In the case of Apple, I think it has less to do with actual product placement deals and the predominance of Macintoshes among creative types (though if you walk into a coffee shop here where I live near Hollywood, you'd find that to be true) as it is about the Macintoshes' look and style. Whether you love or hate the Mac OS, you have to give Apple credit for having products that are darned elegant-looking, while other companies have these butt-ugly boxes or, at best, designs that ape Apple's style.
I think that's what really comes into play here; if you're an art director, and your scene is set in a state-of-the-art, futuristic lab or office, you'd probably be more inclined to choose one of Apple's slick silver-bezeled LCD screens than some nondescript flat panel. If you're in charge of the props in the room of a suburban 14-year-old girly-girl in a movie that takes place in 2001, you'd be more likely to pick a strawberry-colored iMac than a beige Compaq tower.
You're also touching on the topic of market dominance. It's a chicken-and-egg, cart-and-horse thing--the industry features iPods and TiVo because that's what people own, and that product placement in turn probably influences people to get those products. The TiVo gag they had last season on "Family Guy" would not have worked if they had used ReplayTV or other DVR's--it was the familiarity of the interface and the popping sounds that TiVo controls make that helped make the joke.
And you're also opening a whole can of worms when you bring up why is the iPod so successful when there are technically "superior" products out there. Just study a little history. Five years ago Apple put out a good product with an intuitive interface--better than any device already out there at the time--and an appealing look, and the general public agreed. They created a music store and got all of the major labels to join in (which no other online music download service was able to do before), and the general public took to it. It was no surprise that Apple wound up cornering the market on digital music players (what is it now, an 80% market share?), and when Apple moved to video/TV last year, people who were already familiar with Apple's style and quality went along, and the networks and content providers one by one signed on to sell their programs on iTunes. Now Apple's gone to feature-length movie downloads (in near-DVD quality, to boot), and expects to replicate the same success as it had before with TV and music.
The point is, "technically better" doesn't necessarily mean better overall. Apple's click-wheel interface is still superior to anything Zen, Sony, or anyone else has come up with; there are tons of accessories available to the iPod (I use the DLO Homedock to watch videos from my iPod on my TV--yes, it's not always about the size of the screen on the device itself); support, for when it's not working, and hacking tips, for when I want it to do things it's not normally able to do, are more widely available. There *are* advantages to being the dominant, mainstream product. And while there are plenty of times when the crowd goes with something that sucks, that isn't the case with the iPod, IMO.
2006-09-15 06:07:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by themikejonas 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
The most likely answer is 'product placement' but when that's not the case, the writers probably put in an Apple because they use Apples themselves. Apple computers are considered best for high-end graphics applications.
I don't know what the numbers are, but in every graphics department and Creative group I've seen, most (if not all) of the design computers are Apple.
Creative types prefer Apple, and that includes writers as well.
2006-09-15 05:08:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by norcalirish 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Apple, the only single brand!
When they use Apple, they won't get compalins like why did you not use my brand ? As for PCs, as we all know, there are more brands than the hairs in our head. That might be one reason.
Every movie maker would have the right to pick the products that he/she wants to show in his/her movies. Unless it is a movie about a "computer brand", they are less likely to give importance to which brand they should pick. They would be using the object (computer) to relate it with the story line, unless you have seen the brand name or logo fully covering the screen!!
I do not think there is one company that controls which brand of computers can be shown in a movie or tv. But I do believe that big companies are powerful enough to make you feel like there is no other brand! Big companies, big links, big rapports, big news and coverage.
2006-09-17 17:44:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by bhupen 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
advertising and marketing
If you watch the credits of a program you will see the producer that person is in charge of getting the money for the program to be made. In some if not all cases companies such as Apple, Dell Pepsi etc. give them money in return for their product(s) being shown during the program
2006-09-15 05:12:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by utg_45 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Apple does not blatantly promote use of its products in film, however, they do benefit from a percieved bias in Hollywood that their products are "cool". This "cool factor" explains why their are the computer of choice in most films. No one can understand how Will Smith saved the world on that crappy Powerbook, though.
2006-09-16 15:53:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Tony T 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
its product placement apple pays these film producers to use an apple computer instead of a PC
2006-09-15 05:04:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
seems like i see Dell the most now
2006-09-15 05:03:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by mommyin06 2
·
1⤊
1⤋