[...] There you will find 80968 more Infos: blackberrycool.com/2007/02/14/the-fool-says-rim-is-vulnerable/ [...]…

I could go on and on, but as just one example, I will point out that those Intel Inside ads you reference, aren’t even the tiniest fraction of the Intel Inside campaign (which by the way was so ineffective that they actually lost considerable market share during the course of the now-dead campaign). The overwhelming majority of the Intel Inside campaign (both in budget, and the effort Intel put into it) was a system of OEM financial incentives and discounts to convince system integrators to go with Intel chips in their products. In fact, those ads you mention really cost next to nothing compared to all the subsidized software and consultant fees that Intel picks up the tab for, just for Dell.

You boil everything down to a ridiculous level of simplicity by which IBM, AMD, Intel, Apple, Sony, and Microsoft are all in the same business, and run ads that might as well be interchangeable, and then you get upset when I am condescending? Well, that is the price you pay for either talking out of your depth, or artificially oversimplifying the issue in a lame attempt to try to defend your corporate avatar Apple (I still have no idea which of these two you are doing).

You can make all the ill-conceived attempts to wriggle around it that you want, but your need to try and cast Intel, a company that doesn’t even sell a product to the general consumer (the smallest purchaser they will deal with is Ingram Micro), and who’s retail sales make up less than 3% of their total sales, and Apple, a company who operates their own retail stores, is a customer of Intel, and makes 100% of their revenue off of sales to the consumer, as being in the same industry just shows how far you will walk away from any sort of reasonable position if that is what you have to do to feel you have won the argument.

There is no point arguing with someone like that, because reason does not apply.

I could go on and on, but as just one example, I will point out that those Intel Inside ads you reference, aren’t even the tiniest fraction of the Intel Inside campaign (which by the way was so ineffective that they actually lost considerable market share during the course of the now-dead campaign). The overwhelming majority of the Intel Inside campaign (both in budget, and the effort Intel put into it) was a system of OEM financial incentives and discounts to convince system integrators to go with Intel chips in their products. In fact, those ads you mention really cost next to nothing compared to all the subsidized software and consultant fees that Intel picks up the tab for, just for Dell.

You boil everything down to a ridiculous level of simplicity by which IBM, AMD, Intel, Apple, Sony, and Microsoft are all in the same business, and run ads that might as well be interchangeable, and then you get upset when I am condescending? Well, that is the price you pay for either talking out of your depth, or artificially oversimplifying the issue in a lame attempt to try to defend your corporate avatar Apple (I still have no idea which of these two you are doing).

You can make all the ill-conceived attempts to wriggle around it that you want, but your need to try and cast Intel, a company that doesn’t even sell a product to the general consumer (the smallest purchaser they will deal with is Ingram Micro), and who’s retail sales make up less than 3% of their total sales, and Apple, a company who operates their own retail stores, is a customer of Intel, and makes 100% of their revenue off of sales to the consumer, as being in the same industry just shows how far you will walk away from any sort of reasonable position if that is what you have to do to feel you have won the argument.

There is no point arguing with someone like that, because reason does not apply.

I profoundly disagree. Sony does that all the time. Moto most certainly does do that with, esp. with their RAZR line. To think of this as some rational appeal on features alone is errant. They advertise a lifestyle with their sleek, sexy little product. I remember when the RAZR first came out, I saw Red Sox pitcher Kurt Shilling showing off the RAZR at almost every interview, fresh off of his World Series victory. I guess Moto got a legendary championship baseball player to hawk their product just to sell it on features.

By your same definition of the way Moto advertises their features, Apple also does this with their Mac vs PC guy ads…they tout their features of reliability and ease of use, just in a very stylish and humorous way. You may not agree with their points, but they sell as much on features as Moto does with the RAZR. In reality, they sell on both features and emotional connection; the two are intertwined.

As to your observations on Intel, again you are wrong. Of course Intel is a parts supplier (of semiconductor chips), but you are wrong that they only run “corporate image ads that are aimed at investors, not the general consumer.”
There are any number of case studies noting the rather ingenious move Intel made in marketing direct to the consumer with their Intel Inside branding campaign. It was a bold and brilliant move for a parts supplier to attempt to establish such a brand equity with consumers. I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen plenty of Intel ads, including TV spots, aimed directly at the consumer. Remember those TV ads Intel ran featuring the Blue Man Group? Or were those just aimed at investors? My thesis holds true: Intel is right in the thick of marketing to the consumer electronics market.

As for Microsoft, please. They seek to establish an emotional connection with the consumer, just like any company, that goes beyond just some appeal to rationality. What about their “Your Potential, Our Passion” campaign, centered around fuzzy feel good images of children at play and school. If that isn’t an appeal to “who you will be if you buy their product” then I don’t know what is.

And your analysis about the difference between appealing to “who you can be” versus “what you can do” is rather errant as well. There’s often a fine line between what people do and who they are, since what people do tends to define who they are. So an appeal to one is often an appeal to the other, and I personally know a few behavioral psychologists and a psychiatrist who will back that up (not to mention the writings of the existential philosophers).

But to me advertising to emotions and not some laundry list of features is not something bad. I think all companies try to establish that emotional connection with their market, and appeal on such terms. I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with that; we don’t live in a totally rational world, and emotions count as well.

The bottom line: Apple, in their marketing, doesn’t do anything radically different from any other consumer company. Sure, they may do it better than most, but it’s really the same marketing techniques and goals. I am sure that the advertising firms that Apple uses are available for hire by other companies and will be happy to use the same type of approaches.

In fact, I find that you seem to make Apple the channel through which you focus your larger complaints and problems with society and human life at large. It’s almost as if they are a surrogate for all of your frustrations.

As to the eating disorder issue, why do you keep digging yourself into a deeper hole? You were the one that brought it up in a rather exaggerated analogy, and now you seek to diminish that error by diminishing the seriousness of such an illness. It’s you who keeps bringing it up.

Finally, about the BMW references…your comments only reinforce my thesis that you have this deep rooted anger that goes beyond Apple. Next time I’ll use the Mercedes brand name instead to make you happy.

Finally, I find your anger and condescending tone to diminish the strength of your arguments.

I profoundly disagree. Sony does that all the time. Moto most certainly does do that with, esp. with their RAZR line. To think of this as some rational appeal on features alone is errant. They advertise a lifestyle with their sleek, sexy little product. I remember when the RAZR first came out, I saw Red Sox pitcher Kurt Shilling showing off the RAZR at almost every interview, fresh off of his World Series victory. I guess Moto got a legendary championship baseball player to hawk their product just to sell it on features.

By your same definition of the way Moto advertises their features, Apple also does this with their Mac vs PC guy ads…they tout their features of reliability and ease of use, just in a very stylish and humorous way. You may not agree with their points, but they sell as much on features as Moto does with the RAZR. In reality, they sell on both features and emotional connection; the two are intertwined.

As to your observations on Intel, again you are wrong. Of course Intel is a parts supplier (of semiconductor chips), but you are wrong that they only run “corporate image ads that are aimed at investors, not the general consumer.”
There are any number of case studies noting the rather ingenious move Intel made in marketing direct to the consumer with their Intel Inside branding campaign. It was a bold and brilliant move for a parts supplier to attempt to establish such a brand equity with consumers. I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen plenty of Intel ads, including TV spots, aimed directly at the consumer. Remember those TV ads Intel ran featuring the Blue Man Group? Or were those just aimed at investors? My thesis holds true: Intel is right in the thick of marketing to the consumer electronics market.

As for Microsoft, please. They seek to establish an emotional connection with the consumer, just like any company, that goes beyond just some appeal to rationality. What about their “Your Potential, Our Passion” campaign, centered around fuzzy feel good images of children at play and school. If that isn’t an appeal to “who you will be if you buy their product” then I don’t know what is.

And your analysis about the difference between appealing to “who you can be” versus “what you can do” is rather errant as well. There’s often a fine line between what people do and who they are, since what people do tends to define who they are. So an appeal to one is often an appeal to the other, and I personally know a few behavioral psychologists and a psychiatrist who will back that up (not to mention the writings of the existential philosophers).

But to me advertising to emotions and not some laundry list of features is not something bad. I think all companies try to establish that emotional connection with their market, and appeal on such terms. I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with that; we don’t live in a totally rational world, and emotions count as well.

The bottom line: Apple, in their marketing, doesn’t do anything radically different from any other consumer company. Sure, they may do it better than most, but it’s really the same marketing techniques and goals. I am sure that the advertising firms that Apple uses are available for hire by other companies and will be happy to use the same type of approaches.

In fact, I find that you seem to make Apple the channel through which you focus your larger complaints and problems with society and human life at large. It’s almost as if they are a surrogate for all of your frustrations.

As to the eating disorder issue, why do you keep digging yourself into a deeper hole? You were the one that brought it up in a rather exaggerated analogy, and now you seek to diminish that error by diminishing the seriousness of such an illness. It’s you who keeps bringing it up.

Finally, about the BMW references…your comments only reinforce my thesis that you have this deep rooted anger that goes beyond Apple. Next time I’ll use the Mercedes brand name instead to make you happy.

Finally, I find your anger and condescending tone to diminish the strength of your arguments.

I never said that brand marketing wasn’t the norm, I said that no other major company in the tech industry sells a lifestyle brand. That is totally different. For example, the RAZR you mention, is a PRODUCT, not a company or a lifestyle. OF COURSE Motorola advertises their products, that is how you sell them! However, if you look at any RAZR ad, it focuses on the form factor (a feature) the network (a spec) and the multimedia features. Also, Intel isn’t even in the consumer electronics industry, they are in the semiconductor manufacture industry! You could at least keep which industry we are talking about straight. Intel doesn’t even sell a mass market product direct to the consumer. Of course their ads are marketing the company, and not a product, just like EDS, or Boeing, or AMD, or Dow Chemical, or Pfizer, or any fortune 500 company that advertises to publicize the company name. Those are corporate image ads that are aimed at investors, not the general consumer! And you would be really well served not to even bring Microsoft into it, because they have the most squeaky-clean ads of any advertiser in the industry. They sell aspirational stories of the use of their product. They don’t tell you a story about who you will be if you buy their product, the tell you a story about what you can do if you buy their product. If you can’t see how those two are very different, then you should go read a few books on psychology. At present, you clearly don’t have enough of a grasp on this topic to make any sort of educated comment on it.

If you don’t know anything about advertising, or the ad industry, then just quit trying to pretend you do. You seem to be saying that you have no idea what a lifestyle brand is, or how ads work, or how effective they are, or how one campaign differs from another, but you are quite positive that Apple must not do anything unsavory, because they have Apple in their name, which means they are always above reproach in everything. It is really creepy and kind of crazy. You are sounding more and more like some provincial hick in a tiny little town just off the highway, who just keeps saying “well I don’t know nuthin’ ’bout that, but I don’t like the sound of it. No sir, these is good people, and anyone who says otherwise ain’t got their head on right.”

As far as TCO goes, I would love to see a study done by anyone but Apple that shows that, because it has been my experience that you take about a 10%-20% TCO increase running a department or shop as completely Apple.

Oh, and on the eating disorders thing, get over it! Yeah, I’m sure that anyone who has an eating disorder thinks it is the most serious issue on Earth, but then people think all sorts of things, that doesn’t make them right. I once knew a girl who thought the most important thing in the world was to sanitize your hands every time you touched a doorknob, didn’t make her right, it made her compulsive. I’m sure it is hard to watch someone you know do something stupid to themselves that you know could kill them, but then I’m sure the same can be said of the hundreds of millions of drug, tobacco, and alcohol users out there, so stand in line.

Oh, and as a side note, what the hell is it with you Macheads and BMW? You guys always, always, always bring BMW out of left field into any discussion about Apple. Talk about overpriced, hyped up products that are sold solely as a way to identify yourself, BMW would be at the top of the list! They make good motorcycles, but their cars are no better than any other well-known German manufacturer. Do you want to bring Bose into the discussion too? That is the other one you guys seem bizarrely enamored of. Do you all get a newsletter that tells you what to like?

I never said that brand marketing wasn’t the norm, I said that no other major company in the tech industry sells a lifestyle brand. That is totally different. For example, the RAZR you mention, is a PRODUCT, not a company or a lifestyle. OF COURSE Motorola advertises their products, that is how you sell them! However, if you look at any RAZR ad, it focuses on the form factor (a feature) the network (a spec) and the multimedia features. Also, Intel isn’t even in the consumer electronics industry, they are in the semiconductor manufacture industry! You could at least keep which industry we are talking about straight. Intel doesn’t even sell a mass market product direct to the consumer. Of course their ads are marketing the company, and not a product, just like EDS, or Boeing, or AMD, or Dow Chemical, or Pfizer, or any fortune 500 company that advertises to publicize the company name. Those are corporate image ads that are aimed at investors, not the general consumer! And you would be really well served not to even bring Microsoft into it, because they have the most squeaky-clean ads of any advertiser in the industry. They sell aspirational stories of the use of their product. They don’t tell you a story about who you will be if you buy their product, the tell you a story about what you can do if you buy their product. If you can’t see how those two are very different, then you should go read a few books on psychology. At present, you clearly don’t have enough of a grasp on this topic to make any sort of educated comment on it.

If you don’t know anything about advertising, or the ad industry, then just quit trying to pretend you do. You seem to be saying that you have no idea what a lifestyle brand is, or how ads work, or how effective they are, or how one campaign differs from another, but you are quite positive that Apple must not do anything unsavory, because they have Apple in their name, which means they are always above reproach in everything. It is really creepy and kind of crazy. You are sounding more and more like some provincial hick in a tiny little town just off the highway, who just keeps saying “well I don’t know nuthin’ ’bout that, but I don’t like the sound of it. No sir, these is good people, and anyone who says otherwise ain’t got their head on right.”

As far as TCO goes, I would love to see a study done by anyone but Apple that shows that, because it has been my experience that you take about a 10%-20% TCO increase running a department or shop as completely Apple.

Oh, and on the eating disorders thing, get over it! Yeah, I’m sure that anyone who has an eating disorder thinks it is the most serious issue on Earth, but then people think all sorts of things, that doesn’t make them right. I once knew a girl who thought the most important thing in the world was to sanitize your hands every time you touched a doorknob, didn’t make her right, it made her compulsive. I’m sure it is hard to watch someone you know do something stupid to themselves that you know could kill them, but then I’m sure the same can be said of the hundreds of millions of drug, tobacco, and alcohol users out there, so stand in line.

Oh, and as a side note, what the hell is it with you Macheads and BMW? You guys always, always, always bring BMW out of left field into any discussion about Apple. Talk about overpriced, hyped up products that are sold solely as a way to identify yourself, BMW would be at the top of the list! They make good motorcycles, but their cars are no better than any other well-known German manufacturer. Do you want to bring Bose into the discussion too? That is the other one you guys seem bizarrely enamored of. Do you all get a newsletter that tells you what to like?

To assert that the rest of the tech sector are these innocent babes in the advertising world, issuing only rational appeals to consumers, is totally naive and false.

The truth is that nearly all companies attempt brand marketing and an appeal to image, emotion, etc…but some do it better than others. Also, in some cases, product differentiation in the markets is totally based on brand identity, but in others there are substantive differences in quality of product. For instance, BMW may try to engage in brand marketing, but their cars are indeed superior to most.

The bottom line: Apple does nothing more than what all large corporations attempt to do with their marketing, they just do it better, and in my opinion, they have the products that back that up. Again, with many of these items, we are talking about subjective judgements, with such terms as usability, design, etc. However, I do have many people in agreement with me, including many tech journalists, industrial designers, etc. If you can’t look at the iPhone and appreciate the difference, or look at the iPod and appreciate the simplicity of design, then so be it.

I will say that there are studies that show the TCO of Apple machines to be less than Windows PCs, esp when you take into account support an security issues. I will also say that almost everyone agrees that Apple machines are more secure than Windows, and are afflicted by far less viruses. But we can go on and on forever about this, because we will never agree.

Going back to an issue that you initially raised: eating disorders. If you don’t think that is a serious issue, then I don’t know what is. Ask any person who has battled an eating disorder or their family, and I think they will tell you that it is a most serious problem. Indeed, it is a serious illness, and not something out of a “sketch comedy routine.” Again, I think any family who has dealt with the issue would take offense with your comment.

To assert that the rest of the tech sector are these innocent babes in the advertising world, issuing only rational appeals to consumers, is totally naive and false.

The truth is that nearly all companies attempt brand marketing and an appeal to image, emotion, etc…but some do it better than others. Also, in some cases, product differentiation in the markets is totally based on brand identity, but in others there are substantive differences in quality of product. For instance, BMW may try to engage in brand marketing, but their cars are indeed superior to most.

The bottom line: Apple does nothing more than what all large corporations attempt to do with their marketing, they just do it better, and in my opinion, they have the products that back that up. Again, with many of these items, we are talking about subjective judgements, with such terms as usability, design, etc. However, I do have many people in agreement with me, including many tech journalists, industrial designers, etc. If you can’t look at the iPhone and appreciate the difference, or look at the iPod and appreciate the simplicity of design, then so be it.

I will say that there are studies that show the TCO of Apple machines to be less than Windows PCs, esp when you take into account support an security issues. I will also say that almost everyone agrees that Apple machines are more secure than Windows, and are afflicted by far less viruses. But we can go on and on forever about this, because we will never agree.

Going back to an issue that you initially raised: eating disorders. If you don’t think that is a serious issue, then I don’t know what is. Ask any person who has battled an eating disorder or their family, and I think they will tell you that it is a most serious problem. Indeed, it is a serious illness, and not something out of a “sketch comedy routine.” Again, I think any family who has dealt with the issue would take offense with your comment.

The reason I fault Apple for it, is because it is not the norm in their industry, and as such stands out as being particularly obvious, and makes for some annoying conversations like this one. You don’t actually see people sitting around trying to claim that every shoe company in the world is just ‘stealing’ from Nike, or that Coke is ‘so much easier to use’ than Pepsi! The vast majority of companies in the tech sector market their products on features, value, and reliability. The reason being that those are what the majority of customers want to know about when buying a tech product. Apple, on the other hand, markets itself as a lifestyle brand. Now, as their market share shows, that isn’t what most people are looking for in a tech product. However, those people who are looking for a lifestyle brand, are immediately drawn to Apple, since they are pretty much the only tech lifestyle brand out there. Although to be fair, Microsoft has lately started trying to grow the Xbox franchise into a lifestyle brand, which I think is going to get them their ass handed to them by Nintendo.

In reality, Apple spends less on R&D than just about any of the other big tech companies, they file fewer patents than any of the other big tech companies, and their development cycles are slower than any of the other big tech companies. Now I’m sure you will make some ‘quality over quantity’ argument, but seeing as how the majority of the IP for the product that makes up more than half of Apple’s revenue (the iPod) is actually owned PortalPlayer (now owned by nVidia) one could argue that Apple has neither. What you are doing, is actually exactly like some kid who thinks his basketball game gets better when he puts on his Air Jordans. You have bought into the lifestyle brand, so you subjectively decide that it must be better, and then look for reasons. Just like that kid who ‘thinks’ he plays better with the right brand of shoes, you ‘think’ that Apple computers are easier to use and more reliable, yet there is no measurable improvement of worker productivity between organizations that use Macs and organizations that use PCs to do the same tasks. You ‘think’ that they are better built and more reliable, yet their TOC is not lower than PCs. You ‘think’ a lot of things about the superiority of Apple products, yet none of them stand up to any objective scrutiny, because they are the subjective, emotional, responses of a customer responding to brand marketing. The only place where Apple’s marketing works, is in image-conscious professions, and in disposable entertainment items that aren’t mission critical.

I mean, aside from the “apple are great innovators” tagline, all they have done so far this century is dump their proprietary OS to go with BSD, dump their proprietary hardware to go with standard PC hardware, and put a pretty box, web store, and some marketing around someone else’s audio player design. Oh yeah, and now they are putting out a phone that looks pretty much like half the phones at 3GSM, but is only EDGE. Yet, people like you can’t figure out how anyone could fail to be impressed with the amazing innovation coming out of Cupertino? Believe me, I am a hardcore nerd. If Apple made a better product I would be using it. I spend quite a lot of time figuring out who makes the best tools, and I have owned PCs, Amigas, Macs, Suns, and SGIs. I’ve run every Microsoft OS since DOS, every Apple OS since the Apple II came out, NeXT Step, Solaris, IRIX, Unix, Linux, OS2, and AmigaOS. I don’t let a brand stand between me and the best tools I can find. However OS X, the iPod, and Apple in general since Jobs came back, are nothing but a hype machine.

As to all the political stuff, it is serious, but it also isn’t; it depends on how you choose to define “serious.”. How media and advertising effect our society is a pervasive issue that touches every one of us, and as such is a serious topic worthy of serious discussion. However, it isn’t going to cure cancer, or put an end to hunger. I don’t agree with you at all that none of it matters because it is all just a bunch of little doodads, because we spend more time with our TV in this country than we do with our families. Whether you chose to believe it or not, people, young and old, pick up a lot more moral and ethical lessons from what they see on TV than they really should. It has give rise to some very skewed priorities that really can have some serious concequences in the long term. No, that doesn’t mean that how they market the iPod, or any other product, is going to bring about peace in the Middle East, but it is still a bit more serious than “who cares, it is just a gadget.” The techniques used to sell those doodads are the same techniques used to sell you political candidates, policies, and even wars, so it isn’t just a fluff issue that doesn’t effect anything that matters. You can be quite sure that when an ad firm finds a technique that gets you to buy a gizmo you didn’t really need, then they will be more than happy to use that same technique to sell you a proposition you don’t need the next time a politician calls them up with a job. Every time you buy into a dishonest ad, you tell the people in charge of selling you everything from those doodads to you health care provider, that it is just fine with you if they lie, because you understand that they have a job to do. Believe me, there is no special book of ethics that they pull out when their client is dealing with a “serious” topic. It is all just selling soap to them.

On your specific touchy spot about eating disorders, on the other hand, I just don’t see how that is any more serious than a discussion about any other media issue. Take a step back for a second, and really look at the issue and think about the fact that we are talking about some of the richest people on Earth, in one of the fattest countries on Earth, choosing to starve themselves so they can better fit into designer dresses that cost more than most people in the world make in a year. If you really think that is a “serious” issue, then you have some odd priorities, because I think it reads like a sketch comedy routine! As I said, it is just another discussion about how people selling a product are more than happy to mess with your head to make a dollar if you let them.

The reason I fault Apple for it, is because it is not the norm in their industry, and as such stands out as being particularly obvious, and makes for some annoying conversations like this one. You don’t actually see people sitting around trying to claim that every shoe company in the world is just ‘stealing’ from Nike, or that Coke is ‘so much easier to use’ than Pepsi! The vast majority of companies in the tech sector market their products on features, value, and reliability. The reason being that those are what the majority of customers want to know about when buying a tech product. Apple, on the other hand, markets itself as a lifestyle brand. Now, as their market share shows, that isn’t what most people are looking for in a tech product. However, those people who are looking for a lifestyle brand, are immediately drawn to Apple, since they are pretty much the only tech lifestyle brand out there. Although to be fair, Microsoft has lately started trying to grow the Xbox franchise into a lifestyle brand, which I think is going to get them their ass handed to them by Nintendo.

In reality, Apple spends less on R&D than just about any of the other big tech companies, they file fewer patents than any of the other big tech companies, and their development cycles are slower than any of the other big tech companies. Now I’m sure you will make some ‘quality over quantity’ argument, but seeing as how the majority of the IP for the product that makes up more than half of Apple’s revenue (the iPod) is actually owned PortalPlayer (now owned by nVidia) one could argue that Apple has neither. What you are doing, is actually exactly like some kid who thinks his basketball game gets better when he puts on his Air Jordans. You have bought into the lifestyle brand, so you subjectively decide that it must be better, and then look for reasons. Just like that kid who ‘thinks’ he plays better with the right brand of shoes, you ‘think’ that Apple computers are easier to use and more reliable, yet there is no measurable improvement of worker productivity between organizations that use Macs and organizations that use PCs to do the same tasks. You ‘think’ that they are better built and more reliable, yet their TOC is not lower than PCs. You ‘think’ a lot of things about the superiority of Apple products, yet none of them stand up to any objective scrutiny, because they are the subjective, emotional, responses of a customer responding to brand marketing. The only place where Apple’s marketing works, is in image-conscious professions, and in disposable entertainment items that aren’t mission critical.

I mean, aside from the “apple are great innovators” tagline, all they have done so far this century is dump their proprietary OS to go with BSD, dump their proprietary hardware to go with standard PC hardware, and put a pretty box, web store, and some marketing around someone else’s audio player design. Oh yeah, and now they are putting out a phone that looks pretty much like half the phones at 3GSM, but is only EDGE. Yet, people like you can’t figure out how anyone could fail to be impressed with the amazing innovation coming out of Cupertino? Believe me, I am a hardcore nerd. If Apple made a better product I would be using it. I spend quite a lot of time figuring out who makes the best tools, and I have owned PCs, Amigas, Macs, Suns, and SGIs. I’ve run every Microsoft OS since DOS, every Apple OS since the Apple II came out, NeXT Step, Solaris, IRIX, Unix, Linux, OS2, and AmigaOS. I don’t let a brand stand between me and the best tools I can find. However OS X, the iPod, and Apple in general since Jobs came back, are nothing but a hype machine.

As to all the political stuff, it is serious, but it also isn’t; it depends on how you choose to define “serious.”. How media and advertising effect our society is a pervasive issue that touches every one of us, and as such is a serious topic worthy of serious discussion. However, it isn’t going to cure cancer, or put an end to hunger. I don’t agree with you at all that none of it matters because it is all just a bunch of little doodads, because we spend more time with our TV in this country than we do with our families. Whether you chose to believe it or not, people, young and old, pick up a lot more moral and ethical lessons from what they see on TV than they really should. It has give rise to some very skewed priorities that really can have some serious concequences in the long term. No, that doesn’t mean that how they market the iPod, or any other product, is going to bring about peace in the Middle East, but it is still a bit more serious than “who cares, it is just a gadget.” The techniques used to sell those doodads are the same techniques used to sell you political candidates, policies, and even wars, so it isn’t just a fluff issue that doesn’t effect anything that matters. You can be quite sure that when an ad firm finds a technique that gets you to buy a gizmo you didn’t really need, then they will be more than happy to use that same technique to sell you a proposition you don’t need the next time a politician calls them up with a job. Every time you buy into a dishonest ad, you tell the people in charge of selling you everything from those doodads to you health care provider, that it is just fine with you if they lie, because you understand that they have a job to do. Believe me, there is no special book of ethics that they pull out when their client is dealing with a “serious” topic. It is all just selling soap to them.

On your specific touchy spot about eating disorders, on the other hand, I just don’t see how that is any more serious than a discussion about any other media issue. Take a step back for a second, and really look at the issue and think about the fact that we are talking about some of the richest people on Earth, in one of the fattest countries on Earth, choosing to starve themselves so they can better fit into designer dresses that cost more than most people in the world make in a year. If you really think that is a “serious” issue, then you have some odd priorities, because I think it reads like a sketch comedy routine! As I said, it is just another discussion about how people selling a product are more than happy to mess with your head to make a dollar if you let them.

Yes, I assume when you bring up the issue of fashion advertising and the impact on female self esteem, eating disorders, etc…that you are speaking of something rather serious. In fact, when you draw an analogy with any company’s advertising, then I do assume that you are elevating your criticism to a new level of severity. I think most people would take away that impression, but as you say, I don’t know you well enough and so that is just your style. The same goes with all of your other points regarding what most would consider to be pretty serious issues, like greed, overconsumption, debt, poor working conditions in 3rd World nations, etc.

As for advertising, marketing, and the media, again, you exaggerate my position. My position is not that these have no effect, but that they don’t have as much impact as you seem to believe. This is esp true with regards to your assertions regarding positive press coverage of Apple and your assumptions for how they shape public opinion. Obviously, the positive press has influence, but you make it seem as if Apple puts out lousy products and that only the positive press coupled with agressive media is responsible for their success. I disagree; I believe that Apple puts out innovative and fun products, and that the positive press more reflects this than creates this impression. Again, obviously, the positive press reinforces the impression, but is not the main driver, as you seem to believe. I believe the main driver is simply Apple putting out good products.

As for my use of “economic buzzwords,” those terms and examples were used, not to apply to Microsoft or Apple or their markets, but simply as very generalistic examples. The point was that markets are sufficiently complex and varied that the analysis of one does not equal the analysis of another. One cannot take an assumption that is valid in one market and necessarily extrapolate that to another, as you did. That was all. I never stated that those terms were meant to apply to Microsoft, Apple, or their respective markets. However, rereading what I originally wrote, perhaps I did not make that clear enough to you. In fact, funny enough, now that I think about it, some of those terms may have some application to this particular example. Microsoft, for instance, does enjoy a near monopoly position in the desktop space, and computers are a market that is somewhat commoditized. But that’s a whole other discussion, but thanks for pointing that out.

As for your assertion that Apple’s “corporate media is so blatantly and obviously manipulative”…I say, compared to what? Have you not seen any other company’s marketing campaigns? I mean, dude, I’ve seen Coke commercials that identify a soft drink with everything from world peace to random acts of kindness to general humanitarian love. I’ve seen Nike ads that seek to identify their products with the performance of some of the greatest athletes in the world, as if wearing a Nike shoe could do that for someone. I think we all could point out all sorts of corporate marketing that seek to create strong impressions in the public and in doing so, make some rather exaggerated claims. That’s what marketing does; I still don’t understand why you blame Apple so much for doing what so many other corporations do, namely, try to sell their products.

As for responding to your negative statements regarding Apple, I just like to tweak you and have some fun! That’s what makes forums like this worthwhile!

Yes, I assume when you bring up the issue of fashion advertising and the impact on female self esteem, eating disorders, etc…that you are speaking of something rather serious. In fact, when you draw an analogy with any company’s advertising, then I do assume that you are elevating your criticism to a new level of severity. I think most people would take away that impression, but as you say, I don’t know you well enough and so that is just your style. The same goes with all of your other points regarding what most would consider to be pretty serious issues, like greed, overconsumption, debt, poor working conditions in 3rd World nations, etc.

As for advertising, marketing, and the media, again, you exaggerate my position. My position is not that these have no effect, but that they don’t have as much impact as you seem to believe. This is esp true with regards to your assertions regarding positive press coverage of Apple and your assumptions for how they shape public opinion. Obviously, the positive press has influence, but you make it seem as if Apple puts out lousy products and that only the positive press coupled with agressive media is responsible for their success. I disagree; I believe that Apple puts out innovative and fun products, and that the positive press more reflects this than creates this impression. Again, obviously, the positive press reinforces the impression, but is not the main driver, as you seem to believe. I believe the main driver is simply Apple putting out good products.

As for my use of “economic buzzwords,” those terms and examples were used, not to apply to Microsoft or Apple or their markets, but simply as very generalistic examples. The point was that markets are sufficiently complex and varied that the analysis of one does not equal the analysis of another. One cannot take an assumption that is valid in one market and necessarily extrapolate that to another, as you did. That was all. I never stated that those terms were meant to apply to Microsoft, Apple, or their respective markets. However, rereading what I originally wrote, perhaps I did not make that clear enough to you. In fact, funny enough, now that I think about it, some of those terms may have some application to this particular example. Microsoft, for instance, does enjoy a near monopoly position in the desktop space, and computers are a market that is somewhat commoditized. But that’s a whole other discussion, but thanks for pointing that out.

As for your assertion that Apple’s “corporate media is so blatantly and obviously manipulative”…I say, compared to what? Have you not seen any other company’s marketing campaigns? I mean, dude, I’ve seen Coke commercials that identify a soft drink with everything from world peace to random acts of kindness to general humanitarian love. I’ve seen Nike ads that seek to identify their products with the performance of some of the greatest athletes in the world, as if wearing a Nike shoe could do that for someone. I think we all could point out all sorts of corporate marketing that seek to create strong impressions in the public and in doing so, make some rather exaggerated claims. That’s what marketing does; I still don’t understand why you blame Apple so much for doing what so many other corporations do, namely, try to sell their products.

As for responding to your negative statements regarding Apple, I just like to tweak you and have some fun! That’s what makes forums like this worthwhile!

Yes, I assume when you bring up the issue of fashion advertising and the impact on female self esteem, eating disorders, etc…that you are speaking of something rather serious. In fact, when you draw an analogy with any company’s advertising, then I do assume that you are elevating your criticism to a new level of severity. I think most people would take away that impression, but as you say, I don’t know you well enough and so that is just your style. The same goes with all of your other points regarding what most would consider to be pretty serious issues, like greed, overconsumption, debt, poor working conditions in 3rd World nations, etc.

As for advertising, marketing, and the media, again, you exaggerate my position. My position is not that these have no effect, but that they don’t have as much impact as you seem to believe. This is esp true with regards to your assertions regarding positive press coverage of Apple and your assumptions for how they shape public opinion. Obviously, the positive press has influence, but you make it seem as if Apple puts out lousy products and that only the positive press coupled with agressive media is responsible for their success. I disagree; I believe that Apple puts out innovative and fun products, and that the positive press more reflects this than creates this impression. Again, obviously, the positive press reinforces the impression, but is not the main driver, as you seem to believe. I believe the main driver is simply Apple putting out good products.

As for my use of “economic buzzwords,” those terms and examples were used, not to apply to Microsoft or Apple or their markets, but simply as very generalistic examples. The point was that markets are sufficiently complex and varied that the analysis of one does not equal the analysis of another. One cannot take an assumption that is valid in one market and necessarily extrapolate that to another, as you did. That was all. I never stated that those terms were meant to apply to Microsoft, Apple, or their respective markets. However, rereading what I originally wrote, perhaps I did not make that clear enough to you. In fact, funny enough, now that I think about it, some of those terms may have some application to this particular example. Microsoft, for instance, does enjoy a near monopoly position in the desktop space, and computers are a market that is somewhat commoditized. But that’s a whole other discussion, but thanks for pointing that out.

As for your assertion that Apple’s “corporate media is so blatantly and obviously manipulative”…I say, compared to what? Have you not seen any other company’s marketing campaigns? I mean, dude, I’ve seen Coke commercials that identify a soft drink with everything from world peace to random acts of kindness to general humanitarian love. I’ve seen Nike ads that seek to identify their products with the performance of some of the greatest athletes in the world, as if wearing a Nike shoe could do that for someone. I think we all could point out all sorts of corporate marketing that seek to create strong impressions in the public and in doing so, make some rather exaggerated claims. That’s what marketing does; I still don’t understand why you blame Apple so much for doing what so many other corporations do, namely, try to sell their products.

As for responding to your negative statements regarding Apple, I just like to tweak you and have some fun! That’s what makes forums like this worthwhile!

Sorry, but I class it right up there with people who blame rock lyrics for kids who go crazy, people who blame pornography and sexually explicit advertising for a decay of morals, and any number of other issues that relate to the effect media has on our society. They are all the same issue, even though I seem to have picked one that you, for whatever reason, think is as serious as Cambodian killing fields. The issue is that in a rush to make money, large companies irresponsibly play on our basest insecurities to manipulate us into believing something that is advantageous to their bottom line.

Now yes, you have made it very clear that you don’t think advertising has any effect, you don’t think the media has any effect, and you think every person on earth is a perfectly rational island unto themselves who is never convinced of anything by anyone else (unless you tell them they are fat, at which point you would have been kinder to just kill them apparently). But you know what, you are just plain wrong in that particular belief. Companies don’t spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on advertising and marketing because they want to just throw money away! In fact, there has been a great deal of scientific study on the effectiveness of advertising and marketing for more than 50 years now, and guess what? No matter what you choose to believe about the wisdom of the American public, you are just plain, and inarguably wrong. Advertising and marketing not only work, they work shockingly well. For that matter, there are entire, very profitable, companies that do absolutely nothing but psychological testing on subjects to tell your ad firm exactly how to make your advertisements more effective on an emotional and psychological level, to circumvent any sort of rational evaluation of the content.

You can go on believing all you want that the proud American consumer is far too smart to be fooled into buying anything they don’t want, but you are living in a fantasy world, while the people who are busy fooling everyone are living in really nice condos on the Upper East Side of New York, or really nice beach houses in Malibu. I mean, you have a lot to say about how beautifully efficient our corporate system is. Do you really think that big companies would pay rather large chunks of money to people like me if we couldn’t do what we say we can? I certainly have been paid in the past specifically to figure out how to get people to want a crap product that no one had any use for, and I have a lot of friends who make a lot more than I ever have doing the same thing. Is that just a blind spot in these amazingly efficient markets? I mean, advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry, as is marketing and PR, yet you claim it is all for naught, because people are just too smart to fall for it. So, does that make all the companies too stupid to realize their expensive advertising isn’t working?

As far as that goes, I would be interested to know, while you ironically proclaim that people are not the least bit swayed by marketing and advertising, exactly how many Photoshop competitors you actually have used? You say that it is perfectly understandable that people praise Adobe (taking the focus off of Apple for a moment) because their products are just that good, so I would really like to know how informed that decision is? I would really like to hear in what ways you think Photoshop is superior to Deep Paint, or Amazon Paint, or even Painter? Or if Photoshop isn’t your thing, how about Illustrator? Where, exactly, do you think Illustrator excels so much beyond Freehand, or Quark, or Corel Draw, or Xara, or even the old AT&T Rio? No, maybe compositing? Why do you think After Effects is better than Combustion, or Digital Fusion, or Nuke? I ask this, because while you maintain that people always make such informed and wise decisions, I suspect that you say that Adobe programs are so good, because that is what you heard, and are probably the only solutions you have any experience with, just like most of the people who sing the praises of Adobe products. Your comments are actually a little funny to me, because they are completely circular. You are basically saying that it is proof that people only like the best products, as evidenced by the fact that the products people like are the ones they say are the best.

Oh, and if you want to try and throw around a bunch of economic buzzwords to rationalize your way around logic, then you should at least have the intellectual honesty to use the words properly. If you understand all that talk about “the dynamics of a commodity,” “price elasticity,” and a “monopolistic market,” then you also understand perfectly well that a monopoly is “a commodity controlled by one party with no competition” which does not describe either Apple or Microsoft in any market, because they both have competitors. If you understand what you said, then you know full well that you are taking advantage of the fact that Microsoft was found guilty of specific anti-competitive practices, in order to pretend that there is some special circumstance by which Microsoft is the one company on Earth that exists outside your thesis that market success is proof of product superiority. Yes, Microsoft is a market leader in the desktop and office application market, which lets them exert a certain amount of power no other company can, but the same is true of Apple in the audio player and digital music distribution markets. Yes, Microsoft was investigated for anticompetitive practices, and found guilty of violations of anti-trust law, but then as we speak, there is a federal court case against Apple for anti-competitive practices, and well as an investigation into allegations for anti-competitive practices in Japan, and the EU, and South Korea, and I believe Singapore as well. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. And no, that isn’t because I say so, that is how logic works. If you state a thesis, then all your conclusions have to be supported by that thesis, or it is invalid. That isn’t my rule, it is just how it works.

Oh, and by the way, if you think the fact that I tie something trivial, like Apple’s press coverage, into weighty issues like those above denote something more than annoyance, then you really don’t know me very well. I can, and often do, give fairly serious dissertations about the state of society from hearing the lyrics of some song I ran across once at the gym. It is just how I am. I went on a tirade for a couple days once because of 15 minutes of some cartoon I saw once about some teenage superhero girls who lived in a shopping mall! I don’t even remember the name of the show anymore, but it said a lot about what motivates the youth of today. It doesn’t mean I thought the show itself was even worth remembering, but it still touched on a lot of really important issues of the day, quite unintentionally I’m sure. That is exactly what I find so fascinating about all art, including mass and corporate media; it tells you far more about the person and culture that created it, than it ever does about the actual subject of the art. I’m also sure this will be followed by some lame “you have too much time” or “get a hobby” comment, as conversations like this almost always do, but thinking is my hobby, and my career. It is really quite a bit more fun than sitting around trying to figure out which cool new stylish doodad I want to spend my money on.

What I find so specifically vexing about Apple, is that their corporate media is so blatantly and obviously manipulative, that anyone can see it, except their target audience. Just look around the web for any amount of time, and you can’t help but notice that even though we all see the same ads, try out the same products, and read the same reviews, anyone who hasn’t bought into the Apple lifestyle brand consistently describes the company as arrogant, pretentious, and completely based on style over any sort of substance, yet anyone who has bought into the brand talks about them with an almost religious fervor, and thinks that anyone who can’t see their innate superiority must be borderline retarded. It is almost a case study in wedge politics in a corporate setting. It is like if Karl Rove ran an ad firm! I mean, look at you. You seem like a smart enough fellow, and you don’t seem completely insane, yet no matter how many times you say that we will have to agree to disagree, you still have to jump to Apple’s defense every single time I say anything negative about them.

Sorry, but I class it right up there with people who blame rock lyrics for kids who go crazy, people who blame pornography and sexually explicit advertising for a decay of morals, and any number of other issues that relate to the effect media has on our society. They are all the same issue, even though I seem to have picked one that you, for whatever reason, think is as serious as Cambodian killing fields. The issue is that in a rush to make money, large companies irresponsibly play on our basest insecurities to manipulate us into believing something that is advantageous to their bottom line.

Now yes, you have made it very clear that you don’t think advertising has any effect, you don’t think the media has any effect, and you think every person on earth is a perfectly rational island unto themselves who is never convinced of anything by anyone else (unless you tell them they are fat, at which point you would have been kinder to just kill them apparently). But you know what, you are just plain wrong in that particular belief. Companies don’t spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on advertising and marketing because they want to just throw money away! In fact, there has been a great deal of scientific study on the effectiveness of advertising and marketing for more than 50 years now, and guess what? No matter what you choose to believe about the wisdom of the American public, you are just plain, and inarguably wrong. Advertising and marketing not only work, they work shockingly well. For that matter, there are entire, very profitable, companies that do absolutely nothing but psychological testing on subjects to tell your ad firm exactly how to make your advertisements more effective on an emotional and psychological level, to circumvent any sort of rational evaluation of the content.

You can go on believing all you want that the proud American consumer is far too smart to be fooled into buying anything they don’t want, but you are living in a fantasy world, while the people who are busy fooling everyone are living in really nice condos on the Upper East Side of New York, or really nice beach houses in Malibu. I mean, you have a lot to say about how beautifully efficient our corporate system is. Do you really think that big companies would pay rather large chunks of money to people like me if we couldn’t do what we say we can? I certainly have been paid in the past specifically to figure out how to get people to want a crap product that no one had any use for, and I have a lot of friends who make a lot more than I ever have doing the same thing. Is that just a blind spot in these amazingly efficient markets? I mean, advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry, as is marketing and PR, yet you claim it is all for naught, because people are just too smart to fall for it. So, does that make all the companies too stupid to realize their expensive advertising isn’t working?

As far as that goes, I would be interested to know, while you ironically proclaim that people are not the least bit swayed by marketing and advertising, exactly how many Photoshop competitors you actually have used? You say that it is perfectly understandable that people praise Adobe (taking the focus off of Apple for a moment) because their products are just that good, so I would really like to know how informed that decision is? I would really like to hear in what ways you think Photoshop is superior to Deep Paint, or Amazon Paint, or even Painter? Or if Photoshop isn’t your thing, how about Illustrator? Where, exactly, do you think Illustrator excels so much beyond Freehand, or Quark, or Corel Draw, or Xara, or even the old AT&T Rio? No, maybe compositing? Why do you think After Effects is better than Combustion, or Digital Fusion, or Nuke? I ask this, because while you maintain that people always make such informed and wise decisions, I suspect that you say that Adobe programs are so good, because that is what you heard, and are probably the only solutions you have any experience with, just like most of the people who sing the praises of Adobe products. Your comments are actually a little funny to me, because they are completely circular. You are basically saying that it is proof that people only like the best products, as evidenced by the fact that the products people like are the ones they say are the best.

Oh, and if you want to try and throw around a bunch of economic buzzwords to rationalize your way around logic, then you should at least have the intellectual honesty to use the words properly. If you understand all that talk about “the dynamics of a commodity,” “price elasticity,” and a “monopolistic market,” then you also understand perfectly well that a monopoly is “a commodity controlled by one party with no competition” which does not describe either Apple or Microsoft in any market, because they both have competitors. If you understand what you said, then you know full well that you are taking advantage of the fact that Microsoft was found guilty of specific anti-competitive practices, in order to pretend that there is some special circumstance by which Microsoft is the one company on Earth that exists outside your thesis that market success is proof of product superiority. Yes, Microsoft is a market leader in the desktop and office application market, which lets them exert a certain amount of power no other company can, but the same is true of Apple in the audio player and digital music distribution markets. Yes, Microsoft was investigated for anticompetitive practices, and found guilty of violations of anti-trust law, but then as we speak, there is a federal court case against Apple for anti-competitive practices, and well as an investigation into allegations for anti-competitive practices in Japan, and the EU, and South Korea, and I believe Singapore as well. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. And no, that isn’t because I say so, that is how logic works. If you state a thesis, then all your conclusions have to be supported by that thesis, or it is invalid. That isn’t my rule, it is just how it works.

Oh, and by the way, if you think the fact that I tie something trivial, like Apple’s press coverage, into weighty issues like those above denote something more than annoyance, then you really don’t know me very well. I can, and often do, give fairly serious dissertations about the state of society from hearing the lyrics of some song I ran across once at the gym. It is just how I am. I went on a tirade for a couple days once because of 15 minutes of some cartoon I saw once about some teenage superhero girls who lived in a shopping mall! I don’t even remember the name of the show anymore, but it said a lot about what motivates the youth of today. It doesn’t mean I thought the show itself was even worth remembering, but it still touched on a lot of really important issues of the day, quite unintentionally I’m sure. That is exactly what I find so fascinating about all art, including mass and corporate media; it tells you far more about the person and culture that created it, than it ever does about the actual subject of the art. I’m also sure this will be followed by some lame “you have too much time” or “get a hobby” comment, as conversations like this almost always do, but thinking is my hobby, and my career. It is really quite a bit more fun than sitting around trying to figure out which cool new stylish doodad I want to spend my money on.

What I find so specifically vexing about Apple, is that their corporate media is so blatantly and obviously manipulative, that anyone can see it, except their target audience. Just look around the web for any amount of time, and you can’t help but notice that even though we all see the same ads, try out the same products, and read the same reviews, anyone who hasn’t bought into the Apple lifestyle brand consistently describes the company as arrogant, pretentious, and completely based on style over any sort of substance, yet anyone who has bought into the brand talks about them with an almost religious fervor, and thinks that anyone who can’t see their innate superiority must be borderline retarded. It is almost a case study in wedge politics in a corporate setting. It is like if Karl Rove ran an ad firm! I mean, look at you. You seem like a smart enough fellow, and you don’t seem completely insane, yet no matter how many times you say that we will have to agree to disagree, you still have to jump to Apple’s defense every single time I say anything negative about them.

Then you repeatedly launched into rants against consumerism, consumption, the propaganda of the “big lie”, media bias, debt overload, and such. That, again, is rather overreaching and indicates a degree of seriousness beyond a mere “annoyance,” at least in the sense that most people use the word “annoyance.”

As to the media, again, I think you way overestimate how Apple is somehow able to manipulate these people. And sure, if folks in the media praise Apple and Adobe, maybe it’s because they deliver really great products that serve their purposes. In that case, their admiration for the brand is entirely understandable.

As to your point about movies and songs, I will only state that it appears to me that the media hasn’t been so successful at turning a losing product into a winner. Bad movies and bad songs, even when hyped, tend to still fail.
And sure, there are plenty of movies and songs and the like that make it big, when I don’t particularly like that product, but that doesn’t mean the public has been fooled by the media, only that perhaps, shockingly enough, other people’s tastes are different from mine. I mean, who am I to judge when an artistic product I don’t like becomes a big hit? There are all types of tastes out there.

As to Paris Hilton, she is a big celebrity, not because of the media, but because, let’s face it, many people like to follow such a sensational figure and their exploits. Many people have a taste for a kind of lowbrow type of gossip. In this instance, the media coverage only mirrors what many in the public want, and does not determine it. Again, the media in essence simply puts out a product; if people consume it, it’s because it corresponds to what people want and like. The media just cannot exercise such wholesale control over people and their tastes. If they could, they would make far more money than they do.

You often sound like a politician who blames the media for their poor press coverage and public image, when in reality it is their poor performance that is the real problem.

As to the whole market share issue: I can indeed have it both ways. Why not? Because you say so? Life is a little more complex than having every situation be equal to another; one has to consider the context.
If I am making an analysis of a market, what holds true in one instance may not hold true in another instance. The dynamics of a commodity market, for instance, are not the same as the dynamics of a market for luxury goods. Price elasticity, for another instance, is not the same in a monopolistic market as in a competitive one.

So, yes, I can assert that in the music player industry, the best product, the iPod, does in fact dominate. But in the PC market, the market leader is not the best product. That’s not a difficult concept to fathom. I can analyze any number of markets, and come to very different conclusions regarding each one. A totally linear way of thinking does not always work.

The bottom line, though, is that you really don’t like Apple, and I do. I find them to be a company that puts out fun products, you find in them a host of objections relating to the problems you find in society at large. As always when it comes to Apple, we’ll just have to agree to disagree!

Then you repeatedly launched into rants against consumerism, consumption, the propaganda of the “big lie”, media bias, debt overload, and such. That, again, is rather overreaching and indicates a degree of seriousness beyond a mere “annoyance,” at least in the sense that most people use the word “annoyance.”

As to the media, again, I think you way overestimate how Apple is somehow able to manipulate these people. And sure, if folks in the media praise Apple and Adobe, maybe it’s because they deliver really great products that serve their purposes. In that case, their admiration for the brand is entirely understandable.

As to your point about movies and songs, I will only state that it appears to me that the media hasn’t been so successful at turning a losing product into a winner. Bad movies and bad songs, even when hyped, tend to still fail.
And sure, there are plenty of movies and songs and the like that make it big, when I don’t particularly like that product, but that doesn’t mean the public has been fooled by the media, only that perhaps, shockingly enough, other people’s tastes are different from mine. I mean, who am I to judge when an artistic product I don’t like becomes a big hit? There are all types of tastes out there.

As to Paris Hilton, she is a big celebrity, not because of the media, but because, let’s face it, many people like to follow such a sensational figure and their exploits. Many people have a taste for a kind of lowbrow type of gossip. In this instance, the media coverage only mirrors what many in the public want, and does not determine it. Again, the media in essence simply puts out a product; if people consume it, it’s because it corresponds to what people want and like. The media just cannot exercise such wholesale control over people and their tastes. If they could, they would make far more money than they do.

You often sound like a politician who blames the media for their poor press coverage and public image, when in reality it is their poor performance that is the real problem.

As to the whole market share issue: I can indeed have it both ways. Why not? Because you say so? Life is a little more complex than having every situation be equal to another; one has to consider the context.
If I am making an analysis of a market, what holds true in one instance may not hold true in another instance. The dynamics of a commodity market, for instance, are not the same as the dynamics of a market for luxury goods. Price elasticity, for another instance, is not the same in a monopolistic market as in a competitive one.

So, yes, I can assert that in the music player industry, the best product, the iPod, does in fact dominate. But in the PC market, the market leader is not the best product. That’s not a difficult concept to fathom. I can analyze any number of markets, and come to very different conclusions regarding each one. A totally linear way of thinking does not always work.

The bottom line, though, is that you really don’t like Apple, and I do. I find them to be a company that puts out fun products, you find in them a host of objections relating to the problems you find in society at large. As always when it comes to Apple, we’ll just have to agree to disagree!