Coca-Cola not Most Valuable Brand

[Jeffg010]

But Apple is. It was only matter of time.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-passes-coca-cola-most-232758587.html

 

[rudeguy]

Of course.

No offense to Apple people or Apple the company, but Apple could launch a frozen corndog that costs $100 and it would fly off the shelves.

Brand loyalty is one thing but what Apple has...its something else.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

b-b-b-bullshit. I don't know where people pull this kind of shit from.

In NO part of the country doesn't someone say "I'm getting on my Apple." It's "I'm getting on my computer". Or "Let me call you on your phone" not "Let me call you on your iPhone".

There are entire parts of the United States that refer to every single soda as "Coke" - That's just in the US. It's INSANELY popular in other parts of the world as well, such as Brazil.

Brand loyalty is not the same as "Most valuable brand". And anyone who isn't retarded knows that Apple has lost MUCH of their % of the Smartphone market to android.

 

[PowerYoga]

Brand recognition doesn't necessarily mean more valuable. Even if parts of the world refers to any carbonated beverage as a "coke", it doesn't mean they're drinking "coke" or making coca-cola the company any money.

 

[shortylickens]

it taste good, fuck everything else.

 

[WelshBloke]

Coke should sue. They were the first with the aluminium unibody construction and one handed use.

 

[rudeguy]

Coke should sue. They were the first with the aluminium unibody construction and one handed use.

so you are saying Coke should sue Fleshlight?

 

[IronWing]

Sugar water trumps sugar water!

 

[edro]

I have multiple Apple products in my house and not a single Coca-Cola product.
I can see why they surpassed them.

I need a cell phone/laptop/MP3 player... I don't NEED soda.

 

[waggy]

I have multiple Apple products in my house and not a single Coca-Cola product.
I can see why they surpassed them.

I need a cell phone/laptop/MP3 player... I don't NEED soda.

and what you need has nothing to do with it. Also you don't NEED a cell phone, laptop or MP3 player.

I am not surprised by the article. everyone refers to tablets, phones and MP3 players by the apple name. no matter the brand.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Coke is something I would drink as included as a meal set, but definitely not something I would want to drink on it's own, much less crave.

 

[Murloc]

Coke is something I would drink as included as a meal set, but definitely not something I would want to drink on it's own, much less crave.

way to ruin a meal

 

[vi edit]

I'd say the metrics are about 2 years behind on this one. 2 years ago I'd would have said that Apple is bank and what every other mobile device and computer company was trying to copy.

They still continue to make money buy the literal truckload. But I think Samsung and other brands are starting to erode away some of the total market domination Apple used to own in the tablet and phone segments and that will eventually catch up.

 

[Nintendesert]

I have multiple Apple products in my house and not a single Coca-Cola product.
I can see why they surpassed them.

I need a cell phone/laptop/MP3 player... I don't NEED soda.

Good little consumer-whore-sheep. Keep telling yourself you NEED those things.

 

[PowerYoga]

people still use separate mp3 players from their phones?

 

[rudeguy]

people still use separate mp3 players from their phones?

if you use an iPhone without expandable storage, you pretty much have to.

I can have 80 gigs in my phone, Apple folks don't have that option.

 

[IronWing]

people still use separate mp3 players from their phones?

The iPod has no monthly fee.

 

[Nintendesert]

if you use an iPhone without expandable storage, you pretty much have to.

I can have 80 gigs in my phone, Apple folks don't have that option.

So you're saying what iTards really NEED is a microSD slot. :sneaky:

 

[rudeguy]

So you're saying what iTards really NEED is a microSD slot. :sneaky:

no

I think they should continue to have to pay an extra $200 for $10 worth of memory. Its a good thing.

 

[Thump553]

I thought Harley Davidson was the most valuable trademark/tradename, at least in the US. They have made far more licensing their trademark than they do off the motorcycle manufacturing.

 

[OverVolt]

b-b-b-bullshit. I don't know where people pull this kind of shit from.

In NO part of the country doesn't someone say "I'm getting on my Apple." It's "I'm getting on my computer". Or "Let me call you on your phone" not "Let me call you on your iPhone".

There are entire parts of the United States that refer to every single soda as "Coke" - That's just in the US. It's INSANELY popular in other parts of the world as well, such as Brazil.

Brand loyalty is not the same as "Most valuable brand". And anyone who isn't retarded knows that Apple has lost MUCH of their % of the Smartphone market to android.

Yea, coka has been raking in money for more than a century let me know when Apple has that kind of lasting power.

 

[vi edit]

Yea, coka has been raking in money for more than a century let me know when Apple has that kind of lasting power.

Apple annual profit = 160 billion
Coke annual profit = 7 billion

Apple can operate for another couple years and make more money than Coke can in the next century.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Apple annual profit = 160 billion
Coke annual profit = 7 billion

Apple can operate for another couple years and make more money than Coke can in the next century.

Coke is a matured product with stiff competition. The other is just adapting to the limelight.

Coke is a carbonated drink. The other is a portable computer. Yes, the profit numbers will be higher for something that costs are higher. Profit % comparison would be the only thing remotely within reason to compare. Either way...

Apples to Oranges.

 

[vi edit]

Coke is a matured product. The other is just adapting to the limelight. Apples to Oranges.

Don't really care. The question isn't longest lasting brand. It's most valuable. Apple's ability to generate profits is something that just about any other brand is truely envious of.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Coke is a matured product with stiff competition. The other is just adapting to the limelight.

Coke is a carbonated drink. The other is a portable computer. Yes, the profit numbers will be higher for something that costs are higher. Profit % comparison would be the only thing remotely within reason to compare. Either way...

Apples to Oranges.

It's definitely apples to oranges. Coke has made Coca-Cola the same way for a century (ever since they removed the cocaine). When they try to change things up, a la "New Coke," everyone pitches a fit. A technology company has to continually innovate to meet changing demands in the marketplace. If they don't change their products, everybody pitches a fit. So, yeah, apples and oranges certainly applies. Coke came up with a good formula several generations ago and doesn't need to do anything now except keep making the stuff. That's a pretty good business to be in.