marijuana | Law | Economy | Investing | Marketing | Entrepreneurship | Economic Policy | Globalization | Emerging Markets

iPad: The Future & Dynamics of Tablet Enabled Advertising

More videos from this partner:

7
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
Advertisement
There are 35 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
mr_svperstar Avatar
mr_svperstar
Posted: 07.09.10, 05:18 AM
Um you've gone off on a lot of tangents there. I'm not really sure how the space program entered the conversation. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia It has no feature creep but has all the necessary features well ahead of the market, or where features are at most equal or slightly inferior, it makes sure that the trade-off for the customer does not hurt the bottom line. You are talking about profits, I'm talking about technology. Apple has never been ahead of the market with anything they have sold. Is the iPhone4 the best option currently available, or even anywhere near it? No, technically inferior, lacking features, more expensive, and more bugs/flaws, but it's the most popular. Reason? Misinformation and consumer ignorance. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia A lot of people are willing to shell out a lot of money for these devices... which tells you that people want what Apple delivers. Or it tells you they have fallen for basic tricks in marketing that intelligent people should have figured out before high school. Shiny things, catchy tunes, conformity, etc. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia if you believe in the power of competition The competition should be between the products themselves, not marketing gimmicks. A better solution would be to educate people to see through the gimmicks but that seems a long shot, given your world view supports marketing and profits ahead of education. Mine doesn't, I would like to see change rather than just accepting it as read. I'm all for competition, it drives progress. Apples marketing however allows the company to be late to market with an inferior product and still thrive. That's the opposite of progress. Or are you suggesting the other companies that actually do drive the advancements would stop advancing if they were only competing against themselves, or if people were making informed decisions rather than impulsive/emotional ones? If anything, it would drive progress. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia I agree... but you can't fault them for doing their job, can you? That's what these people are being paid to do... I think I can. You need to question authority. Think for yourself. People slave away their whole lives only to die poor while these marketing types become millionaires from lying to and manipulating the ignorant. Just because it is the system doesn't mean it's right. You seem to be adopting an "if it ain't broke, dont fix it" philosophy. I'm suggesting the facts support the argument that it is broke, and therefore from that point of view your opinion seems to be more like "if it is broke, put your hands over your ears and scream lalalala". Also, people are paid to commit murder, do you support that? I mean they are just doing what they are paid to do. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia As far as cars is concerned, I believe your analysis is deeply flawed. It wasn't an analysis, it was applying marketing speak to illustrate how backwards the concept is. Thanks for disagreeing as it proves my point. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia "The purpose comes first in non-marketing world." I think you are mistaken on this one, too. Well, actually I'm not, and what you go on to say isn't even related to the topic. How does an example of bad marketing or business strategies prove anything? Especially when you are arguing on the side of marketing. I'm asking, what came first, the desire for mobility or the car? The desire to see images beyond your view or the TV? The purpose is first, and then the product fulfills that desire. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia If the Amish had their way That's just silly, I'm arguing for honesty, success to the deserving and an informed public. Do you think they are bad concepts? Much of what you say continues to be on the point of "it is because it is, so just put up with it". I'd like to see improvement. Removing ignorance doesn't prevent progress. If people made informed decisions the economy wouldnt grind to a halt, what it would do is eliminate ficticious jobs which funnel money to what are essentially professional liars, and the prevent the degradation of moral/values inherent in a world in which success is based on dishonesty. You are clearly on this path, you aren't thinking of what is right or good, just how best to manipulate the system. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia I can't, for the life of me, imagine that you will try to cross the border into North Korea asking for political asylum. Can you? And if you can't, why invoke such ridiculous comparisons? How does comparing the use of misinformation to the public in any way relate to seeking political asylum in North Koera? My comparison is valid, albeit on a different scale, yours is plainly wrong. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia But free competition is exactly what is happening here... Clearly our opinions on the meaning of the word "free" differ. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia The difference between you and me is merely that you want to push your choices on others No, Apple are enforcing their views on others, and succeeding. I'm supporting people being given the facts and thinking for themselves. Something that is impossible for the average consumer in a media driven world based on spin and propaganda. I try to express a point or relay some facts and I get constantly criticised by people like you who aren't willing to accept the truth. In this case, Apple aren't technology leaders, you just claim the opposite is true, and turn the conversation to marketing skills and pat them on the back for their success, but it is a cold hard fact they sell inferior and over priced products. If Apple ran McDonalds you would pay extra not to supersize your value meal, and you would think that's a good deal. Another topic I'm always arguing is the pointlessness of hybrid cars, everyone tries to shout me down as an ignorant fool when I've dissected Toyotas own documentation on the Prius and there simply is no benefit. A technology has gained public support based on misinformation, that public support is transfered to government support, and then the publics tax money goes to promote a product under the guise of environmentalism, when in actual fact the vehicles have little to no use, and in many cases are the worse option. I'm willing to elaborate on this to anyone willing to listen, but all I ever get is morons saying "you don't understand, hybrids are better", just because they have fallen for the hype and think that is what they should be saying in the public interest. No listening, no thinking, no acknowledgement or understanding of the facts, just following the marketing like sheep. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia you are looking like the dictator-wannabe and Apple looks like the free-spirit. You have it backwards. Apple is the North Korean government. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia Your choice of "evil empires" is pretty poor... Umm... that was your term, I used organisation. The degree of evilness is not determinate on the scale of the operation, or it's time or place in history. Evil is evil regardless of the scale, and past atrocities are no better than future ones. Unless you have come up with some way to justify child molestation or suicide bombers, and I'd like to see you try, I think you would be better off avoiding that topic. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia I never see myself as a supporter of any particular company I buy products from. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you are, whether or not you like to view it as such. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia And man, can you see a lot of happy people at an Apple store... it's outright obscene! Ignorance is bliss? Not the best argument I've seen put forward, but if you are intellectually satisfied with it I guess you are entitled to be. A drunk man is happier than a sober man. Perhaps society should aim for 100% intoxication?
Invictus_88 Avatar
Invictus_88
Posted: 07.09.10, 05:02 AM
I could not possibly care less about this entire thing.
Periergeia Avatar
Periergeia
Posted: 07.08.10, 06:02 PM
mr_svperstar I was merely expressing that the quality of engineering choices is, from a professional perspective, dominated by defining FIRST what a design is NOT supposed to do. Every time you hear an engineer/sales person/CEO praise the things their thingy will be able to do some time in the future, you know (this is by personal experience as well as be collective knowledge of the craft) that a loser is talking about an already doomed to fail project. The smart engineer/design department/business unit writes a project description to make sure that NOBODY goes on tangents or adds features beyond the scope that is humanely possible and economically sensible. That is exactly what Apple does. They didn't say for the first iPhone, ohh... it needs a front and a rear facing camera, and it has to have complete 6d motion sensing and it needs a multitasking OS... and it definitely needs gills to breathe under water! Nope, they simply limited the scope of the project to what they thought the company could achieve well before everybody else could do it! That's what they did with the first generation, the second generation, the third generation and that's what they are doing with the iPad. As a professional designer I call that "good design". It has no feature creep but has all the necessary features well ahead of the market, or where features are at most equal or slightly inferior, it makes sure that the trade-off for the customer does not hurt the bottom line. I understand that all of these things define the core of the "evil empire" to a lot of people, but they are, by any historical standard, the hallmarks of great engineering. If you want, you can look at the Apollo program, without doubt one of the finest feats of engineering ever achieved and you will find all of them right there. The success of NASA at that time was earned... just as the heartbreak of the shuttle program was pre-programmed by the "it can do it all... and cheap!" attitude of the design concept. The shuttle didn't do it all and it didn't do it on the cheap, as we all knew. So that's where I am coming from. Apple's success supports my metric... like it or not. I, for one, do not like Apple at this point in time much... nor did I like them much in the past when I had to debug networks that were broken by their early TCP/IP implementations, which had only one goal: to connect the Mac user to the internet and the printer... everyone else on the network be damned... which Macs loved to do for a while. "I'm not saying it's not a plus for Apples bottom line, but it is a minus for their customers," Is it? I don't think so. A lot of people are willing to shell out a lot of money for these devices... which tells you that people want what Apple delivers. True, people want way more than Apple delivers... but that only means that among poor choices Apple has given the best choice for many, many people. Which, if you believe in the power of competition (which I do, especially because I have to live in markets where there is often so little competition that there is basically no innovation, whatsoever!) you will see that Android devices, heck, smart phones in general, would probably not have appeared on the marker for a good long time because, you see, why spend the money on the R&D if the competition does not eat your lunch? "This is the problem with this entire presentation, it's about marketing, advertising and trying to profit from a product. " I agree... but you can't fault them for doing their job, can you? That's what these people are being paid to do... don't listen if you are not aware of the mechanism you are watching. "The product has no known use..." No? I think the success of the product has proven that it has a lot of uses... and one of the most important ones is to satisfy vanity. Pretty much all products made by Daimler, BMW, Lexus, watch manufacturers, DeBeers, Tiffany & Co etc. have absolutely no other purpose than that... if you scratch the surface deep enough. Apple is a brand like many others... and in my opinion they do return a decent performance for the money you pay them. Well, at least in comparison with many other brands that appeal to even lower sides of the human animal. As far as cars is concerned, I believe your analysis is deeply flawed. Cars were not invented to sell oil... at the time they were invented, oil was hardly anything anyone had heard of as a transportation fuel. Coal was the fuel of the day and many early car designs tried to do without gasoline... unsuccessfully for the simple reason that thermodynamics is a bitch... and oil is pretty much the optimum chemical fuel for a land vehicle... or a sea vehicle... or an aeronautical vehicle... that's not the fault of the first people who designed cars. It's merely a random scientific fact that has to do with fossilization of algae in the past 100 million years... change the geology of Earth just a little and there would have been no oil. Without oil, there would have been no cars... at least not the way we know them. There was, for sure no conspiracy, merely a "lucky" coincidence. "The purpose comes first in non-marketing world." I think you are mistaken on this one, too. If you want to see what products designed by marketing look like... look at Microsoft. There poorly performing marketing people have full control over the engineers... the results are ridiculously lousy. Why? Because their marketing people do not listen to what the customer wants but they define a product and then try to develop an advertising strategy to force the user into using the product. Doesn't work outside or markets with strong lock-in, which, at this time, is at most true for the desktop OS and enterprise desktop software market. I think Apple has their ear very, very close to the heart of their customers... who want style and easily accessible functionality... Now, you are, of course, not one of the people who want that. I get it... neither am I. So the two of us have to feel left out of Apple's plans. That does not mean there isn't a large group of people who feel like they were handed a godsend... the answer to their prayers. Indeed, they have been. And that is the people Apple caters to. And boy, do they cater well! "If I had my way, advertising, marketing, spin and promotions would all be banned." If the Amish had their way, everybody would be driving around in a horse and buggy and erect wooden barns on the weekend. Of course, everybody would also be starving to death because one can not supply the world's population with food the Amish way... these enclaves of ideas work on the small scale, for minorities of people. They do not work on the relevant scale. I would, at this point, say that your personal preferences are not a good argument and they do not address the reality of product development and real life innovation. In order to innovate you need money. In order to make money, you have to sell product. In order to sell product, you have to ask what people want or need the most. "You might think that is against capitalism" No, I don't think that. I think it's against professional experience. It's against pretty much anything we have learned over the past centuries about how to be successful and achieve better lives for people. Capitalism is not the point here... design for success is. "...but it seems to me that the media is the thing acting like the propaganda machines of a communist dictatorship..." I take it you have no first hand experience with propaganda in communist dictatorships... I have. And trust me, I trade an Apple ad against a communist parade any day... and so would you... I can't, for the life of me, imagine that you will try to cross the border into North Korea asking for political asylum. Can you? And if you can't, why invoke such ridiculous comparisons? "If it is really a free market, let the products compete based on their merits, not how well a company can trick the ignorant." But free competition is exactly what is happening here... Apple has simply won, so far. And it has only won in its particular market segment. It hasn't won anywhere else. I am not an Apple user... neither are you, I take. So what's the problem? Both you and I can decide not to buy Apple products and that's fine. The difference between you and me is merely that you want to push your choices on others and you are frustrated that they are not listening to you and I am not. This urge to make the world equal by force, by the way, is the hallmark of communist and other types of dictatorships. That's when one person thinks that their ideas have to apply to everyone else... so, in a rather funny way, you are looking like the dictator-wannabe and Apple looks like the free-spirit. :-) "IMO, I'd have to say when it comes to evil organisations there's the cathollic church, then al-qaeda, and slightly ahead at the top of the list is Apple." Oh, goodness, aren't you funny? The catholic church (I am a pro-forma member, by the way), is the least of your problems. Its teeth have been pulled three centuries ago. I would suggest to look up "German Mediatisation" and "Secularization". That's when politics took the power away from the church. It happened for a reason... people had gotten tired of fighting the wars of the Church and they needed the money of the Church. The result left the Catholic Church a mere shadow of itself. It has not and will not recover from this historical act. As for Al-Qaeda... they are about as important as the Anarchists, which means that, in the end, they will be merely a side-note in history. So will Apple, be, by the way. Your choice of "evil empires" is pretty poor... it completely neglects the real forces that are governing the 20th and 21st centuries. "Taking advantage of the ones that support you is the definition of pure evil. " Hmmm... I never see myself as a supporter of any particular company I buy products from. I simply buy the products that suit my needs the best. I would argue that's true for most people, even the dumb ones that will fall for any gimmick. What you really seem to despise is that some people buy for self-expression, aka vanity. But that, again, is nothing but an argument based on a Puritan mindset. I will close with my usual quote for this kind of situation: Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. --H. L. Mencken And man, can you see a lot of happy people at an Apple store... it's outright obscene!
mr_svperstar Avatar
mr_svperstar
Posted: 07.08.10, 02:27 AM
Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia The limitations are by design choice... not by technical necessity. That was exactly my point. Are you quoting me out of context or did you not read my post? Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia It's also the sign of good business development, because they can sell less (material, memory, functionality) for almost twice the price. That's a plus for BD... not a minus. I'm not saying it's not a plus for Apples bottom line, but it is a minus for their customers, and as such reflects poorly on humanity as on the whole we are dumb enough to pay more for an inferior product. This is the problem with this entire presentation, it's about marketing, advertising and trying to profit from a product. The product has no known use and they have brought it to market simply to make money, and are only later trying to figure out what to do with it. It would be like they invented the car, sold millions of them, and while the customer sat in it outside their home thinking "how kool is this", they held meetings to figure out what they were going to do with it. "Hmmm, maybe it could transport people/goods? Good idea, now that thing under the bonnet can be used and we can sell them petrol so they have to keep paying us. Muwahaha!!" The purpose comes first in non-marketing world. If I had my way, advertising, marketing, spin and promotions would all be banned. You might think that is against capitalism, but it seems to me that the media is the thing acting like the propaganda machines of a communist dictatorship. If it is really a free market, let the products compete based on their merits, not how well a company can trick the ignorant. Quote: Originally Posted by Periergeia Is Apple an evil empire? IMO, I'd have to say when it comes to evil organisations there's the cathollic church, then al-qaeda, and slightly ahead at the top of the list is Apple. Apple succeed based on a good name, that they don't even deserve, and abuse it for their own profit at the expense of their loyal customers. Taking advantage of the ones that support you is the definition of pure evil. They are biting the hand that feeds them, and I'm waiting for the day the world wakes up and Apple Crumbles like the dessert of the same name.
12Kevin Avatar
12Kevin
Posted: 07.07.10, 08:28 PM
Passive and (not vs.) active humans divide users into useful categories. Actives will continue to want machines that cooperate more immediately to support our creativity--especially with available input/output devices. Multi-creative devices, e.g., notebooks that can record, edit, and burn transportable media will appeal to the actives and creatives. These same active users may keep an i-device handy for it's portable, quick devices. For example my iPhone has really handy musical theory devices, diet programs, etc., which I use and enjoy. Here's the prosaic key: Ergonomics. My iPhone gives me instant email access, at all times, in my pocket--a boon. But, answering those emails is awkward and tedious. Give me better input device options!
Periergeia Avatar
Periergeia
Posted: 07.07.10, 06:01 PM
"Although, I don't accept the claim that the iPad is technically superior. It's the same size, same resolution, but it has no keyboard, no i/o ports, slower processor, limited software." The limitations are by design choice... not by technical necessity. The screen, even for the same resolution, is a much better quality device than you can find in most netbooks, which are built on the margin. The utilization of the available processing power in an iPad is much, much better. And iPad response feels liquid to the user whereas most netbooks have a more than just slightly "stirring molasses" king of feeling to them. Netbooks, while delivering a poor user experience, consume way more power and thus have to be much heavier. Again... Apple made some choices of what NOT to do with the device so they could do some other things way better... that's the sign of good engineering! It's also the sign of good business development, because they can sell less (material, memory, functionality) for almost twice the price. That's a plus for BD... not a minus. I understand why you think most of the world for fools. So does Apple... that's why they are in the business of making fool-proof devices which are then gobbled up by said fools. That's how you make money. Is Apple an evil empire? They are well on their way. But then, if you can be evil and get so many to love you, nevertheless, that's a pretty good showing...
bbethany7 Avatar
bbethany7
Posted: 07.07.10, 10:18 AM
Get used to it.
koshinbob Avatar
koshinbob
Posted: 07.07.10, 06:01 AM
agree thanks
jchirinosmd Avatar
jchirinosmd
Posted: 07.07.10, 05:53 AM
An iPad is costing 600-800 US dollars. You can get a good netbook for the half of the price. And the applications of the netbooks are more complete. We can get a tablet netbook saving a lot of money. Apple has always a good advertising strategy for good products but now we are just paying more for the advertising, not for the product itself.
koshinbob Avatar
koshinbob
Posted: 07.07.10, 05:27 AM
I do not agree. The netbook is a complete computer as far as I am concerned and the ipad isnot fully developed. There is room for both, the ipad is a toy to me.
Advertisement

Advertisement