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 Moves Up to #20 on 'Best Global Brands' List
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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...
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$).
wow
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.
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.
Plus Coca Cola isn't even healthy for you. People are sheep I swear.
God forbid people should enjoy a cold beverage once in a while
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.
God forbid people should enjoy a cold beverage once in a while
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.
Jgb...
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
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
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.
No, not at all.
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?
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?
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.
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...
No, not at all.
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.
Why bring economics (and tech) to a tech rumor site?
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!
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!
Attachments
Greedy Ballmer
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
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'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)
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)
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.
The price is wrong!
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.
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.
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.