Slashdot Mirror
Apple Now the World's Most Valuable Brand, Knocks Off Coca-Cola
cagraham writes "According to consultancy firm Interbrand's latest 'Best Global Brands' report, Apple is now the world's most valuable brand, with an estimated worth of $98.4 billion. Since Interbrand began issuing the report in 2001, Coca-Cola has previously always claimed the top spot, but fell to third place this year, behind both Apple and Google. Tech companies now make up six of the top ten brands, but only 12 of the top 200. The report comes a week after Apple reported record sales numbers, moving 9 million iPhone 5s and 5Cs during their opening weekend."
Now that those brand-names raise only bile for me when I hear them, it figures the accountant class would value them.
Stock is trending down due to concerns over margins. Nothing to do with brand perception.
Soon they will replace Christianity as the #1 religion.
Giving apple credit for things they didn't do is pretty much the point of an apple fan.
There's many things that Apple might not have invented, but did nonetheless popularize.
I'm certainly not going to defend everything they've done as awesome -- but before the iPod came about, you probably couldn't explain to most people what an MP3 player was or why you'd want one.
And before the iPad came out, I doubt many people had ever even seen tablets because they were extremely specialized niche products. I know for a fact I'd never seen one, and you certainly couldn't walk into Best Buy and get one.
Apple hasn't made their money by inventing things in general, but in making a solid product with a really good user experience -- which in a few cases took the market by storm and established that there was widespread consumer demand. And I think that's what being valued here -- the brand recognition and awareness.
And in periodically having to work with stuff that has a terrible user experience, I wish more companies tried harder at that.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I think it's quite obvious he didn't.
Here's a better question: why doesn't iOS 7 work with iOS 6 compatible apps?
That officially rules Apple out of being "the new Microsoft:" Microsoft has never been dumb enough to break existing apps on their OSes. If there's one thing Microsoft deserves credit for, it's the ridiculous extents they go through to make sure old apps keep working.
Apple is the exact opposite way: if you allow Mac OS X to upgrade your iOS development environment, you will entirely lose the ability to target anything except iOS 7. There is no way to go back, other than to find "pirated" sources of older versions of Xcode. (Xcode is free, so "pirated" isn't quite the right word here, but you know what I mean - sources that don't use the Apple app store.)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Everyone who used Napster and had MP3s on their computer knew what an MP3 player was. What held back early MP3 players was the inability to easily sync your music collection and playlists on your PC to the MP3 player. All the other MP3 players were competing on features. Apple correctly surmised that how you used it was equally if not more important than what you could use it for. The first iPod was non-competitive in terms of features ("No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."). But by incorporating it with iTunes they "solved" the sync problem, and turned the MP3 player into a device the 95% of people who aren't tech geeks could use. And that's when MP3 player sales took off.
Actually you could. I bought and set up a Thinkpad X60 tablet for a client who'd seen one and wanted to use it as a portable monitor and data entry computer around his veterinary clinc. It was 3.5 lbs, about an inch thick, and could take both pen and finger input. It was bulky by modern tablet standards, but still very usable in the intended application. The client was very happy with it, and it led to me getting a tablet PC as well.
The catch was it cost $2500. Microsoft and Intel knew from the early 2000s that there was a tablet market. But Microsoft being heavily vested in Windows and Intel being heavily vested in high-end CPUs, they tried to shape the tablet market in their image - one where tablets ran Windows and used high-end CPUs. Consequently they were ridiculously expensive (which was kinda the whole point - more profit for Microsoft and Intel). You saw a similar thing when netbooks showed up. Microsoft/Intel panicked at people buying these cheap computers which didn't use Windows nor Intel CPUs. In response Microsoft came out with Windows Starter, and Intel came out with Atom CPUs, and successfully brought the netbook market back into their fold.
The problem is, when the market is demanding a low-price tablet, and you are working your ass off to prevent a low-priced tablet from entering the market, that pent-up demand creates a huge opportunity. Which is what Apple tapped into with the iPad. It wasn't that there was this huge untapped market nobody knew about that Apple was smart enough to see. It was that Microsoft and Intel had been actively steering manufacturers away from that direction for a decade. Apple (which was no stranger to non-Microsoft OSes and non-Intel CPUs) wasn't as easily dissuaded and put out a (relatively) cheap tablet which didn't rely on Microsoft or Intel. If the iPad hadn't been released, Archos probably would've stumbled into the same tablet market. They made a Linux-based portable hard drive with a screen and touch interface for storage, but the screen kept getting bigger, and they kept adding more apps to increase its functionality.