[sirspacey]

This is a popular misconception. Tech has always been built in the face of massive distrust, mischaracterization, and dismissiveness - especially by media outlets.

PR was not how tech overcame that. It was charismatic founders (who often broke the rules of PR at the time) and massive break-throughs in adoption by winning customers over directly.

It’s honestly amusing that so many believe that marketers were the reason users decided to love tech. By and large, market-speak was the anti-thesis of what would win over the early adopters of tech. Like most sea change movements, tech was very punk at the start. To be tech was to stand against the corporate types who milked people for money without offering real value.

Doesn’t feel like it today, but most of the people I know in tech are still coming from a place of wanting to build things of genuine value, usefulness, and helpfulness. Those intentions may not be enough, but there’s not much to be gained in discounting them either.

[leocgcd]

Charismatic founders are PR lol. Steve Jobs was a market strategist.

>To be tech was to stand against the corporate types who milked people for money without offering real value.

Positioning yourself as punk, as pro-consumer, as an alternative to the corporate hegemony... This was all carefully developed by marketers and brand strategists to grow their vision of selling tech. You are not immune to propaganda, it was not some granola revolution that gave the people iPhones. And that's ok! It's ok to admit that marketing is an important force that should be leveraged for change and innovation.

[keiferski]

I think the single best argument against this viewpoint is to just look outside. People are obsessed with iPhones because they're a superior product, not because they were sucked into a PR campaign filled with Justin Long ads.

[leocgcd]

Thinking that TV spots are the limits of brand strategy is just kind of naive.

You think iPhones are a superior product... Why? Other phones have more RAM, better screens, more capable OS. An iPhone is designed in response to market demands-- it is the vision of Apple to anticipate what users will want, and to show users what phones can be.

So many Apple billboards around New York show kids or families, the "memories" function of the iOS Photos app is designed to pull from forgotten pictures and tug on your heartstrings. Part of this is Apple marketing responding to a demographic of tech-consuming people becoming parents or grandparents... But it is also Apple showing us what tech is good for. It's a vision of compassionate technology that will hopefully sell more iPhones while also structuring the narrative of what an iPhone is. An iPhone is a superior product not because it has the best tech specs or the best combination of components. An iPhone is the superior product because the future of technology can be compassionate, and Apple wants to position themselves there. This is a marketing strategy, and it is likely why you associate iPhones with quality and superiority.

We cannot immediately see all possible uses and promises of technology, no matter how tech-literate we think we are. It takes institutional vision (in many cases a function of market/brand strategy) to figure out what makes a good product and how we can show people that our product fulfills that idea.

[keiferski]

The TV commercial reference was a joke. Sheesh.

iPhones are extremely popular around the world and in 99% of those places, the people have little or no interaction with Apple billboards or marketing. Not everyone is a family in New York City, or even speaks English.

You’d have more of a point if you said Apple aims to portray a premium brand and therefore they have this reputation globally because of marketing, but even then, that doesn’t last for long if the products themselves don’t have a good reputation.

[leocgcd]

Joke or not, you're still demonstrating that you're naive about the scope of brand strategy.

The majority of brand management work is not material that is shown to the public, it is strategic decision making about how to position a brand and control it's reputation across markets. This includes yuppies in NYC and teenagers in Southeast Asia. The cultural positioning of Apple is a function of western hegemony and global memetics. An Eastern European housewife that wants an iPhone doesn't want it because she's done the tech research to understand that it is the most reliable and technically sound product, she wants it because Apple has taken great care to maintain their image through brand strategy. She probably sees iPhones on social media, in the hands of celebrities, the nicest store in her city is the new Apple outpost, they're teaching classes on apps and she wants to have the experience that she sees other iPhone users having.

Your misunderstanding is a larger trend in the tech space of people overvaluing "utility" instead of recognizing that the driving forces of any industry-- not just tech-- cannot be reduced to a spec sheet.

[keiferski]

I actually live in Eastern Europe, and no, that woman doesn’t care about the iPhones in the hands of celebrities and there is no Apple Store here, and the top shop that specializes in Apple products is mediocre and has bad reviews. In fact, there are no Apple Stores in a lot of countries. [0] There is also minimal advertising done by Apple - although there is a ton by Huawei (how well do you think that works?) iPhones are popular because they’re perceived as a high quality product from a dependable Western company. Not because they have billboards and celebrity sponsorships.

You really don’t seem to understand how widespread Apple is, and instead are intent on portraying yourself as some kind of expert that puts down others. Their popularity isn’t merely due to some brand strategy plan, as their products are practically a baseline of modern life at this point.

I didn’t say anything about “utility” I said their products were higher quality, which they are. Especially on the design/UI front. People buy them because the competition simply isn’t as good, among other social reasons. A mastermind branding plan is not really that relevant when you’re already as widespread as they are. Nothing I wrote has anything to do with customers doing tech research.

So just to reiterate and wrap up this conversation: no, Apple is not widely used because their branding team crafted a smart campaign for every corner of the globe. They are widespread because they’ve been making solid products for a long time, people use them, and then form an impression that they’re quality products. All the advertising and celebrity sponsorships and everything else are dressing at best.

This is a unique situation and if you were talking about anyone other than Apple, I’d agree with you that the market positioning / PR is key, but in this instance it’s simply not the case.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Store#Countries_and_regi...

[lucianbr]

What I can see by just loooking outside is that people are obsessed with iPhones. Why they are obsessed is definitely not obvious at a glance. Could be quality, could be PR, could be something else.

You just think your opinion of something is the obvious truth and anyone not seeing it is blind.

[keiferski]

iPhones are used so widely around the world by such a dominant percentage of the population. That it's due to a PR campaign seems extremely unlikely to me. The best advertising in the world doesn't have a fraction of that kind of reach.