Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Overtakes Apple As the World's Most Valuable Brand

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the most-money dept.

Google 84

mrspoonsi (2955715) writes in with news that global market research agency Millward Brown has proclaimed Google as the world's most valuable brand. "US search engine Google has overtaken rival technology titan Apple as the world's top brand in terms of value, global market research agency Millward Brown said Wednesday. Google's brand value shot up 40 percent in a year to $158.84 billion (115 billion euros), Millward Brown said in its 2014 100 Top BrandZ report. 'Google has been extremely innovative this year with Google Glass, investments in artificial intelligence and a range of partnerships,' said Benoit Tranzer, the head of Millward Brown France. Apple, which dominated the top position for three straight years, saw its brand value fall by 20 percent to $147.88 billion."

cancel ×

84 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sic transit gloria mundi. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064057)

20 years ago, Cisco was the world's most-valuable company.

Re:Sic transit gloria mundi. (4, Funny)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 4 months ago | (#47064101)

20 years ago, Cisco was the world's most-valuable company.

Bombay Company stock is down, too.

Re:Sic transit gloria mundi. (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 4 months ago | (#47064323)

I would have figured at this point in history and mans progress, that a battery company would hold the throne. Go figure....

Re:Sic transit gloria mundi. (2)

will_die (586523) | about 4 months ago | (#47064395)

Far to many battery companies around for any major profit.
Besides most energy companies are rather bad in the profit margin ranking; they are steady company but just don't have that big of profits.

Artillery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065261)

" that a battery company would hold the throne"

They used to call artillery the 'king of battle' but in todays urban combat environment you still need the 'boots on the ground' of the infantry company to go house to house door to door etc and of course find and spot the targets for the artillery battery

Re:Artillery (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 4 months ago | (#47080739)

Suddenly, I picture spud guns firing D-cells.

Re:Sic transit gloria mundi. (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 4 months ago | (#47065831)

Yeah, that sound about right.... just not Union Carbide.

Re:Sic transit gloria mundi. (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47064869)

Sic transit gloria mundi

Hey, it's Thursday, not Mundi.

Re:Sic transit gloria mundi. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065151)

But for homosexuals, metrosexuals, and people younger than 25, Apple will ALWAYS be number one! Yay Apple! Remain fabulous!

Well, well, well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064061)

Open source friendly company as most expensive brand out there... I wonder what MS fans will say now?

Re:Well, well, well (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 4 months ago | (#47064115)

Open source friendly company as most expensive brand out there... I wonder what MS fans will say now?

What they usually say... reboot.

Suddenly I feel like throwing a chair...

Re:Well, well, well (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about 4 months ago | (#47064445)

Open source in all the places where it does not matter. When they release their ranking algorithm we can talk.

Re:Well, well, well (3, Insightful)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 4 months ago | (#47065747)

Yes because they're open sourceing of two different operating systems and a browser and sponsoring of the summer of code event counts for nothing. Actually their algorithm is the least thing that matters. Lets say someone else had wrote it and licensed it gpl, for sake of argument, google could use it alter it and make their billions and never give back as they don't distribute.

Brand value? (4, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#47064091)

"Brand value is calculated on the basis of the firms' financial performance and their standing among consumers."

Their methodology is completely proprietary and unpublished so I'm not sure how much faith I have in the ranking.

http://www.millwardbrown.com/B... [millwardbrown.com]

Re:Brand value? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064105)

I bet you would have faith in their methodology if they were touting Apple as the most valuable brand...

Re:Brand value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064533)

One of their biggest backers? Samsung. Hmmmmmm

Re:Brand value? (0)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 4 months ago | (#47064565)

Their methodology is completely proprietary and unpublished so I'm not sure how much faith I have in the ranking.

So, just like Google then. Coincidence?

More skepticism (2)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 4 months ago | (#47064685)

From the report [wpp.com] : Brand Value Change: Google +40%

In a huge company, what changes 40% in a year?

Re:More skepticism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064861)

Google's algorithm to search for tentacle futanari furry porn greatly improved in the last 12 months.

Re:More skepticism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47066309)

From the report: Brand Value Change: Google +40%

In a huge company, what changes 40% in a year?

The ability to sell ads?

I mean, didn't Google say they were going to put ads in innovative places, like your shiny new expensive Nest thermostat and fridges and stuff?

If you're a marketing exec, you'd find Google very valuable for that reason. New marketing opportunities!

Apple? Sure they have that iAds thing that hardly anyone uses, costs a lot of money, and Apple is reluctant to share any user information. Why spend your marketing dollars that way?

Apple is not valuable if you want to market. Hell, Apple forces you to be second fiddle to them - dependent on sucking the Apple teat for dollars.

Worse comes to worse, you can always open an App Store of your own with all apps free, and pay developers by selling ads. Easy on Google's Android OS. Impossible on Apple.

Sorry, there's no reason Apple is valuable. You can't do your marketing too well on it. Google's got a marketing product to fit every need, and they know how the business works.

Re:More skepticism (2)

keytohwy (975131) | about 4 months ago | (#47067677)

Google hasn't been successful, however, in the other big "new marketing opportunity", better known as mobile (smartphone/tablet). And their ability to sell traditional desktop advertising is also staring to slow, and even decline. http://investor.google.com/ear... [google.com] All this, and something like 96% of Google's revenue comes from one place; online advertising. And if that business is in peril, then things can degrade quickly. I'd say Google hasn't done much in come-to-market products from consumers. Motorola buyout - fail, Nest buyout - probably a fail, everything thinks they overpaid, etc etc.

Re:Brand value? (1)

Medievalist (16032) | about 4 months ago | (#47068315)

"Brand value is calculated on the basis of the firms' financial performance and their standing among consumers."

Let me translate that for you!

"We are positioned to take advantage of chumps believing Google is more valuable than Apple (a small consumer electronics company that we previously convinced gullible people was the world's most valuable brand). As the chumps sell off Apple and buy Google we will laugh and laugh, and light our cigars with $100 bills."

Of course value is determined by the market, and the market is dominated by the weak and foolish spawn of the ruling classes... so all Millward Brown really has to do is stampede the cattle and collect the carcasses.

Re:Brand value? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 4 months ago | (#47069095)

Most of the justification given for upgrading Google is Google Glass, which is:

1) Unknown to the vast majority of people as it remains a small beta program.
2) Is despised by the majority of people who have heard of it.

Which indicates to me that the whole thing is a marketing piece. Either for Google or the person making the claim.

A great victory (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064147)

A great victory for the straight contingent

Re:A great victory (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064247)

What are you talking about? Apple doesn't even use a rainbow logo, Google does. Google is the gay one.

Re:A great victory (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064313)

Apple must be gay. Gayniggers use Apple computers on their outerspace ships.

Misleading? (5, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 4 months ago | (#47064157)

Something is wrong, somewhere, IMO. This Slashdot story is apparently about a PR release by Millward Brown, which is owned by Kantar Group, which is owned by WPP. Notice that the WPP web site [wpp.com] is badly coded. It doesn't adjust for font size choices in browser configuration. The web site has, to my eyes, an ugly, cheap look.

See this Slashdot story: Google Foresees Ads On Your Refrigerator, Thermostat, and Glasses [slashdot.org] . Look at the comments. I'm not the only person to think something has become crazy at Google. Here are more: Why I'm Sending Back Google Glass [slashdot.org] and Apple, Google Agree To Settle Lawsuit Alleging Hiring Conspiracy [slashdot.org] .

Maybe this Slashdot story is about a PR release paid for by Google? Or Millward Brown is trying to advertise itself? Apparently "brand value" doesn't say much that is logical about how a company is managed, but just means that you should respect a company because a company is getting a lot of attention.

Re:Misleading? (4, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#47064217)

It's definitely Millward Brown trying to advertise itself, or rather its "Brand Value" metric, rather than Google or anyone else. The financial metrics are all public information, but an analysis firm needs something proprietary to sell; all the better if it's ostensibly quantitative.

Re:Misleading? (4, Informative)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 4 months ago | (#47064281)

Something is wrong, somewhere, IMO. This Slashdot story is apparently about a PR release by Millward Brown, which is owned by Kantar Group, which is owned by WPP. Notice that the WPP web site is badly coded. It doesn't adjust for font size choices in browser configuration. The web site has, to my eyes, an ugly, cheap look.
 
Not sure what your point is regarding the web site design. There is no way to accurately measure the brand value but these rankings are legit as far as being respected and widely reported in serious press each year.

Here is a better story than the one linked: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d8ea... [ft.com]

Here are the full rankings: http://www.millwardbrown.com/b... [millwardbrown.com]

Re:Misleading? (3, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | about 4 months ago | (#47065015)

Whilst I'm not defending the methodology, it does seem a bit arbitrary (but then, so are most rankings used by fanboys on both sides comparing Apple vs. Google so no change there), I don't really understand much of the point of the rest of your post:

"Notice that the WPP web site is badly coded. It doesn't adjust for font size choices in browser configuration. The web site has, to my eyes, an ugly, cheap look. "

What has this got to do with anything? It sounds like you're implying WPP is some fly by night company with a site that's been set up quickly and in a rush. You realise WPP is one of, if not the single biggest PR agency in the world right? I'm not defending it in terms of ethics, because some of the names of the firms it owns are known for the wrong reasons here (e.g. Burson-Marsteller who were running Microsoft's massive shill campaign here). But what WPP absolutely isn't is some irrelevant little upstart, it's an absolutely massive company.

"Look at the comments. I'm not the only person to think something has become crazy at Google."

What are we meant to be looking for? I can only see the usual stuff - a few off-topic comments dotted amongst the usual suspects either defending or attacking Google. What has changed here?

"Maybe this Slashdot story is about a PR release paid for by Google? Or Millward Brown is trying to advertise itself?"

Of course it is, but this isn't a new thing, in fact, the only new thing is that Google is now doing it. This is a game that Microsoft, Oracle, Apple et. al. have been playing for a very long time, it looks like Google has had enough of trying to "do no evil" in this respect and has decided to go down the same lame old route.

A few years back we were getting almost weekly news stories like "iPhone survives fall from aeroplane", "iPhone used by boy to save himself in well", "iPhone used to diagnose cancer" or whatever else. Many of these stories could never be corroborated, there was no evidence of the people involved in question, no pictures, just a story that frankly was almost certainly made up in most cases. If you tried to dig deeper and find out names, pictures, locations of these events you just hit a dead end. Similarly there was a massive Microsoft first post FUD campaign here, and we also saw a massive amount of Oracle shills during the original Java trial. We've seen the same from the likes of Sony and so forth even too.

It's not new. The amusing thing is this is precisely why WPP is so successful - it makes a fortune running FUD campaigns against a target for a client with one subsidiary then gets another to sell a counter campaign to the target of the original FUD campaign. It's good money if you can get it - running an arms race where you're selling to both sides of the battle with thinly veiled pretences of independence of subsidiaries of the parent company, but it's not ethical, and it's not new.

"... selling to both sides..." (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 4 months ago | (#47067573)

"... why WPP is so successful - it makes a fortune running FUD campaigns against a target for a client with one subsidiary then gets another to sell a counter campaign to the target of the original FUD campaign."

"... running an arms race where you're selling to both sides of the battle with thinly veiled pretenses of independence of subsidiaries of the parent company, but it's not ethical, and it's not new."

Maybe that is the explanation I was hoping to find. It certainly seems that we must look deeper than just the article. Something is wrong.

Re:Misleading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47068525)

just means that you should respect a company because a company is getting a lot of attention.

It doesn't mean that at all. Its a stat. An observation. People have already paid respect. This article is a measurement of that respect. You can react to it however you feel.

Brand Value? (5, Insightful)

ketomax (2859503) | about 4 months ago | (#47064173)

I can buy an iPhone, iPad, Windows OS, Microsoft Office (or it's subscription). What exactly does Google sell apart from Ads (and our data)? Google Fiber is not available worldwide. Gmail is awesome even when free. Google glass does not seem like it will be usable because of the backlash. How does Google's brand value serve them when compared to the likes of Apple & Microsoft?

Re: Brand Value? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064185)

Google sells the Internet. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Re:Brand Value? (3, Informative)

Your.Master (1088569) | about 4 months ago | (#47064245)

The name "Google" has itself been verbed in a way that has never really happened to the names Apple and Microsoft (although some Apple and Microsoft products have been verbed).

Having a powerful brand directly means you are able to sell ads for higher prices. Time magazine surely sells ad space more easily than [brand new vaguely french-woman name magazine]. The brand power is probably more important to Google than it is to Apple or Microsoft (but of course it's important to all of them).

Re:Brand Value? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 4 months ago | (#47065433)

Also the Google brand is unique. There are other things that have an Apple name (remember the Beatles) and of course the actual fruit (and juice) is consumed in more places than are Ipods or Iphones...

[insert ad for ENZA here]

Re:Brand Value? (1)

ZorglubZ (3530445) | about 4 months ago | (#47070663)

Google is just Googol (10^100) for dyslexics, even though I see that someone's edited Wikipedia to claim it was intentional... To my knowledge, no-one claimed, on or about y2k, that it was anything but a misspelling.

Re:Brand Value? (1)

painandgreed (692585) | about 4 months ago | (#47071179)

The name "Google" has itself been verbed in a way that has never really happened to the names Apple and Microsoft

Yes, but I remember when "Yahoo" was a verb also.

Re:Brand Value? (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 4 months ago | (#47071579)

The name "Google" has itself been verbed in a way that has never really happened to the names Apple and Microsoft (although some Apple and Microsoft products have been verbed).

Having a powerful brand directly means you are able to sell ads for higher prices. Time magazine surely sells ad space more easily than [brand new vaguely french-woman name magazine]. The brand power is probably more important to Google than it is to Apple or Microsoft (but of course it's important to all of them).

So what exactly happened to googleing that Google's brand value rose 40% over the last year?

Re:Brand Value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064363)

Besides the ad department (google is the biggest ad network in the world. Ever. That is not negligible), there are paying versions of gmail and most of their online services. Companies and universities (and others I guess) use these services just like others use Microsoft's (or Oracle's or IBM's or ...).

There also earn a 30% share of each app sold on Google Play, and I guess they don't sell the Nexuses for a loss ...

and probably many other things that I don't know about. Just google for it

Re:Brand Value? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064417)

You still don't get it, do you? At Google, you're not the customer... You are the product. Or more to the point, your browsing habits and associated data is the product. That's why there is Google+. Imagine the windfall Google would gain if they could have the kind of active user base of Facebook joined with their business model.

Re:Brand Value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064831)

You still don't get it, do you? At Facebook, you're not the customer... You are the product.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Brand Value? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47064889)

You still don't get it, do you? Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn... if you use any of those so-called "social networking" websites, you're fucked [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Brand Value? (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about 4 months ago | (#47065021)

I'm a very happy product...

Re:Brand Value? (1)

Uberbah (647458) | about 4 months ago | (#47110401)

You still don't get it, do you? At Google, you're not the customer... You are the product. Or more to the point, your browsing habits and associated data is the product. That's why there is Google+. Imagine the windfall Google would gain if they could have the kind of active user base of Facebook joined with their business model.

Err....isn't that agreeing with the parent? Why does Google have the 'most valuable' consumer brand when the consumers are those buying ads from Google and people are the product?

Re:Brand Value? (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 4 months ago | (#47113953)

You still don't get it, do you? At Google, you're not the customer... You are the product. Or more to the point, your browsing habits and associated data is the product. That's why there is Google+. Imagine the windfall Google would gain if they could have the kind of active user base of Facebook joined with their business model.

Err....isn't that agreeing with the parent? Why does Google have the 'most valuable' consumer brand when the consumers are those buying ads from Google and people are the product?

There is still a difference between "consumer" and "customer" - Just use (gasp) Google (or Bing!*%$ or DuckduckGo) and search for "consumer vs customer"

Re:Brand Value? (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#47064541)

Google's secret sauce is that their ads are generally unobtrusive and not annoying. Text only, and because they are targeted through search terms they are often relevant too. Other companies are finding that it is very hard to compete with a "free", high quality service. That is Google's brand value.

Re:Brand Value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064741)

This, this and this.

Flashing, animated or video ads are a total pain and make webmail unusable. Gmail - so far - has it right.

Re:Brand Value? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47064899)

Flashing images, animated images or auto-play videos are a total PITA and make the web unusable.

FTFY.

All google needs are ads (1)

pr100 (653298) | about 4 months ago | (#47065205)

You ask "what exactly does google sell apart from ads". This misses the point. Google makes loads of money from ads. Everything else is really there to make sure that nothing interferes with that. Android? Google doesn't care about 'phones per se... what they care about is loads of Iphones that don't have google as the default search provider. Chrome? same thing, get a decent market share of the web browser market and you're protected against directing traffic away from google one way or the other... and so it goes.

Re:Brand Value? (1)

afeeney (719690) | about 4 months ago | (#47065407)

Google has made so many investments in experimental and developing technology (robotics and energy to name just two examples) that its portfolio of companies and patents is tremendously valuable. It has the money to be almost anything that it wants to be and can afford to take more product development risks. Even if Google Glass turns out to be an absolute failure, the odds are strong that it can redeploy most of the research and lessons learned from developing it for something that will be successful.

Re:Brand Value? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 4 months ago | (#47065641)

What exactly does Google sell?

You.

Re:Brand Value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47066127)

I can buy an iPhone, iPad, Windows OS, Microsoft Office (or it's subscription). What exactly does Google sell apart from Ads (and our data)?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=google+ne... [lmgtfy.com]

And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064189)

...it is destroying society. What a great marketplace we have.

Re:And... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064231)

Don't blame the market for supplying what society demands.

Re:And... (1)

NapalmV (1934294) | about 4 months ago | (#47064271)

Can you elaborate on society's demand for ads?

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064285)

There's an annual broadcast called the Super Bowl. Perhaps you've heard of it. The ads contained within are famous.

Re:And... (1)

NapalmV (1934294) | about 4 months ago | (#47064347)

You're correct that various "wardrobe malfunctions" are in high demand, however may I point out that:
-there's a specific Internet sector servicing this at a higher resolution and extent
-Super Bowl ads have little to do with Google (other than surfacing some time later on youtube)

Re:And... (4, Informative)

justthinkit (954982) | about 4 months ago | (#47064361)

People demand free.
Ads pay for free.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064487)

No they don't.
I pay for tv, and I get ads.
Well, not really, but if I did pay for tv I would get ads.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064857)

If you are talking about paying for cable...

You aren't paying the full price - you are paying the cable company for use of their cable...

Even then, they will claim you aren't paying the full price - so they make up the difference by selling time for ads to other businesses...

Re:And... (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 4 months ago | (#47064609)

Cheap people demand free.

There are people out there that actually pay for things, when they find them to be of value.

Re:And... (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 4 months ago | (#47064897)

The question is, how much would you pay to access Google without ads? If they started offering a solution without ads for $2 a month would it be worth it to you? Sure, they probably don't make $2 worth of ad clicks off most people, but arranging the billing system for millions for users would make the system much more costly to run. So, now we got Google without ads. That's $2 a month. Then add Slashdot. Maybe they only charge $0.50 a month. Add on facebook, that's another $2 a month. Reddit might be $1 a month. New York Times, there's another $1. Pretty soon the number start to add up and you're easily paying $20 a month just to access websites without ads. Maybe somebody gets a whole bunch of sites together so you can pay 1 fee to access all the sites that use this service ad free. But there's sites still not using this service so you end up paying others to be ad-free.

To make any of the above work, you have to be logged in any time you are accessing the ad-free sites you are paying for, so they have a flawless way of tracking all the pages you are visiting on their site. Currently I can go to Google in Incognito mode, do some searches, and then next time I come back, I'm a completely different person, so tracking is limited. With a service you pay for, you are logged in, so they are able to accumulate a lot of information about you.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47072667)

To be fair, incognito mode only applies to people at your house. On the other side of the network, you appeared just the same.

Ah Free.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064847)

If it weren't free, I wouldn't bother with it.

In other words, it isn't worth paying for.

And in some cases, it isn't even worth registering for an account - like Slashdot. I mean really, register or worse, subscribe to read stories that I've read days ago? And on very rare occasions, read a comment from an insider.

Re:And... (1)

NapalmV (1934294) | about 4 months ago | (#47066391)

Ads pay for free.

Not really. When you buy the products you also pay for the price of their ads. Buying a box of cereals? It will cost you the cereals (+profit) + the price of the ad (+profit of ad agency) + the price of distributing said ad (+Google profit). Yes, they apparently generates more profits and a larger variety of jobs (thus the "economists" will declare them to be "good for the economy"), but they're not free at all.

Society? What society? Corporations FTW! (1)

coder111 (912060) | about 4 months ago | (#47064611)

Ads are demanded by business, espcially big business. It doesn't matter if society wants ads, if ads are harmful by distorting society's views, creating false demand (see broken window fallacy), or at least wasting everyone's time.

If corporations pay for ads, ads will happen. And corporate money matters much more than society does in today's world.

--Coder

Re:Society? What society? Corporations FTW! (1)

NapalmV (1934294) | about 4 months ago | (#47064729)

Fully agree, but wasn't it the legislative/government's role to curb activities that are perceived as obnoxious by a large segment of the society? I am aware that advertising is touted as being "good for the economy" and thus "useful/needed", but once you deconstruct the slogan (i.e. you define "good" and "economy"), one may realize that it doesn't hold any water?

Government? What government? Corporations FTW! (1)

coder111 (912060) | about 4 months ago | (#47068359)

Yes, in theory government should check the power of corporations. However, in most capitalist democracies sooner or later corporations gain enough power and influence and governments stop serving people and starts serving interests of big business.

That happens especially easily in small countries when huge multinationals come in. Or in places like USA where lobbying (aka bribes for politicians) is fully legal and two party system makes it impossible to get the corrupt politicians out of government.

I used to believe that communism doesn't work. Well, it doesn't. But what they forgot to tell us is that capitalist democracies don't work that well either... They degenerate into corporate oligarchies...

Sorry for the rant :)

--Coder

Brand value (1)

Plammox (717738) | about 4 months ago | (#47064291)

Using brand value to characterize the performance of a company is roughly equivalent to using Kerbal Space Program to plan supply missions to the ISS,

Re:Brand value (1)

Triklyn (2455072) | about 4 months ago | (#47148793)

you besmirch the good name of KSP. I hear it's fun for the entire family, 8 year old kids up to daddy and mommy who work as rocket scientists. It also teaches important life lessons: there is no problem too big that more booster rockets can't solve.

Re:Brand value (1)

Plammox (717738) | about 4 months ago | (#47152685)

the besmirching was unintended. KSP seems like a mighty fine and educational game. Actually I'm holding off with trying it, as I need to get a lot of work done at the moment....which also explains why I'm here posting on slashdot...

Re:Brand value (1)

Triklyn (2455072) | about 3 months ago | (#47156927)

i'd recommend that.

when you do try it, remember. the EVA has mono-propellant. I've done it at least twice now, not enough dV to make it into atmosphere during return leg... so i'd hop out and push my damn capsule with my face.

Rockem Sockem Fanboys (1)

Dutchmaan (442553) | about 4 months ago | (#47064475)

Can I get some flame war butter for my fan boy popcorn please.

How is an advertising company at the top? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064479)

I might not understand, but how is it that an advertising company can be so profitable? More profitable than the companies who make the actual products?

Re:How is an advertising company at the top? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47064567)

The relationship is one to many (you said it yourself - an advertising company ... the companies).
In any case, this is about one financial metric rather than profitability per se.

Well, sort of (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 4 months ago | (#47064629)

I suppose it really depends on your definition of "value."

Finally (1)

hduff (570443) | about 4 months ago | (#47065617)

A new face for EVIL.

translation (3, Funny)

Swampash (1131503) | about 4 months ago | (#47065621)

"We're a PR company and we'd really like to win Google's business, so we hereby announce that Google is the bestest brand in the world. According to our secret criterion. Which we can't tell you because then it wouldn't be secret."

Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065623)

Their list http://www.millwardbrown.com/brandz/2014/Top100/Docs/2014_BrandZ_Top100_Chart.pdf talks about Top 100 Most Valuable "Global" Brands 2014

How are Verizon and Wells Fargo so high in "Global" ranking when their operations are primarily in the US!

Most of the world would not have even heard of them!

We couldn't get Apple's business (1)

Imazalil (553163) | about 4 months ago | (#47067835)

Translation: We've been trying to get Apple's business for the past few years without luck. Time to see if Google will bite.

And really, they noticed Google Glass only now?

None are worth what they say (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47068907)

No single company is truly worth what they say. It's a racket, like health care. Google could disappear tomorrow and the world would adapt almost immediately. Same for Apple. There is always somebody waiting in the wings. Nothing is irreplaceable. I say this somewhat lightly because I actually use no services or hardware/software from either vendor. I dislike the notion of walled in gardens, so I don't use anyone's ecosystem. And, no, I don't use Android, iOS, or Windows. I'm rather a spartan techie by choice. I do IT for a living, but I somewhat despise dealing with computers outside of work. I don't even carry a mobile phone on the weekends, nor do I check my mail. Marketers hate me, techies think I'm anathema. I have to deal with the digital world for a few days a week, but short of that time, I ignore technology for family, fishing, books, a little TV.

Good. (1)

azav (469988) | about 4 months ago | (#47077789)

Apple's done real damage to the usefulness of their brand with the idiotic reskin of iOS (iOS 7) and the dumbing down of the Mac OS with a focus on adding useless distracting animations that are difficult (or near impossible to turn off) and a worse looking UI (all white, less detail, less functional area delineation, less crisp) post Snow Leopard.

Apple is now clearly putting fluff ahead of function and isn't allowing users to disable new unwanted and distracting features that offer no benefit to usability.

It bums me out.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>