Slashdot Mirror
The Media's Crush on Apple
conq writes "BusinessWeek reports: "It's the first time in my memory that a product announcement by Steve Jobs has caused the AP to send an alert -- especially since this development was fully expected. And it says a lot about the intensity of media attention Apple generates. When is the last time a NewsAlert went out based on the words of Michael Dell or Bill Gates? Clearly, the AP's editors determined this news was important enough to warrant such action."
When is the last time a NewsAlert went out based on the words [...] Bill Gates?
Last week after the CES keynote, during which he didn't launch any new products at all, and instead talked about the same thing he's talked about for the last three years but still hasn't shipped, and a product that came out last year.
In contrast, Apple actually announced new product that was a signifigant shift from their previous strategy, and has a business impact beyond the doors of Apple itself.
Which company gets an unusual amount of coverage?
When is the last time a NewsAlert went out based on the words of Michael Dell or Bill Gates?
When was the last time either of those guys released an interesting, innovative product?
Can't the slashdot editors answer this one? Why do you have half of the front page filled with apple stories?
no comment
Love him or hate him, Steve Jobs has cultivated a media persona that is the envy of many CEOs. He is the master of manipulating the media for his companies benefit. He is effectively the head saleman at Apple. He sets the tone for all the marketing that is done. Neither Gates nor Dell has the charisma to pull that off.
The Apple brand, while always considered hip and cool, has exploded in over all popularity due to the iPod. That is why this years Macworld has dominated the headlines. Jobs has been very careful to maintain that hip and cool vibe with respect to Apple. It has served them well in the past, and is paying off nicely now.
Apple's fascination by the media has to do with 3 things:
1. Dominance in entertainment (graphic artists, movie makers, etc). So when most journalists who interact with their geeky movie making counterparts, odds are they're going to see a Mac, no matter what they may be using. So Apple news has a direct impact on these people.
2. Steve Jobs has charisma. You look at the interviews with Bill Gates, or Ellison, or McNealy, and I'm sorry, but these guys are just not photogenic. They hardly sound interesting, and they talk about boring stuff. (More on that in a moment.) But at least Jobs - and the drama of his life, the "rags to riches" story, is at least interesting. Even with his mistakes, at least he makes them *big* and bold.
3. Most technology news is boring. Routers? Boring. Enterprise management? To the usual person, boring. New computer that lets you make movies? Well, that's kind of interesting! Music? That's something people are interested in, not "We can get 10,000 people to use a server to access a database!". My wife gets music - she could care less about using LDAP calls to Active Directory.
The rest of it - the fascination the tech industry has with Apple - is because usually their the first ones to do things in an interesting way. Not all of the ideas are really unique - like the iPod, or cameras on a computer. But they put it on with a style that few companies save Sony perhaps can match, so it feels like it's innovative - and sometimes, the way that Apple does it, it is.
As the article mentions, will this translate into bigger sales? MS dominated thanks to their IBM deal and focusing on business, while Jobs focused on the home. Gates won that part of the war. But now the war is moving into the entertainment business, where Microsoft keeps pushing their product but making slow headway while Apple is embraced by the same media who is fascinated with them.
Eh - so who knows about the future. I know I'll probably pick up a Macbook Pro sometime in the future and try it out, probably put a Windows partition or just use Cedaga for OS X whenever that arises. But I'm sure the fascination with Apple will continue as long as Jobs continues to be interesting.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
It's all about branding my boy! Branding! Also, it leaves room for Apple to put AMD chips or anything else they want. They still can do that with the label on, you say. Ah, Apple is Apple. That's the only brand that Jobs wants you to see. And, I think there may be a time in the future where the end consumer will not know what the CPU is. It could be anything. Who cares? You're buying an Apple and that's all that matters. Do you care what the chips are in your monitor, TV, iPod, or your router? I don't. As long as I get something that works.
Michael Dell has little to do with innovation.
I beg to differ. Perhaps little innovation in PC development, but in supply-chain management? The man's a god.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Dell announces new systems built using AMD processors. Declares that customers should have a choice of the best systems available at the best prices available with full Dell support.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Not only does Steve Jobs have a dynamic personality, but he KNOWS he does and can promote himself and his company accordingly. On top of that, Apple is the true innovator in the industry -- they produce must-have products, and those products almost unfailingly work extremely well.
By comparison, Bill's personality doesn't have the dynamic, charismatic element that Steve has. Bill certainly has the intellect, the will, and the drive, but he just comes across differently than Steve in a public setting.
It's like comparing Scorcese to Bruckheimer. Critics love Scorcese more and everyone will agree that Scorcese makes a superior product, but Bruckheimer is the one with the blockbuster hits.
Rightly or wrongly, most people see the future in Apple products. Microsoft's slogan is (was?) "Where do you want to go today?" and for a lot of people that's "wherever Apple takes us". Apple's the company that *tries* things. And, the Cube notwithstanding, they have been pretty much on the mark. I'm not saying they invent everything, mp3 players were around before the iPod, but they were the ones who made its appeal universal. OSX is clearly standing on the shoulders of giants, but Apple was able to take it just that bit further that I could give my folks a Mac and walk away without worrying about whether they'd be able to use it.
Compare this to Dell, whose mantra is "as cheap as possible" or Microsoft, whose mantra changes from day to day.
To be fair, both Dell and Microsoft have problems that Apple would probably love to have (massive volume). But since Apple doesn't have said problems, they're more free to do whatever they want, and what they want is to sell more of their own stuff which looks farther afield from the rest of the industry.
...that the 4th apple story in the last 24 hours is entitled The Media's Crush on Apple. =P
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
Other than being technologically interesting (but no more so than going from the 68XXX to the PowerPC) what's new?
Quite honestly, I think that just the new power connector alone was worth the press. It certainly was worth the press if you consider how much press the detachable cables from the original Xbox controllers got a few years back. What's the last thing Dell has added to a notebook computer that wasn't a 'Me Too' feature? IBM and Apple are the only innovators in the notebook market space, and they deserve the press more than Dell or Microsoft.
because I am not much of an apple fanboy, and saying this makes me feel dirty -- however, they usually seem to deliver pretty well lately on the hype they are generating. Micro$oft has a tendancy of the "cry wolf" syndrome or vaporware, or delivering less than what was hyped. Apple seems to be able do live up to the hype.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Now that is just plain loopy.
It isn't the processor that gives Microsoft ninety-five percent of the market. It is a twenty-five year presence on the home and office desktop. It is the $600 Dell home-delivered with DVD burner snd flat-panel monitor that competes with a headless MacMini.
FTA:
"Here's another good question: Why is Apple turning down Intel's marketing subsidies that go to other PC manufacturers such as Dell (DELL), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), and others? There are no "Intel Inside" logos on the new Macs, save for marks on the outer packaging for which Apple isn't being paid. A slick, new TV ad will promote the new Apple-Intel collaboration. But if Apple is leaving money on the table, wouldn't shareholders want some pointed questions asked about that?"
Here's a good answer: Because Apple is one of few companies that cares enough about the appearance and packaging of its computers that it doesn't want to make them look like stock cars by covering them with the logos of third-party parts manufacturers. And because Apple itself is a more prestigious brand than Intel, and they wouldn't have anything to gain by slapping "Intel Inside" on everything. And, oh yeah, because Intel ITSELF is phasing out the "Intel Inside" logo on the new Yonahs, if I remember correctly.
Seriously, who is the guy writing this article? This question in particular seems pretty darned obvious, at least to me.
I don't think the media has that much of a crush on Apple. For a whole decade, they proclaimed them dead repeatedly. When OS X Tiger came out last April, nearly all the mainstream reviews kept referring to this weird "Windows Longhorn" thing as though it existed for comparison. They were actually comparing a shipping product to a future release that wasn't due out for another two years. It was really odd.
Last week, Bill Gates was Time Man of the Year, his CES coverage was in the news, and XBox 360 is all over the place, even MTV.
The media has done a few stories about Windows viruses lately thanks to WMF, but still refers to OS X as having "fewer viruses" instead of correctly pointing out that OS X has, since its inception, had ZERO spyware or viruses. Absolutely none.
Mostly, the difference with Apple's press coverage is that people actually pay attention to them, because their products kick ass. Nobody will remember Bill Gates' speech at CES '06. But the keynote where Apple actually released Macs that used INTEL x86 CHIPS?! Everyone will remember the MacBook Pro's introduction.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I couldn't give a damn about the Acer travelmate laptop or any of the other windows based Intel Core Duo laptops. As long as they come with windows, they are worthless to me.
You can't directly compare Apple to the other computer manufacturers just because they now use Intel chips. Apple make the operating system and the applications. _That_ is where they are *lightyears* ahead of anybody else. MS is trying desperately to catch up with Vista. Yes I watched the video of Vista at CES and all I can say is *yawn*, I've seen this all before, on OS X Tiger and Panther. Except of course, OS X is classy and doesn't have an interface that resembles a dog's breakfast.
Bottom Line: OS X, iLife, and everything else that constitutes the "Apple Experience" is worth a premium and is far more advanced than anything else available.
-- The doctor said I wouldn't get so many nose bleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!