It's also surreal to listen to defenders claim superiority, due to Windows (now, mostly pirated, and gradually diminishing) market share.I'm glad there are people on here that actually understand the history of the computer industry. It is very annoying to be painted a fanboy by those that are completely ignorant of the way things went down!
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.
DoubleTwist Turns The Tables on Apple in '1984' Commercial Remake
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think that the ad would have been more effective if the figure on the screen was a limewire download session and the goons were burburry-wearing chavs.
No one noticed !?!?!?!
I find it AMAZING that no one in this forum even bothered to mention that Doubletwist was recently bought by GOOOOOOGLE !!!
IT IS WRITTEN PROMPTLY AND LOUDLY ALL OVER THEIR WEB SITE
Let me give you a tip that is probably WAAAY OVER YOUR HEAD !?!?!
Google and Apple are feuding, but it will be very difficult for Google to win because they are USELESS when it comes to technology and writing software --- THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO IT !!!
They do know how to acquire and implement revolutionary software, THAT IS IT, so soon their MAGIC will run out !!!
And when that happens APPLE WINS
I find it AMAZING that no one in this forum even bothered to mention that Doubletwist was recently bought by GOOOOOOGLE !!!
IT IS WRITTEN PROMPTLY AND LOUDLY ALL OVER THEIR WEB SITE
Let me give you a tip that is probably WAAAY OVER YOUR HEAD !?!?!
Google and Apple are feuding, but it will be very difficult for Google to win because they are USELESS when it comes to technology and writing software --- THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO IT !!!
They do know how to acquire and implement revolutionary software, THAT IS IT, so soon their MAGIC will run out !!!
And when that happens APPLE WINS
I couldn't let this slip by-
I don't see how you can say that google are "useless", it just astounds me that you can make such a poorly founded, bias statement that lacks any research or understanding.
Google has double the financial rating that Apple does in the NASDAQ index and they have only been around for a little over 10 years! (Apple circa 1977)
Google is probably the worlds best software company, their services are used every day by almost everyone- how can this be a "useless" design?
Google is the opposite of useless, the companies software is use-endless.
Gah, how can you make such a statement?
I couldn't let this slip by-
I don't see how you can say that google are "useless", it just astounds me that you can make such a poorly founded, bias statement that lacks any research or understanding.
Google has double the financial rating that Apple does in the NASDAQ index and they have only been around for a little over 10 years! (Apple circa 1977)
Google is probably the worlds best software company, their services are used every day by almost everyone- how can this be a "useless" design?
Google is the opposite of useless, the companies software is use-endless.
Gah, how can you make such a statement?
Didn't you hear? Apple is it. Apple is everything. They do no wrong, ever.
But seriously, I find it hard to believe that people would hate this commercial if it likened Bill Gates to Big Brother, and I know I'm right.
They do know how to acquire and implement revolutionary software, THAT IS IT, so soon their MAGIC will run out !!!
You mean like Apple does ? iTunes, Safari, OS X... It's either bought or packaged open source projects.
And yet their magic doesn't seem to run out... Maybe you're underestimating Google.
The director, producer, auteur of the clip, "Remo Camerota" is an anagram for:
Emo tear or Mac
Mac Reamer Too
-or-
Me, A Mac Rooter
Emo tear or Mac
Mac Reamer Too
-or-
Me, A Mac Rooter
Really bad ad. The software is buggy, lags and still has no iPhone support. Im about two seconds away from deleting it off my Mac. Ive waited since the initial release for the specific reason of syncing my iPhone.. but still.. no iPhone support.
Guess you {AND your buddies !} feel just a little more then embarrassed for having missed such an OBVIOUS and important fact that DoubleTwist is OWNED BY BOOGLE !!!!!!
DON'T COMPOUND YOUR EMBARRASSMENT WITH LAME ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND
I have been a stock investor since 1987, just AFTER the big crash !
In my BEST year I increased my trading account by 340%, and have netted well over 100% many times.
Product quality, in-fact product viability even, are RARELY reflected in the stock price. The market is NOT RATIONAL from YOUR personal point of view !?!?!?!
Google's stock valuation is high because of its market position, it can dominate its market sphere more effectively then any other contender because of its resources thus it gets a high valuation.
Like I said and you did NOT UNDERSTAND, it has GOOD products, but only because it acquired those products, most of their products are STAGNANT -- you just fail to notice this !!!
PS
I interviewed with Gooooogle a while ago, they seemed to be scared, nervous, in chaos internally.
There is not a single company that has the record of delivering innovation, quality, and constant improvement in their software that Apple has -- not even close, not a single company, accept perhaps from years ago connectix but they were a total aberration and SMALL.
Guess you {AND your buddies !} feel just a little more then embarrassed for having missed such an OBVIOUS and important fact that DoubleTwist is OWNED BY BOOGLE !!!!!!
It's only important to you. The rest of us are just discussing the low budget ad made by a 5 year old in art class.
And why do you feel the need to shout so much ?
It's only important to you. The rest of us are just discussing the low budget ad made by a 5 year old in art class.
And why do you feel the need to shout so much ?
NWOR
To go back to this: I checked the forums today. Theyve been saying Next month for iPhone support on the Mac since launch. Still, no idea of a release time. I finally deleted this useless junk.
Admittedly, Double Twist doesn't seem to have made much of a dent, certainly in the Mac world, but I haven't heard of it from the Windows side either
All the same, I'm waiting to see what the product is before I pass judgement. At this stage, there's fun in speculating what they -could- do to hand Apple iTunes' backside - however unlikely that is.
If nothing else, the Apple ninjas might get better ideas for iTunes out of everyone's complaints.
All the same, I'm waiting to see what the product is before I pass judgement. At this stage, there's fun in speculating what they -could- do to hand Apple iTunes' backside - however unlikely that is.
If nothing else, the Apple ninjas might get better ideas for iTunes out of everyone's complaints.
Hate iTunes. What about Finder?
Whoever said that taking part in the Apple ecosystem is a free choice must have overlooked the fact that the iTunes and the iPod products are by far market leaders. You purchase a song, then it turns out that you can only play it on only on particular software and hardware. Is that OK? I hope that Apple will be investigated, whether they seriously limited consumer choice between the launch of iTunes and today. God, I hate their formats and copy protection! They destroy the joy in music.
I often feel embarrassed about the white earbuds. They are so mainstream, so flashy and so crap. I used to use midrange Sennheisers, they are excellent. But not for the iPhone - they lack the microphone. But I have this problem with most Apple products - I am tied to OS X (specialist softwares, business partners invested on Mac versions), so I have to have their hardware. Damn Apple, I want competition and paying premium money for these overheating craps is not that.
Whoever said that taking part in the Apple ecosystem is a free choice must have overlooked the fact that the iTunes and the iPod products are by far market leaders. You purchase a song, then it turns out that you can only play it on only on particular software and hardware. Is that OK? I hope that Apple will be investigated, whether they seriously limited consumer choice between the launch of iTunes and today. God, I hate their formats and copy protection! They destroy the joy in music.
I often feel embarrassed about the white earbuds. They are so mainstream, so flashy and so crap. I used to use midrange Sennheisers, they are excellent. But not for the iPhone - they lack the microphone. But I have this problem with most Apple products - I am tied to OS X (specialist softwares, business partners invested on Mac versions), so I have to have their hardware. Damn Apple, I want competition and paying premium money for these overheating craps is not that.
Wrong. At the very least Compaq, and a number of others were alternatives to IBM (hence the term IBM-compatible PC). Regarding the OS, MS DOS, there were few viable alteratives, but that's not the point. You are equating a HW manufacturer with the OS supplier. Back in those days you could run MS DOS on hardware from a variety of manufacturers.
Look now at Appleland: 1 OS supplier: Apple. 1 HW supplier: Apple. If I want to
run OS X on a Thinkpad, then I can't. If I want to make use of Intel's new processors under OS X: I can't. Everything is decided for by Herr-Jobs.
+1
And I don't think aluminium is the best material to make laptops out of. I'm thinking of a MBP, but the shiny Al - hey look at me i have a Mac - exterior might stop me from taking it out at the coffee shop. It cuts both ways this designer-look.
Also, the fact is that people can spend all the money in the world, computers do not make people cool. What matters is whatever you do with your computer.
Such as doubletwist. And thats still not the point. Apple is the most popular brand in the MP3 player market and iTunes the most popular store. By choosing Apple in this situation you are choosing the path of least resistance, merely going with what everybody else has because it requires least effort or thought on your part. Choosing doubletwist will make you stand out from the sea of grey people. At least this is the message the doubletwist advert and the original Apple advert were trying to convey using a little bit of creative license. You understand creative license don't you? Every fanboi on these boards seems to understand it when Apple do their retarded Get a Mac adverts, but they aren't so sharp when its a competing product.
Which complete and utter monkey said they were copying? Its a spoof! Of course they are copying. They are turning Apple's own marketing against them. Go and watch the results of the Psystar advert competition to see some more.
First you complain about Palm because they found a way to link into iTunes and you say they should use a third party system and you will be happy.
Now there is a third party system and you still complain and cry because you feel threatened that Apple will lose its advantage.
Just what will make you happy?
Before you attack me let me tell you I have two iMacs, one 24 inch and one 20 inch along with a MacBook Pro 15 inch and yes even an iPod that by the way I rarely ever use, in fact it has sat on my desk for over a year now and has not been used because I do not find it user friendly.
I also have two windows PC's that now sit idle only one I use when I need to get to a web page that wont play nice with Safari. So in effect I am about 99% of the time on the apple computers but I will not sub-come to being a Steve Jobs zombie marching in lock step. In my opinion Apple is the new IBM and I think this little ad shows that very well.
Now there is a third party system and you still complain and cry because you feel threatened that Apple will lose its advantage.
Just what will make you happy?
Before you attack me let me tell you I have two iMacs, one 24 inch and one 20 inch along with a MacBook Pro 15 inch and yes even an iPod that by the way I rarely ever use, in fact it has sat on my desk for over a year now and has not been used because I do not find it user friendly.
I also have two windows PC's that now sit idle only one I use when I need to get to a web page that wont play nice with Safari. So in effect I am about 99% of the time on the apple computers but I will not sub-come to being a Steve Jobs zombie marching in lock step. In my opinion Apple is the new IBM and I think this little ad shows that very well.
Then go buy a generic plastic laptop that will snap into pieces when you drop it
The way things are, if you wanna be different for the sake of being non-conformist (and personally I think that's retarded because these are only computers), go buy whatever underdog company is attention whoring at Apple's expense
When it comes down to the products though, Apple produces some of the best designed hw/sw on the market but still remains visionary to the point it can create market share out of thin air. Most other companies are just reacting and their only consistent vision is to pull good PR by being anti-Apple. Meanwhile their engineering, management and business strategies suck.
No, and that's why Apple worked long and hard to get deals that permitted them to drop DRM once and for all.
Now it's gone and you can purchase a song and play it on any combination of hardware and software.
iPods are a market leader because they are well made and easy to use. That's what made them famous and that's what continues to make them the most purchased player today. However, Apple doesn't even come close to controlling the market, there are dozens of alternatives out there that you can buy that aren't made by Apple.
Embarrassing
You know when politicians do blogs, or the government make videos designed to influence opinion, we all turn off and are never influenced. It's kind of embarrassing isn't it? Well that's what I find here.
But it's worse than that. This company [who incidentally I have to invoke the High Court Judge clause over, because I've never heard of them], is misusing, misquoting and inappropriately borrowing from history - to do what? Are they saying Apple don't give you a choice? That does appear to be the message. Right?
But we all have a choice - to buy an iPod, or suffer the ridicule of our friends - for not getting everything that's great about an iPod - an easy way to get music and listen to it. There are no stupid time-limited sharing options, no fugly, issue prone, non intuitive interfaces, just the most successful music player on the planet.
Ask.com did the same thing a few years back. They discovered their market share no longer made it onto the user lists so they began an ad hoarding campaign employing old Communist era imagery of clenched fists, and falsely offering to free internet searchers from the tyranny of... Google! I know, it's ludicrous isn't it? Of course no-one bought it.
If you have to advertise an old internet search engine in the streets - because the specter of a bald butler conducting our searches, via TV ads, for some [STARKLY OBVIOUS] reason didn't resonate with computer users' consciousness, the term "TIME TO STOP DIGGING" comes to mind.
Our experience is that people use Google because it works better than any other search engine. Microsoft even renamed their own renamed search option Bing, not as a tribute to an old crooner, but Because It's Not Google! The route to users' hearts is through experience, not through propaganda.
When Apple commissioned Ridley Scott to do the 1984 ad, they intended it to run just once. But they had three things working in their favour: George Orwell's noted novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1984, the movie was due for release later in the year, Apple were offering a genuine new choice, with genuine improvements in computing, in a world dominated by IBM that was devoid of choice at that time.
The same rules apply to double twist [which is an appalling name btw]. If you have to shout about your service, whatever it is, the reason is that people aren't using it. Maybe, just maybe, their time would be better spent developing their service into something they can't live without.
Also, even though I'm British, there's no way in hell I'd use a Brit voice in that ad, or any tech ad... unless it was a very sexy sounding woman, or Sir Stephen Fry.
This ad then is an epic fail. It's too late, too lame has confused references points, and takes its influences from the wrong decade, and even the wrong century. The use of animation is it's only saving grace. And the totally up their own a r s e use of a credit run that lasts longer than the ad itself - rather tells us too much about the mentality of those involved, both in commissioning and execution.
You know when politicians do blogs, or the government make videos designed to influence opinion, we all turn off and are never influenced. It's kind of embarrassing isn't it? Well that's what I find here.
But it's worse than that. This company [who incidentally I have to invoke the High Court Judge clause over, because I've never heard of them], is misusing, misquoting and inappropriately borrowing from history - to do what? Are they saying Apple don't give you a choice? That does appear to be the message. Right?
But we all have a choice - to buy an iPod, or suffer the ridicule of our friends - for not getting everything that's great about an iPod - an easy way to get music and listen to it. There are no stupid time-limited sharing options, no fugly, issue prone, non intuitive interfaces, just the most successful music player on the planet.
Ask.com did the same thing a few years back. They discovered their market share no longer made it onto the user lists so they began an ad hoarding campaign employing old Communist era imagery of clenched fists, and falsely offering to free internet searchers from the tyranny of... Google! I know, it's ludicrous isn't it? Of course no-one bought it.
If you have to advertise an old internet search engine in the streets - because the specter of a bald butler conducting our searches, via TV ads, for some [STARKLY OBVIOUS] reason didn't resonate with computer users' consciousness, the term "TIME TO STOP DIGGING" comes to mind.
Our experience is that people use Google because it works better than any other search engine. Microsoft even renamed their own renamed search option Bing, not as a tribute to an old crooner, but Because It's Not Google! The route to users' hearts is through experience, not through propaganda.
When Apple commissioned Ridley Scott to do the 1984 ad, they intended it to run just once. But they had three things working in their favour: George Orwell's noted novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1984, the movie was due for release later in the year, Apple were offering a genuine new choice, with genuine improvements in computing, in a world dominated by IBM that was devoid of choice at that time.
The same rules apply to double twist [which is an appalling name btw]. If you have to shout about your service, whatever it is, the reason is that people aren't using it. Maybe, just maybe, their time would be better spent developing their service into something they can't live without.
Also, even though I'm British, there's no way in hell I'd use a Brit voice in that ad, or any tech ad... unless it was a very sexy sounding woman, or Sir Stephen Fry.
This ad then is an epic fail. It's too late, too lame has confused references points, and takes its influences from the wrong decade, and even the wrong century. The use of animation is it's only saving grace. And the totally up their own a r s e use of a credit run that lasts longer than the ad itself - rather tells us too much about the mentality of those involved, both in commissioning and execution.
Not a financial wizard
SuperComputer, you're definitely Not a financial wizard are you? Just quoting the stock prices of two companies only demonstrates your naivety. Google does not have: "...double the financial rating that Apple does in the NASDAQ index" - whatever you think that means!
Sure Google's stock price is high compared with Apple's, but the number of shares on the market is also important, along with the company's market cap. Indeed both are crucial, and the bare minimum you need to understand anything about a company. Here is what you should be looking at:
Closing price: 488.52 +3.94 (0.81%)
Range 483.34 - 492.43
52 week 247.30 - 507.00
Open 487.75
Vol / Avg. 2.14M/2.42M
Mkt cap 154.65B
P/E 33.90
Div/yield
EPS 14.4
Then you need to compare these figures with Apple's:
Closing price: 185.99 +1.09 (0.59%)
Range 78.20 - 188.90
Open 186.20
Vol / Avg. 15.11M/16.35M
Mkt cap 166.61B
P/E 32.50
Div/yield
EPS 5.72
From this you can see that Apple is actually worth nearly $12B more than Google [166.61B - 154.65B = 11.98B]. Apple's shares are traded a hell of a lot more than Google's [see volume], and their value has risen by a much higher percentage over the past 52 weeks. You also need to check out the historical information.
Google's share price is 5.28 times its August 19, 2004 IPO price of $85 [though in reality they never traded below $95]
Apple's share price is 12.08 times its value on the same date.
Both companies are doing well. Investing $10,000 in Google in August 2004 would have made you $52,000. But investing $10,000 in Apple in August 2004 would have made you $154,000 - about three times as much.
Sure Apple and Google are feuding. Apple has the iPhone, and Google has Android. Now, after your little lesson in business and market economics, which one are you going to back?
SuperComputer, you're definitely Not a financial wizard are you? Just quoting the stock prices of two companies only demonstrates your naivety. Google does not have: "...double the financial rating that Apple does in the NASDAQ index" - whatever you think that means!
Sure Google's stock price is high compared with Apple's, but the number of shares on the market is also important, along with the company's market cap. Indeed both are crucial, and the bare minimum you need to understand anything about a company. Here is what you should be looking at:
Closing price: 488.52 +3.94 (0.81%)
Range 483.34 - 492.43
52 week 247.30 - 507.00
Open 487.75
Vol / Avg. 2.14M/2.42M
Mkt cap 154.65B
P/E 33.90
Div/yield
EPS 14.4
Then you need to compare these figures with Apple's:
Closing price: 185.99 +1.09 (0.59%)
Range 78.20 - 188.90
Open 186.20
Vol / Avg. 15.11M/16.35M
Mkt cap 166.61B
P/E 32.50
Div/yield
EPS 5.72
From this you can see that Apple is actually worth nearly $12B more than Google [166.61B - 154.65B = 11.98B]. Apple's shares are traded a hell of a lot more than Google's [see volume], and their value has risen by a much higher percentage over the past 52 weeks. You also need to check out the historical information.
Google's share price is 5.28 times its August 19, 2004 IPO price of $85 [though in reality they never traded below $95]
Apple's share price is 12.08 times its value on the same date.
Both companies are doing well. Investing $10,000 in Google in August 2004 would have made you $52,000. But investing $10,000 in Apple in August 2004 would have made you $154,000 - about three times as much.
Sure Apple and Google are feuding. Apple has the iPhone, and Google has Android. Now, after your little lesson in business and market economics, which one are you going to back?
I couldn't let this slip by-
I don't see how you can say that google are "useless", it just astounds me that you can make such a poorly founded, bias statement that lacks any research or understanding.
Google has double the financial rating that Apple does in the NASDAQ index and they have only been around for a little over 10 years! (Apple circa 1977)
Google is probably the worlds best software company, their services are used every day by almost everyone- how can this be a "useless" design?
Google is the opposite of useless, the companies software is use-endless.
Gah, how can you make such a statement?
I missed this thread for its debut, but having just seen this ad, I just had to comment on how cheesy it looks. Props for the idea, but terrible implementation.
That is all.
That is all.