Anyway, I wannit to be called the Newton. It would've been great if Jobs presented that first before presenting the current release.
There's a great feature on Macrumors I've had to resort to a few times.
If you are signed in, click on the User Name you are tired of hearing from and select View Plublic Profile. Then you have to option to add that person to your Ignore list!
That way all of their posts are removed from your version of Macrumors and you save yourself lots of exasperation.
PS You need to be signed in for this to work.
You say "they take what other people do, make it better and popularize it" all in one breath and trivialize Apple to such a degree it's not even funny. For your infotainment, Apple does not "popularize" their products, the consumer does. We do it with our wallets. Did Apple "popularize" The Cube? No. If it was as simple as you make it sound, they sure as hell would have.
I know you're having a hard time putting your finger on "something"... that's why we're having a friendly discussion over a difference of opinions. When you make statements on this board (or any other for that matter), it's nice when you think before you post. Go get references, quotes and links so that you can make statement that BACKS UP your own opinion.I'm not of the opinion that what Apple does is trivial. But they do something that I have a hard time putting my finger on.
They take existing devices and make them better/usable. It's certainly a laudable thing to do but it's not really first line innovation, where you come out with brand new products that nobody has ever seen before. (Yes, there are some exceptions.) It's like 'This is a new form factor' or 'this is a new way to use it'.
If Apple was really just a ME-TOO company, the world would not be watching their every move. There just aren't any other tech companies that make huge headlines with their products. Perhaps occasionally, you'll see the PlayStation's Ken Kutaragi on a mag cover but generally speaking, just don't see a CEO and their new product on the cover of Time. In the iPhone alone, Steve Jobs said that Apple had filed over 200 patents and planned to vigorously protect them all. Perhaps many innovations that Apple come up with are in the software they create or internally in the products they create. Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they're just grabbing parts of the shelve and Frankenstein-ing them together (although I'm aware that many parts they used are just that).Steve Jobs in an Interview by Jeff Howe said:When hard times came to the tech sector, we went to our investors and said, 'We're going to spend more on R&D and innovate our way out of this downturn.
I don't think Apple's advertising is all that great actually and I'm not alone. The late SWITCH campaign was awful and really didn't generate a lot of switchers. The current IM A MAC-IM a PC campaign is being criticized for being overly critical to those people who choose Windows boxes. The DANCING IPOD USERS campaign is seriously played out. Aside from new, more colorful backgrounds and different music, one ad is the same as the next.]Regarding populatity, maybe populizing is the wrong word. But at least in the last 5 years or so they've been very effective at making their products 'hip'. Consumers didn't do that by themselves, they had help from Apple advertising.
Who are "u guys"? The guys talking about "Fan Bois"? I've had a couple of lengthy posts but I'm trying to be (fairly) nice about it. If there are any really OUT-OF-LINE posts on the board that truly bother you, report the link to the moderators.u guys can rest a little bit, its not that nice to turn the topic into personal attack. no matter what feeling u have towards a certain member, please keep it to yourself, of course, facts based discussion is still encouraged, im sure mods agree with me on this.
Ok, sounds like a stretch, but if Apple wasn't first, then why did they have to explain that the i stood for internet?
I knew Apple wouldn't come out on the losing side of this. It just wouldn't be right if the iPhone wasn't called, well, the iPhone!![]()
![]()
![]()
Anyway, I wannit to be called the Newton. It would've been great if Jobs presented that first before presenting the current release.
u guys can rest a little bit, its not that nice to turn the topic into personal attack. no matter what feeling u have towards a certain member, please keep it to yourself, of course, facts based discussion is still encouraged, im sure mods agree with me on this.
for the guy who stated "trademark doesn't mean crap", i would suggest you seriously learn something about importance of trademark and how the tradmarks contribute to this competitive commercial world. No matter how much u love apple, don't throw away the rules, otherwise, eventually nobody will benifit from it.
Apple DID have to explain the "i" because next to nobody had heard of it, and nobody was using it in exactly the way Apple was. (Their explanation being rather vague--it could be "I" or "Internet".) Explaining a new name just makes sense. And yes, Cisco's claim on the name was legitimate--they bought the company that used the iPhone name long ago.
You really think Apple was riding on some existing brand awareness that "i" prefixes had?
No, you were talking about inventing the iScheme. It was obviously Apple that started marketing iProducts and are being associated with them now. However, you should realize that successful marketing has little to do with invention.When I said that trademarks/patents don't mean a thing, I mean that they don't matter to the creation of a naming scheme.
This is true. I ask again, though, who actually released the first iProduct?No, you were talking about inventing the iScheme. It was obviously Apple that started marketing iProducts and are being associated with them now. However, you should realize that successful marketing has little to do with invention.