Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Nike?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I'm not gonna comment on the sweat shop issue here, but I would never buy Nike shoes just because they are generally worn by Pikey scumbags! (Who can somehow afford them) and they look ridiculous. If I were to choose a shoe brand then mine would probably be merrell. check out these babies 
That is why i object to this marketing thing. Aside from that the thing that REALLY pisses me off is this safari homepage nike thing! WTF is this about? Our desktops are not a commodity to be sold by apple, this is a microsoft tactic and I don't like it.
That is why i object to this marketing thing. Aside from that the thing that REALLY pisses me off is this safari homepage nike thing! WTF is this about? Our desktops are not a commodity to be sold by apple, this is a microsoft tactic and I don't like it.
Apple is not stupid, I don`t think thay will do somthing that will hurt the brand name. They use enormus amounts of money on marketing the brand Apple. And they are realy god at it.
Maybe Apple just gets free stuff from nike, like you get a nike thing along with a mac.
Maybe Apple just gets free stuff from nike, like you get a nike thing along with a mac.
Slave Labor
Contrary to popular belief, child slave labor is actually quite beneficial to both the corporation and the 3rd world country: http://www.childslavelabor.com.
Contrary to popular belief, child slave labor is actually quite beneficial to both the corporation and the 3rd world country: http://www.childslavelabor.com.
Brainfree said:
Yes, and slave labor was quite beneficial to the US economy and the plantation owners. This doesn't make it a good thing. For crying out loud, listen to yourself as you type.
TEG said:
Do tell? No such beast, as far as I know; I've never heard anyone expand the "worlds" to include a fourth.
~J
Nike caught lightning in a bottle when signing a relatively unknown, untested Michael Jordan way back when; his image (and success) helped take a moderately successful sneaker company and turn it into the best selling brand in the world. Then, they did it again with Bo Jackson, and when the brilliant "Bo knows" ads hit, suddenly everyone wanted to be associated with Nike (just think of all of the sports and entertainment stars that were part of that particular ad campaign...).
Their position as the undisputed #1 brand has been under assault over the years by rival shoe companies (especially Reebok), bad publicity (the sweatshop thing), some bad signings, and a bad economy not willing to support the idea of hundred-plus-dollar sneakers. Still, they remain as the #1 volume seller, the #1 moneymaker, and probably the leading edge of the "hip" factor, especially in certain circles where the brand of sneaker you wear is almost as important as the car you drive.
So, in short, they are known for being hip, cool, expensive, exclusive, and very desirable (to the point where people have been killed for their sneakers).
Doesn't that kinda sound like iPod frenzy (except for the death part, that is....)?
I'm not 100% behind this move, but I'm really curious to see how it plays out. I think this could be a really good thing - we'll see.
MFK
Their position as the undisputed #1 brand has been under assault over the years by rival shoe companies (especially Reebok), bad publicity (the sweatshop thing), some bad signings, and a bad economy not willing to support the idea of hundred-plus-dollar sneakers. Still, they remain as the #1 volume seller, the #1 moneymaker, and probably the leading edge of the "hip" factor, especially in certain circles where the brand of sneaker you wear is almost as important as the car you drive.
So, in short, they are known for being hip, cool, expensive, exclusive, and very desirable (to the point where people have been killed for their sneakers).
Doesn't that kinda sound like iPod frenzy (except for the death part, that is....)?
I'm not 100% behind this move, but I'm really curious to see how it plays out. I think this could be a really good thing - we'll see.
MFK
ITR 81 said:
you could check which shoes are made by new balance in america, with american made parts... they have about 3 or 4 lines which are made entirely in the usa. it's actually as simple as asking a new balance employee or writing to the company. of course, it's easy to ignore the atrocities that take place when they're not in your backyard.
Brainfree said:
I really hope you are being sarcastic. If not, you definitely didn't read the entire website.
TEG said:
ok... how to put this while not breaking the rules and getting banned.... "workers being paid handsomely by that countries' standards"? hmm. how about not being allowed to organize? how about being tortured and raped in the factories? how about working in awful conditions that lead to cancer and other deadly illnesses? how about being scared to speak up because of possibly losing a job, or a limb, or worse..?
sorry, but just because they make more than joe fruit stand worker in the streets of beijing (assuming you are right) doesn't mean that 1. it's a better life or 2. it's something that can be praised.. i'm not satisfied with the status quo and it makes me sick that some people can turn a blind eye to the truths of the situation.
but you do make a great point, how can nike rationalize charging 100+ for a shoe that costs them less than 5 to make?
this partnership is gross.
It's always good to know that one can stop wondering about Apple for a while and discuss the relative merits of differing styles of global capitalism.
Why is it anytime Apple does any cross promotion with anyone, whether it be Pepsi, HP, Nike or McDonalds (allegedly), that there is always such a negative reaction. Apple is in business to sell products, they're not in business to make political statements.
As a few have eloquently pointed out, if you put such a microscope on ANY corporation, even Apple, you'd find at least a few instances where they do some things that aren't always "politically correct." But I guess some people have little else to do other than to always protest or gripe about something it seems...
As a few have eloquently pointed out, if you put such a microscope on ANY corporation, even Apple, you'd find at least a few instances where they do some things that aren't always "politically correct." But I guess some people have little else to do other than to always protest or gripe about something it seems...
Sweet!
Pepsi, McDonalds...and now Nike!
Who's next to partner with? N.A.M.B.L.A? The KKK?
Gates and Co. are scumbags, but at least they're not hypocrites.
Pepsi, McDonalds...and now Nike!
Who's next to partner with? N.A.M.B.L.A? The KKK?
Gates and Co. are scumbags, but at least they're not hypocrites.
jsw said:
first of all, does that mean we should settle for such terrible living conditions? especially when the poor people in our country end up paying through the roof for these over over over priced products?
second, so you prefer to just not stand on principle then?
jelloshotsrule said:
Supply and demand, my friend. That's capitalism. If people wouldn't pay them $100, they wouldn't charge it.
Obviously, you don't need to buy the shoes. Also capitalism in action.
I just think it's naive to think that not buying Nike shoes - or even, say, preventing Nike from using labor in those countries - will in any way improve the standard of living for those people. The only way to do that is to get the governments of those countries to change. Boycotting a shoe manufacturer isn't going to help anything at all.
The way I see it, going to the Apple store and buying Nike shoes that look like my iPod mini will give Nike money. Giving Nike money helps the American economy. I live in America. To me, this is a good thing. Helping the American economy helps the global economy. Helping the global economy helps everyone. Plus, I get matching shoes.
Amazingly, I'm a democrat. But I'm also a realist.
jsw said:
1. that's why i'm not a big fan of capitalism
2. why amazingly? the democrats are purchased and paid for just like the republicans... they tend to be bought by less oil based constituents though.
jelloshotsrule said:
(1) I think the conditions are deplorable. I think the US should help other countries to enhance their human rights positions. Once, of course, we stop making the rest of the world hate us because of our bizarre foreign policy.
(2) I dispute only that not buying Nike shoes will help anyone in these countries.
(3) The poor people in this country needn't pay for these products.
(4) And, yes, I seldom stand on principle. It's too hard to be certain that one side of the story is the only true and accurate side.
speakster said:
No I wasn't
And big deal. It promotes Windows also and not Macs own computes. Besides, when was the last time you saw an iPod ad in the past month?
jelloshotsrule said:
(1) Dude, if it weren't for capitalism, we'd all be "third world" and we'd all use child labor. Bad or good by itself, the capitalist-driven industrial age gave us the machines that got us past child labor. Unless you're Amish (doubtful, given the email...
), capitalism has improved your life.(2) Hey, man, it doesn't bother me that democrats are "purchased and paid for". I'm a capitalist, so I'm cool with that.
(3) As much as I'd like this thread to bump me from "member" to "regular" (which is many tens of replies away for me), I hope that we can bury the hatchet. I agree that child slave labor is bad. I agree that, if an action produces a net decrease in suffering, it is good. I only disagree with the inferred suggestion that not buying Nike will help.
(4) I'd love to get back on-topic of whether Apple will be helped or hurt by the Nike tie-in.
jsw- no hard feelings. interesting to get your take. and at least you are knowledgeable on the subject, whereas most people are ignorant (whether by choice or not)...
and no, i'm not amish.
and no, i'm not amish.
So what you're saying is that if you disagree with the way a corporation does business, the best thing to do is to continue buying their products?jsw said:
So is Lieberman. What's your point?jsw said:
Which means that "I know I shouldn't be doing this, but I'm too lazy to protest. Even if it means all I have to do is stop buying their crap products."jsw said:
bar italia said:
No, I'm saying that not buying their product is unlikely to change the way they do business. I don't disagree with your right to not buy something. Nor do I disagree with the way Nike does business.
bar italia said:
So is roughly half of the U.S. My only point was that I'm not a Bush Republican who thinks that the sole definition of "good" is "helps big business".
bar italia said:
No, it doesn't mean that at all. I personally am not offended by Nike's business practices. And I don't think that their products are crap. In fact, their shoes fit my feet better than those of other manufacturers. So I buy Nike. I don't buy Apple because I like their business practices or because I think MS is evil (on the contrary: without MS, there'd be a lot fewer computers in the world) - I buy Apple because I like their products.
Now, if I found out that Nike took their leather by stealing and brutally killing and tanning house pets, I'd stop buying Nike - because fewer house pets would die if I didn't buy my big size 13 boats. As it stands, though, I think they do more good than harm overseas. That's my opinion, based on what I've read. Obviously, you're entitled to your own opinion, based on what you've read. I assume neither one of us has been to a Nike sweatshop overseas and interviewed children there, so we're stuck with what we hear second-hand.
All I really care about - getting back to the thread - is whether Apple will benefit from this alliance.
- Status