[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

I disagree, people don't want cheap, that want value for their dollar, more so today in this economy.

[...]

they also realize that spending a little more now may save them more $$ later.

A certain small segment of people, yes - mostly just those who've been burned by "cheap", though.

As for "more so today in this economy": When cash really is tight, "spending a little more now" simply isn't an option.

It's nice that I can save more $$ later down the line, but that doctor's bill needs paying NOW.


Of course, where you're right is that the people who ARE willing to spend money on products not cheap for good reasons, while a small segment, are the people to be gunning for from the start.

That's just not "the people" that make the mass market, is all.

In a market already oversaturated with cheap, the only way to break in is by going boutique.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I have a feeling that you guys are taking this project way more seriously than we are.

We're not looking to be the next Apple. We just want to see what happens with this idea - we're not looking to compete with any of the big computer companies. We're more or less doing this for fun. There may not even be enough of a market for us to make anything of this, but we won't know that until we try.

1.) starting it right might substantially increase the chances of there actually *being* a market

2.) Nothing worse than being stuck with an idiotic name once business accidentally really *does* take off. And no, changing it at that point is suicide. (No, Vibe isn't idiotic. But the connection — custom casings that create a decorative vibe in your room — needs to be established for the brand to mean anything.)

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Macs. Not PCs from the local mom and pop outlet.

True—but it does sort of go against the notion that students are cheaper (or forced to be cheaper) than others when buying a computer.

Looking at it from the other angle, not only are students the largest market for Macs; Macs are also the largest market for students. At a guess, I'd say about 80 per cent of the newly purchased computers I see at school are Macs (obviously with a Book in the name, but still). Despite the fact that you can buy a much cheaper PC with similar performance.

Those who do buy PCs, though, would tend to buy them from net retailers, that's true. Either that or from Aldi (I kid you not).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

True—but it does sort of go against the notion that students are cheaper (or forced to be cheaper) than others when buying a computer.

OK, there's two kinds of students (here, at least). Those for whom mummy and daddy are paying the bills (that's the MacBook crowd) and those who're getting by on a grant or loan (that's the cheap as chips crowd). Obviously there's exceptions with the mature student category, but they're few and far between.

None would go for desktop PCs, as far as I know. Desktop PCs are kind of hard to lug into class.

Originally Posted by Oisín 

from Aldi (I kid you not).

I can believe it. Tesco have started doing them here. 279 quid for a useable machine.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by shifuimam

I have a feeling that you guys are taking this project way more seriously than we are.

Who do I call for tech support?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

OK, there's two kinds of students (here, at least). Those for whom mummy and daddy are paying the bills (that's the MacBook crowd) and those who're getting by on a grant or loan (that's the cheap as chips crowd). Obviously there's exceptions with the mature student category, but they're few and far between.

A bit different here, of course, where 95 per cent of students fit into the second category (which is also a bit different, since the government grant, technically called the State Education Grant, is about £600 per month, so nearly enough to actually live on on its own) with part time student jobs on the side. But the MacBook crowd spans both categories equally.

I’m in the second category, for example, and I have both a MacBook and a Mac Pro.

(This is all off-topic, though …)

[zro]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Also, the first Apple logo was NOT AN APPLE. It was a picture of Newton sitting under the tree.

Yes, ridiculous. And the Newton "logo" was awful from the standpoint of effective design. You'll notice they realized this and did not use it for long.

And how sure are you the name didn't come from Apple Corps?

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by zro 

and how sure are you the name didn't come from apple corps?

100%

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by zro 

Yes, ridiculous. And the Newton "logo" was awful from the standpoint of effective design. You'll notice they realized this and did not use it for long.

You obviously don't see how wrong you are, but the image of Newton sitting under a tree, about to be hit with the Apple of enlightened inspiration, embodied EXACTLY what both the name and the products of the company were intended to convey.

It was an EXCELLENT logo; it just wasn't as striking and LOUD visually as you'd expect a mainstream corporate logo to be these days.

And of course, it wasn't intended to blare in neon off the top of large corporate buildings, but to embody the spirit of something new in full-page adverts in homebrew computer monthlies. Which it did so well that the company started getting its first large orders, at which point among the first things to happen was the simplification of the logo to appeal to and allow instant recognition to a much broader audience.

Originally Posted by zro 

And how sure are you the name didn't come from Apple Corps?

100% positive.

Because Steve Wozniak has several times retold the story of how the company name came to be. (You can find his talk at gnomedex online here: http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/...detail214.html
IIRC, it's in the Q&A at the end of part 2.)

In fact, his first reply to Jobs was, "But there's Apple Records!", to which Jobs retorted that it didn't matter.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I have a feeling that you guys are taking this project way more seriously than we are.

That doesn't sound good. Advice is free and plentiful. Throwing time (and god-forbid money) into a business that isn't well thought out -in every way- isn't.

[shifuimam]

I'm talking about how seriously people are taking the logo, etc.

This is a no-capital investment. We advertise on the cheap (craigslist, posters on campus, etc), and if we get interest, we talk to people and go from there. If we get no interest, there's virtually no loss on our end.

I'm not trying to start a full-fledged business here. I have a full-time job; I don't have time to concentrate on trying to be some badass in the hardware industry.

[Person Man]

Everyone is way overthinking how Steve and Steve chose the name Apple for their company. It really was completely random and arbitrary. Apple themselves used to print a little FAQ in their computer manuals telling the story. I can scan that page if anyone is interested.

The story that Apple used was as follows: Jobs and Wozniak were having trouble coming up with a name for their company. The deadline for filing the Fictitious Name Statement was approaching and it was "down to the wire." Jobs looked at the apple he was eating and decided that if they didn't come up with anything better by five o'clock pm they would call the company Apple. "Five o'clock came and went. Apple was the new company's name."

Before anyone tries to dispute me, this info comes from a verifiable source: Apple's own manuals.

[Chuckit]

I always figured the name "Apple" was pretty arbitrary. It's just too common and generic to have come from a lot of careful consideration. But the branding Apple did afterwards does show a lot of thinking went into that aspect of the business.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

Before anyone tries to dispute me, this info comes from a verifiable source: Apple's own manuals.

i.e. the marketing department.

That's kind of like deeming the story about members of a laboratory pop music band having grown up together as best friends since grade school "verified" because it says so in the band's own CD booklet.



Personally, I'll stick with the story told by the other guy who was there - Woz.

The Gnomedex speech I linked to above, Part 2, around 37 minutes in. Woz picked up Steve from the airport, and in the car, Jobs told him he'd thought of "Apple" as a company name.

[zro]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You obviously don't see how wrong you are, but the image of Newton sitting under a tree, about to be hit with the Apple of enlightened inspiration, embodied EXACTLY what both the name and the products of the company were intended to convey.

It was an EXCELLENT logo; it just wasn't as striking and LOUD visually as you'd expect a mainstream corporate logo to be these days.

And of course, it wasn't intended to blare in neon off the top of large corporate buildings, but to embody the spirit of something new in full-page adverts in homebrew computer monthlies. Which it did so well that the company started getting its first large orders, at which point among the first things to happen was the simplification of the logo to appeal to and allow instant recognition to a much broader audience.

100% positive.

Because Steve Wozniak has several times retold the story of how the company name came to be. (You can find his talk at gnomedex online here: http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/...detail214.html
IIRC, it's in the Q&A at the end of part 2.)

In fact, his first reply to Jobs was, "But there's Apple Records!", to which Jobs retorted that it didn't matter.

First things first: that is not Apple's logo. The tomato with the bite taken out of it is. The supposition was that Apple designed their logo to embody their ideals. To represent their "DNA" (or soul, or chi, or whatever other mumbo jumbo you want). I still call bullshit. Newton didn't get inspiration from biting an apple, so why not make the apple look like it's falling? No, the Apple logo looks like it was drawn from the story of Eve. Take Apple out of the equation and their logo doesn't mean jack squat. It does not embody any sort of ideal on its own. There is no magic there. It's a graphic of an apple. On look alone it could be a rip-off of Apple Corps, a growers association or a health care system logo or any number of other things. Why do you suppose Microsoft or Hewlett-Packard don't use a graphic to represent their name?

The old woodcut version makes a beautiful masthead, but a 100% lousy logo. In fact, it's not a logo at all. It's an illustration. It doesn't scale well and cannot be readily reproduced by hand. Although the 1 color variant looks great.

I know you're never going to hear me, so from this point on, I'm going to agree to disagree.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by zro 

First things first: that is not Apple's logo. The tomato with the bite taken out of it is. The supposition was that Apple designed their logo to embody their ideals. To represent their "DNA" (or soul, or chi, or whatever other mumbo jumbo you want). I still call bullshit. Newton didn't get inspiration from biting an apple, so why not make the apple look like it's falling?

What the hell are you on about?

THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT THEY DID IN THE VERY FIRST APPLE LOGO (the one you claim isn't a logo at all).

Newton got inspiration from GETTING HIT IN THE HEAD by an Apple, so they made it look like it was hanging above his head, about to fall.

So, um, point moot.

Originally Posted by zro 

No, the Apple logo looks like it was drawn from the story of Eve. Take Apple out of the equation and their logo doesn't mean jack squat. It does not embody any sort of ideal on its own. There is no magic there. It's a graphic of an apple.

OF COURSE the Apple with the byte out of it (Apple's second corporate logo) is a Biblical reference. And lo and behold, as such, it has extremely similar allegorical meaning as the Apple that hit Newton in the head did. Not quite as precise and scientific, but accessible to a MUCH broader target.

But it has meaning precisely BECAUSE it's the symbolic Apple from the story of Genesis. It's generally associated with self-discovery and enlightenment.

Originally Posted by zro 

The old woodcut version makes a beautiful masthead, but a 100% lousy logo. In fact, it's not a logo at all. It's an illustration. It doesn't scale well and cannot be readily reproduced by hand. Although the 1 color variant looks great.

You're dismissing it on the sole basis of technicalities, but *completely* ignoring context.

Again: The original Newton logo DIDN'T NEED to be scaleable. It didn't need to scream in block colors off the top of tall office buildings. It wasn't looking to be an icon.

It was simply intended to convey exactly what you claim up above to be lacking from the later Apple logo, and it was meant to convey this to a very small handful of literate computer enthusiasts eating their way through rudimentarily layouted monthly homebrew computer pamphlets.

When the needs changed, a more effective logo was immediately designed - though it came at the price of somewhat diluted meaning, since the Newton reference got replaced by a more general Biblical allegory.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm talking about how seriously people are taking the logo, etc.

Well, you did kind of start a thread asking for that.

[shifuimam]

I just wanted to know what people thought of it. I didn't want philosophical advice on starting the Next Big Thing and making sure my logo fits that.

Really. It was more a "is this ugly or can you tell what it is" kind of thing.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You're dismissing it on the sole basis of technicalities, but *completely* ignoring context.

I have to agree with him in this regard, though: graphically, the Newton logo was not a good logo.

It’s a good representation of Apple’s spirit, but it’s far too detailed, busy, loud, clunky, and unrecognisable to be an efficient logo. The current logo is far better in that respect, even though it doesn’t give nearly as much information as the Newton logo.

Dismissing or admitting a logo one the sole basis of (graphical) technicalities, with no regard to context, is no less valid than dismissing or admitting a logo on the sole basis of context, with no regard to technicalities—and the Newton logo seems to me to have been chosen with a very strong preference to context over technicalities.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I just wanted to know what people thought of it. I didn't want philosophical advice on starting the Next Big Thing and making sure my logo fits that.

You asked the wrong group of people then

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Dismissing or admitting a logo one the sole basis of (graphical) technicalities, with no regard to context, is no less valid than dismissing or admitting a logo on the sole basis of context, with no regard to technicalities—and the Newton logo seems to me to have been chosen with a very strong preference to context over technicalities.

Context, not content.

Context includes the target audience. It was appropriate to the purpose.

[Salty]

I think you should change the name of your company to Vi3E

[olePigeon]

Shouldn't this thread be in the Graphic Design forum?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Shouldn't this thread be in the Graphic Design forum?

There's a graphic design forum?

Seriously, consolidate all non-tech topics yesterday please…

[olePigeon]

http://forums.macnn.com/art-and-graphic-design/

[- - e r i k - -]

I'm well aware that there is a dusty corner where a few scattered threads live. I was using sarcasm to point out the need to bring everything into a unified lounge, a long standing peeve of mine here.