet spot" of just enough cust. service so people don't rebel against the brand name. (Think about it... If you want to buy out big competitors like Ross Perot's consulting firm Dell just bought today, you need to keep most of your profits for those mergers. Spending more in salaries so your phone support staff is a little better trained on products doesn't work towards that goal for you.)

I think with Apple, we just don't know yet how they'll handle their success. A lot of their perceived "customer service failures" so far seem to stem from them over-estimating their ability to deliver in a certain time-frame. Look at MobileME, for example. It wasn't Apple's greed preventing it from being better at launch time, really. They bought a whole new data center for it and ramped up staff for it, etc. - and now, it works FAR better than at launch time. They simply rolled it out too soon, and were over-confident in their ability to make it work right the first time.



Who cares!

Most of the top brands have lousy customer service and that's where headed with Apple!
Bigger does not mean better!

[VenusianSky]

That list seems theoretical not realistic. I mean except us geeks, who's heard of Cisco? And who's heard of GE outside of the US?

You ever heard of Thomas Edison? He was the founder of General Electric. As for Cisco, I don't think it is a matter of who's heard of them. It is a matter that their devices are used in the majority of all computer network infrastructures, worldwide.

[Jeffacme]

Actually in history, light bulbs are associated with Thomas Edison and the company he founded GE.

[jgbhardy]

Um... have you ever looked at a frickin' light bulb?

Sorry no I haven't really because you see they are quite bright and so it hurts my eye's now if i turn the light bulb off and take it out it will be dark.;)

But no GE doesn't really operate here in England, I've never heard of it so away it goes off the list. O wait but remember what the rest of my post said, It's based on financial value not exposure!!
Coca-Cola is well known but can still sell a huge amount of its products due to low cost, but something like Apple all though everyone may love and know about the iPod not everyone can buy one and so they don't make as much, making them come lower. I'm guessing GE sells a lot of light bulbs.

[jgbhardy]

As for Cisco, I don't think it is a matter of who's heard of them. It is a matter that their devices are used in the majority of all computer network infrastructures, worldwide.

Thank you someone who doesn't think this is based on who is the most well known.:D

[spritelyjim]

Sorry no I haven't really because you see they are quite bright and so it hurts my eye's now if i turn the light bulb off and take it out it will be dark.;)

But no GE doesn't really operate here in England, I've never heard of it so away it goes off the list. O wait but remember what the rest of my post said, It's based on financial value not exposure!!
Coca-Cola is well known but can still sell a huge amount of its products due to low cost, but something like Apple all though everyone may love and know about the iPod not everyone can buy one and so they don't make as much, making them come lower. I'm guessing GE sells a lot of light bulbs.

LOL. I know it's based on money. I was just surprised you didn't know anything about GE. Anyway, it makes sense for a lot of things on the list. Like Blackberry vs. Kleenex? Wha? But yeah, Kleenex is used often as a word (or was at one time), but I don't think that helps their sales much anymore.

[flottenheimer]

Somebody wake me up when Apple updates their miniscule, prehistoric computer lineup.

What?!!!??!?!!?

[spritelyjim]

Also, it's interesting that KFC made the list, as Pepsi owns KFC. A little redundant, right? I guess you should be proud if one of your subsidiaries is so well known.

[bommai]

Actually, the biggest GE division is GE Money or GE Capital - they are the largest non-bank financial institution, at least they used to be. Also, GE is the largest maker of aircraft engines in the world. They are the largest maker of diesel engine locomotives for North American market. They make nuclear power plants, wind turbines, health care systems (MRI, X-ray, ultrasound, etc), they own NBC-Universal (including SciFi, USA networks, CNBC, MSNBC, Universal studios, etc), they make household appliances - washing machines, cooking ranges, etc, they make industrial control systems, they are into smart grid now to make the power distribution more efficient, they are also other power plants, etc. Of course, they also make light bulbs. They are also building a factory to make sodium based batteries for various applications.

[crackbookpro]

I thought EXACTLY the same thing when I saw Cisco on the list. Cisco just flat out shouldn't be in the top 100 on anybody's list. Not that Cisco is a bad company, but they don't make products that make it into consumer households (well... they do own Linksys now, but why isn't Linksys on the list?). If you're not in the IT field, you probably wouldn't have any exposure to them.

I suspect the study involved too many people in certain careers, age groups, or countries.

If you ask someone in Guatemala what Coca Cola is, they've heard of it and they know what it is. Ask them what "H&M" is and people in MOST OF THE WORLD haven't the foggiest. Many of these top-100's just shouldn't be there.


...totally agree!

[Jeffacme]

It cannot be based on financial value; Coke market cap 125B, total sales 30B, Apple market cap 165B, total sales 35B.

It seems to be based on "brand Value" which is actually only a portion of the total enterprise value. Even so at least 12 of the top 20 have a lower enterprise value than Apple.

So it must be based on BS value unless there are allot more Louis Vitton toting, Hennessey/Moet drinking folks out there in the third world then I remember from my travels.

[twoodcc]

glad apple is moving up. i'm surprised that they aren't higher though.

[jgbhardy]

It cannot be based on financial value; Coke market cap 125B, total sales 30B, Apple market cap 165B, total sales 35B.

It seems to be based on "brand Value" which is actually only a portion of the total enterprise value. Even so at least 12 of the top 20 have a lower enterprise value than Apple.

So it must be based on BS value unless there are allot more Louis Vitton toting, Hennessey/Moet drinking folks out there in the third world then I remember from my travels.

I dunno where you are getting those figures but that is not what was being used in this survey.

These however are the top ten with their values in this survey:
Coca Cola $68.7bn
IBM $60.2bn
Microsoft $56.6bn
GE $47.7bn
Nokia $34.8bn
McDonald's $32.2bn
Google $31.9bn
Toyota $31.3bn
Intel $30.6bn
Disney $28.4bn

[samac92]

The only UK companies in the list:

-HSBC
-BP
-Smirnoff
-Burberry

money, oil, vodka and chav clothing.

Makes you proud to be British?

[Chimpy]

Awesome. Go Apple!

[Takuta-Nui]

What happened to #1??? =P

[LukeHarrison]

The only UK companies in the list:

-HSBC
-BP
-Smirnoff
-Burberry

money, oil, vodka and chav clothing.

Makes you proud to be British?

Actually, to be fair to Burberry, chavs very, VERY rarely have the real thing, it's far too expensive. And, ignoring the stuff with the cheque all over it, some of their clothes (particularly the coats/jackets) are really nice.

And, about GE, yes, they're huge, but their name is rarely seen over here in the UK. My granddad used to have a GE cooker, and that was the last I saw of the name until a few weeks back when we started stocking GE-branded (although I suspect not made - they were cheap and horrible) digital cameras at work.

[RazHyena]

Pepsi is only #23?!?!? BLASPHEMY!!!!:mad:

[jgbhardy]

The only UK companies in the list:

-HSBC
-BP
-Smirnoff
-Burberry

money, oil, vodka and chav clothing.

Makes you proud to be British?

You clearly have no clue of what the Burberry clothing brand is actually like, it did create the o so now infamous Burberry pattern worn by chavs, but it is now far from chav clothing. I doubt you would ever find a chav in these clothes; http://uk.burberry.com/fcp/departmenthome/dept/men
All though the models do look rather intimidating don't they.:p

[jmcguckin]

Who cares!

Most of the top brands have lousy customer service and that's where headed with Apple!
Bigger does not mean better!

gah. I really have to disagree with you on this one, "bigger does not mean better" may apply to many companies who find themselves riding the wave of success, but in the many times that I've had to use Apple's service (whether in-store or over the phone), I've been nothing short of impressed, both with the professionalism and the speed at which my problems have been resolved- and this is over an extended period of time, not just recently... it's because of this that I have to conclude that Apple are not the norm, though who knows, maybe I'm the only one who's had such a good experience?

about this list, it's nice to see Apple are continuing to gain recognition and moving up the list, though given some of the companies that can be found on this list, I don't know that I give it much credibility...

[KnightWRX]

I thought EXACTLY the same thing when I saw Cisco on the list. Cisco just flat out shouldn't be in the top 100 on anybody's list. Not that Cisco is a bad company, but they don't make products that make it into consumer households (well... they do own Linksys now, but why isn't Linksys on the list?). If you're not in the IT field, you probably wouldn't have any exposure to them.

I suspect the study involved too many people in certain careers, age groups, or countries.

Or maybe you don't understand the list ? This is about brand value, not brand awareness.

Maybe there's 100 people that know Apple vs 1 for Cisco, but the guy who knows Cisco is going to be buying 1,000,000$ worth of gear, while the 100 who know Apple will buy 200$ iPods (20,000$).

[andy721]

That's no surprise that the most corrupt companies that should be sued for failing yet brainwashing everyone into buying their crappy products, is Microsoft, Coca Cola, I mean seriously google also known as hey we have every record of you on file and is a total spyware big brother wanna be company, so corrupt you'll go blind from how much money they fork in every month. Plus each of their stock is overpriced.

Plus Coca Cola isn't even healthy for you. People are sheep I swear.:mad:

[KnightWRX]

Plus Coca Cola isn't even healthy for you. People are sheep I swear.:mad:

God forbid people should enjoy a cold beverage once in a while :rolleyes:

You do know that you won't die if you eat or drink something unhealthy right ? There's nothing wrong with Coca-cola, it tastes great (much harder cola than Pepsi) and in moderation, it won't hurt you.

[andy721]

God forbid people should enjoy a cold beverage once in a while :rolleyes:

You do know that you won't die if you eat or drink something unhealthy right ? There's nothing wrong with Coca-cola, it tastes great (much harder cola than Pepsi) and in moderation, it won't hurt you.

I'm not a health freak so I am being hypocritical, but this whole top 20 thing is pretty blasphemy.

[Bubba Satori]

Their product quality back then was not nearly as good as it is now. The quality of their products have increased dramatically in the intervening years.

:eek:

[snowleopard2009]

I dunno where you are getting those figures but that is not what was being used in this survey.

These however are the top ten with their values in this survey:
Coca Cola $68.7bn
IBM $60.2bn
Microsoft $56.6bn
GE $47.7bn
Nokia $34.8bn
McDonald's $32.2bn
Google $31.9bn
Toyota $31.3bn
Intel $30.6bn
Disney $28.4bn

That is an arbitrary value they assigned each brand. It's not what the company is worth. Basically, if the company were to sell only the NAME and the LOGO. That IS what branding is.

Some on the list aren't even the parent company. BlackBerry is owned by Research in Motion. Although if they were smart, they would change the name to Blackberry. MTV is owned by Viacom.

I wish they said how they made up the list. GE, while large, I don't think relies on name brand as much as Disney of Nike.

I put a lot of weight into how much crap they can sell with just their logo/name. In that case it's

Coke
Disney
Nike
Marlboro
Pepsi
Bud
Nintendo
Adidas
Harley
Porsche
Campbell's

[Jelite]

You clearly have no clue of what the Burberry clothing brand is actually like, it did create the o so now infamous Burberry pattern worn by chavs, but it is now far from chav clothing. I doubt you would ever find a chav in these clothes; http://uk.burberry.com/fcp/departmenthome/dept/men
All though the models do look rather intimidating don't they.:p

No, not at all.

http://img.skitch.com/20090921-mepa1n9gts7pmhjswqxbjuejeh.jpg

[Branskins]

I'm surprised Nintendo isn't higher than where it is. Nintendo is also synonymous with gaming. You still hear parents saying go play your Nintendo even if they have another system.

Also, GE is HUGE and I think a lot of you are understating it. Aren't they like the most diversified country? They are a huge global brand. Just because the UK hasn't heard of them doesn't mean they are not almost everywhere else in the world. Also, isn't GE the oldest company on the stock market?

[Jeffacme]

I dunno where you are getting those figures but that is not what was being used in this survey.

These however are the top ten with their values in this survey:
Coca Cola $68.7bn
IBM $60.2bn
Microsoft $56.6bn
GE $47.7bn
Nokia $34.8bn
McDonald's $32.2bn
Google $31.9bn
Toyota $31.3bn
Intel $30.6bn
Disney $28.4bn

The figures listed on the list are the BS figures and way overinflated based on the financials of the companies. This list is just a rub and tug for Interbrand current and potential clients.

[s1m]

I put a lot of weight into how much crap they can sell with just their logo/name. In that case it's

Coke
Disney
Nike
Marlboro
Pepsi
Bud
Nintendo
Adidas
Harley
Porsche
Campbell's

Hmm - and you don't think CISCO products are sold based partly on the CISCO brand? Consumers are not the only ones who buy based on brands...

[jgbhardy]

No, not at all.

http://img.skitch.com/20090921-mepa1n9gts7pmhjswqxbjuejeh.jpg

I don't quite know what you mean, but I'm guessing the first part was sarcastic but in the picture you are pointing out that the girl is not?
Because they all look like creepy stalkers with anger, whilst she maintains a hidden smile.
:o

[kernkraft]

Clearly, some are shocked to learn that GE and Cisco are on the list. I understand that not everybody has much exposure to light bulbs and networks. I have been organising corporate fair in the past and I can tell you, GE is big all over Europe. Just because some Brits and guys from Holland have not heard of it, it doesn't mean that they are not one of the major companies in the world. To have an understanding of how wide their activity is, you have to think of companies from Japan and Korea, where big conglomerates still dominate the economic landscape. Or think 3M and Time Warner - that is the kind of corporate power GE is about.


It is slightly embarrassing and tells a lot about the followers of this site that Cisco is not recognised. They are one of the largest network companies with over twice as many employees as Apple (GE might be as much as tenfold). I am not a tech guy, more into business and law, but I regularly see them mentioned in the news.


About the Burberry picture - they might not be chavs, but God, those public school boys (and girl) look depressing! It's true British fashion - and I am talking from the UK!

[JoeCoolDaddio]

So to get the full featured, uncrippled version of Windows 7 we have to pay $319.99 and the full featured Snow Leopard version is $29? Hmmmm, let me think about which one I want to buy. Done thinking. Mr Ballmer, you just can't get any greedier now can you?

JoeCoolDaddio

[Mr. Giver '94]

I'm surprised Starbucks isn't higher up.

Honestly the top 10 past Coca Cola was surprising just because a lot of them don't have logos that are eye-catching or memorable. (in my opinion)

[*LTD*]

http://content.pyzam.com/funnypics/b/pyzamcareometer.png

Somebody wake me up when Apple updates their miniscule, prehistoric computer lineup.

Oh, you mean these ones?

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/22467/

And yes . . . even in desktops.

[kernkraft]

So to get the full featured, uncrippled version of Windows 7 we have to pay $319.99 and the full featured Snow Leopard version is $29? Hmmmm, let me think about which one I want to buy. Done thinking. Mr Ballmer, you just can't get any greedier now can you?

JoeCoolDaddio

I am not debating that Windows 7 in that version is expensive. But Snow Leopard's price tag only applies to those, who upgrade from Leopard. As a 'full feature' version, as you call it, Snow Leopard is $169 in the box set including iLife and iWork. I haven't found individual price on Apple's website, but claiming that SN is only $29 is almost as misleading as claiming that Windows 7 is $30, because students can get it for that price.

Of course, many can try and install Snow Leopard onto multiple Tiger machines from one legal 'upgrade' copy, saving hundreds of dollars. But this kind of activity should be not part of our little price comparison exercise (and should not be encouraged).

Also, what I saw, Snow Leopard is not drastically different from Leopard in terms of appearance. Customers might not justify an upgrade without notable new features for a full OS price. In that sense, Windows 7 is of course more expensive as it is more of a departure from the previous OS. Or it is more apparent to customers. I wouldn't go as far as calling Snow Leopard a service pack, but even Apple kept the 'Leopard' name in it somehow. Surely, that must indicate something.

[s1m]

I haven't found individual price on Apple's website, but claiming that SN is only $29 is almost as misleading as claiming that Windows 7 is $30, because students can get it for that price.

This is the pricing for W7 in Oz;

Upgrade pricing for Home Premium is $199, Professional is $399 and Ultimate is $429. For brand-new copies, Home Premium costs $299, Professional is $499 and Ultimate is $469.

In Oz upgrade to SL costs $39 which is $160 cheaper than the cheapest option above.

I will admit that there is a freeish upgrade path for new buyers of Vista post 26 June.

[s1m]

I wouldn't go as far as calling Snow Leopard a service pack, but even Apple kept the 'Leopard' name in it somehow. Surely, that must indicate something.

Which is different how from retaining Windows in the name?

[*LTD*]

Which is different how from retaining Windows in the name?

Well that's in the same category as the "OS X" designation.

"Vista Plus" or "Vista 2" or "Vista Reloaded" (LOL) would be a better example, IMHO.

[kernkraft]

Which is different how from retaining Windows in the name?

Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard.

Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows CE, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7.

That's how. Any pattern emerging? 10.6 is not called Lion, that's for sure.

[RazHyena]

http://content.pyzam.com/funnypics/b/pyzamcareometer.png

Somebody wake me up when Apple updates their miniscule, prehistoric computer lineup.

Might be a while. All their energy seems to be focused on the iPhone at the moment.

[*LTD*]

Might be a while. All their energy seems to be focused on the iPhone at the moment.

Except for this:

http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/organic-new-imacs-refreshed-macbooks-due-in-weeks-20090917/

And I guess the June refresh didn't count for some reason?

[RazHyena]

Except for this:

http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/organic-new-imacs-refreshed-macbooks-due-in-weeks-20090917/

And I guess the June refresh didn't count for some reason?

Nope.

But we'll see what comes.

[MacBram]

Thank you someone who doesn't think this is based on who is the most well known.:D

I guess that must be the criteria for the list; and maybe it says so if you access the original article. But I think we could be forgiven if we are thinking in terms of mindshare and public perception of these companies, simply because the word "brand" was used. That's what a "brand" is -- your recognition factor and the kind of taste you leave in someone's mouth (with Marlboro and Coca-Cola, that's literal).

So, I am wondering why they said "Best Global Brand", then, in the first place; if it was simply about the corporate assets, or total marketcap or something.

A brand can add value to a company, and in that sense be worth something. Some lists have even put a tangible value on a company's brand. I think I saw somewhere that Coca-Cola has the highest value brand (that it may even be worth more to the company that their factories and other assets). Nike is also very high, in terms of the brand's worth to the company. Likewise, Apple is a good brand.

In terms of brand, I would put MS way down the list. That brand seems to hurt more than help :rolleyes:, and they seem to want to hide it when they market X-Box, Bing, Zune, etc. They keep coming out with other things to turn into brands, simply because they have no good value built up in their main brand.

GE, while relatively unknown, seems to have a basically good brand. There is a big GE plant close to me here in the Netherlands. I had an interview there once. I was impressed that they supply the plastic for my favorite plastic product, Lego :D.

Nestle, while very well known, has received a hit to their brand over the years: in England at any rate, they are associated with cutting corners and putting unapproved ingredients in their baby formula, and then dumping it on African markets which had the effect of discouraging natural breast-feeding and using poor water instead. I don't like their chocolate, hate their coffee and resent the fact that they have bought up all the breakfast cereals and chocolate (eg. Rowntree Macintosh -- Yorkies, LionBars, etc.) I used to like.:eek:

So, as you can see from my rants, "Brand" value is/should be more about personal perception of the consumer, hence all the values-based advertising. If you brand is actually making consumers avoid your products when possible, then you have a problem (MS springs to mind :D)

[MacBram]

Thank you someone who doesn't think this is based on who is the most well known.:D

I guess that "size" alone must be the criteria for the list; and maybe it says so if you access the original article. But I think we could be forgiven if we are thinking in terms of mindshare and public perception of these companies, simply because the word "brand" was used. That's what a "brand" is -- your recognition factor and the kind of taste you leave in someone's mouth (with Marlboro and Coca-Cola, that's literal).

So, I am wondering why they said "Best Global Brand", then, in the first place; if it was simply about the corporate assets, or total marketcap or something.

A brand can add value to a company, and in that sense be worth something. Some lists have even put a tangible value on a company's brand. I think I saw somewhere that Coca-Cola has the highest value brand (that it may even be worth more to the company than their factories and other assets). Nike is also very high, in terms of the brand's worth to the company. Likewise, Apple is a good brand.

In terms of brand, I would put MS way down the list. That brand seems to hurt more than help :rolleyes:, and they seem to want to hide it when they market X-Box, Bing, Zune, etc. They keep coming out with other things to turn into brands, simply because they have no good value built up in their main brand and don't know how to add value to the MS brand.

GE, while relatively unknown, seems to have a basically good brand. There is a big GE plant close to me here in the Netherlands. I had an interview there once. I was impressed that they supply the plastic for my favorite plastic product, Lego :D. Likewise, Marlboro, despite killing people with its product, seems to have a positive brand -- everyone relates positively with the freedom-loving, independent, no-nonsense cowboy Marlboro Man.

Nestle, while very well-known, has received a hit to their brand over the years: in England at any rate, they are associated with cutting corners and putting unapproved ingredients in their baby formula, and then dumping it on African markets which had the effect of discouraging natural breast-feeding and using poor water instead. I don't like their chocolate, hate their coffee and resent the fact that they have bought up all the breakfast cereals and chocolate (eg. Rowntree Macintosh -- Yorkies, LionBars, etc.) I used to like and seem to have made them taste flat and stale.:eek:

So, as you can see from my rants, "Brand" value is/should be more about personal perception of the consumer, hence all the values-based advertising. If your brand is actually making consumers avoid your products when possible, then you have a problem (MS springs to mind :D). Their recent ad campaigns have done nothing to enhance their brand; on the contrary, they seem to have reinforced how out of touch they are. That also brings up the question: how can MS "rebrand" something (like a Toshiba Gigabeat) and make it worse??? Most people would rather buy a Toshiba hardware product than a Microsoft one! (I mean, I know how they can, I just want to know why).

[Jelite]

I don't quite know what you mean, but I'm guessing the first part was sarcastic but in the picture you are pointing out that the girl is not?
Because they all look like creepy stalkers with anger, whilst she maintains a hidden smile.
:o

You've not seen Harry Potter then.