Apple marks '1984' anniversary with iPhone-produced un-commercial Three decades after launching one of the most famous ad spots in TV history, Apple has marked the anniversary of its 1984 Super Bowl commercial with a quietly subversive effort that once again pits the company against a perceived status quo in the industry. The company on Sunday released "1.24.14", a short film advertisement …
A) Apple barely talks to The Register. The chances that it was paid for are the square root of negative yo momma.
B) I found the article informative and interesting and connected to a bit of IT history that I found amusing.
So STFU and GTFO. Not every article has to be something you personally care about. Can we please have just one article on the internets about technology without the comments section devolving into brand tribalism? If you don't like Apple, don't read articles with Apple in the headline!
They've been trying to make an ad like this for years now, and every one has been a fiasco. What Apple seem to have realised about smartphone photography is that the EXPOSURE is the crucial factor in determining the quality of results. Nokia still believes that sharpness is the vital ingredient, and that's why they can't make an ad like this.
Trust me on this, I've been involved with FOUR attempts by Nokia to do this now, and each one has failed.
I suspect you're correct Frank Bough, but I can't see for myself: clicking the link was the first time in months I've been reminded I uninstalled QT a year ago.
The trouble with Windows 7 is that when QT or Java or whatever wants updating, the Win7 taskbar comes out of hiding and obscures the lowermost status/toolbar of whatever application you are using- and won't disappear again until you've told the offending 'notification' to sod off. An annoyance.
"Just as the "1984" and "Think Different" ads pitched Apple as an empowering tool for ordinary people, so does "1.24.14" send the message that Apple, despite being one of the largest brands in the world, positions itself as a company for the people."
Company for the people? What a complete pile of steaming... Company for the 'rich' perhaps, notable absence of people from the southern hemisphere.
A 'computer for the people' should be both affordable for the average Joe and usable by the average Joe. Most of us here, using a computer to post on The Reg, could afford a Mac if we wanted one, i.e if we saw that we could make enough use of its features for it to be fair value for us personally. Also, most of here would have no trouble chasing down driver updates or whatever else it takes to smooth off the rough edges of whatever machine we're using - i.e we don't necessarily represent the average Joe.
A good number of people in this world would struggle to afford a Raspberry Pi, let alone a a cheap n cheerful Windows / Linux netbook.
I'm not saying that Macs are the last word in usability, but they are made with less technically-literate people in mind. The difference is less pronounced today, but in the nineties DOS/ Win 3x / 95 machines did require a bit more from their users than Macs did.
"I'm not saying that Macs are the last word in usability, but they are made with less technically-literate people in mind. The difference is less pronounced today, but in the nineties DOS/ Win 3x / 95 machines did require a bit more from their users than Macs did"
Seems to me 'dows gives flexibility, and yes, you do need to know what your doing because it's a powerful tool. Just like a car, you need to learn the controls. An apple product in comparison would be a kiddies push along. Designed for the dim-witted.
I wholeheartedly agree. Think differently? As long as its not different to Apple where pretty much every screen looks the same except for a wallpaper.
Mobile apps on iDevices have become bland since they have all now clichés of the Apple design paradigm. And that's creative and individual?
Pull the other one.
A few days ago I attended a meeting at an organisation in which senior managers strutted around with their glowing Apple laptops. The funny thing was that they were trying to show a simple presentation on the projection system. They spent about 40 minutes ad-libbing while they plugged in, unplugged and swapped around hardware things in their various glow-slabs to try to get the presentation on the screen. (One of the glow-slabs had happily used the screen earlier). They even resorted to /emailing/ the presentation between themselves to try to show it on different glow-slabs. In the end they gave up.
The same projection facilities, and their predecessors, have happily shown Windows-based presentations from multiple software packages, streamed wirelessly or from hard disks or USB memory sticks for years.
The audience didn't mind. They talked amongst themselves at increasing volume whilst the glow-apple bunch looked less and less like the epitome of cool that they imagined themselves to be.
It was a wonderful demonstration of how Apple hardware thinks "different"(ly).
Looking forward eagerly to the next ground-breaking advert in which the marketeers of cool demonstrate how to think different, speak ungrammatical, and waffle ignorant.
(I seem to be left with three spare "ly"s - feel free to use them, if you wish).
If it was a one-off failure, it's hard to generalise about one make of gear over another. We've all had kit not talk to other kit - of any flavour - either because its playing silly buggers (not completely unknown on Windows machines) or just because we can't find the right cable on the night.
If you were making a more general point about how most Windows laptops have either VGA or HDMI or both, just as most projectors - then fair enough, but do just say so.
You said previous presentation played from a USB stick- perhaps it was a file format issue that prevented the same approach being used for the Macs. Again, you leave us none the wiser.
What we can learn from your anecdote is that it's usually best, when performing iin front of an audience, to stick with a combination of gear you know works. That might, as in your case, mean a PC, but in other scenarios it could well mean a Mac.
So? I've seen big fails with people using Windows laptops as well - all it shows is not all hardware is compatible. Your anti-Apple post is pure schadenfreude - guess you feel the same way if you see a BMW broken down - perhaps a bit of a chip on your shoulder??
Maybe just accept people choose different products for different reasons.
For the record (and just as anecdotal) I've had no problems with my Macbook and projectors / external displays although I might have used Airplay if I were doing a presentation.
They were using AirPlay. Or trying to. Three MacBook Airs (because they look cool, apparently), presentation made on one of them. Couldn't make it play. Emailed to another. Ditto. And to another. Ditto. (Act of ignorant desperation: What can we do with it? I don't know. Why not try emailing it. That might mend it).
It was funny (yes, actually funny) watching the floundering attempts of their coolnesses as they gradually realised that Apple stuff, like all other computer stuff, isn't full of pixie dust and doesn't always 'just work'.
Of course technology fails sometimes. That's normal. What's abnormal is the marketing mythology that's conned so many into believing that one particular company is run by unicorns and fairies and makes magic, rather than bog-standard, overpriced hardware assemblages wrapped in pieces of shininess. And, irony of irony, a lot of it works less well and is less able to interface with the rest of the world than most other computers. And a lot of the software struggles more than the alternatives.
Of course people choose different products for different reasons. Form over function has never been a reason I could understand, except for those with a desperate need to cuddle their tender egos.
Of course, YMMD.
Hey, who remembers the coolness of 'shell suits'?
You have to love iSheep products, and how the marketing triggers 'religious' reaction in fans' brains. Think differently and all think the same, buy Apply products, to show that you are truly different and unique. Be locked in a golden cage, Apple will decide what software you can use (not like 1984 at all, in any way, honest, you can trust Apple). Baa Humbug
The difference is actually that they make very well designed / engineered products people actually want, provide great service and support and it's no wonder people like their products. You may feel they are expensive but they typically last a long time and hold their value so it's certainly not much different.
Someone like Samsung makes (IMHO) makes pretty mundane, plastic products - I don't like the car analogies but it's a bit like Apple is the Porsche 911 and the Samsung is a Ford Focus ST. I'm just surprised Samsung have got away with charging so much for their handsets but guess that's about t change now very competent handsets like the Moto (soon to be Lenovo) G are out at a Ford price.
"Someone like Samsung makes (IMHO) makes pretty mundane, plastic products"
Strange, I've just bought a fantastic aluminium samsung ultrabook, it's pretty much one of the slickest windows machines I've ever seen. Prior to finding it i was expecting to have to buy a mackbook pro for a decent 13inch machine, which would have been twice the price and not have spec or the touchscreen.
Admittedly is had windows 8 on it, but the upgrade to 8.1 is actually pretty good.
"...iSheep...", "...'religious' reaction..."???
While the actual existence of these so-called iSheep has yet to be proven, I do see an awful lot of people who see the word 'Apple' on a website and immediately feel the need to start crying and moaning about these mythical 'iSheep'.
Why is this? Who are these people? What are we supposed to call them? And why do they punish themselves in this way?
The Apple iPhone camera is really, really good - as this proves - probably about the best camera in a smartphone (that is not a camera with a smartphone attached). Which magazine did a review and pretty sure they found it superior (in quality etc.) and better in usability / features to all but one dedicated compact cameras. No it's not a SLR but you can get great results from it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
