backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by embedded_bill.. on Oct 4 at 3:53 PM

This is the first time Coca-Cola didn't snag No. 1 in 13 years

Apple bumped Coca-Cola out of its No. 1 spot as the world's most valuable brand -- a place Coca-Cola held for 13 years. 

Interbrand released its top 100 list of "Best Global Brands 2013" this week, which ranks companies based on their financial performance, global presence, marketing, customer loyalty and the role each brand plays in a purchasing decision.

This year's list featured Apple as the No. 1 most valuable brand in the world, saying that Apple's brand value is $98.3 billion (a 28 percent increase from Interbrand's 2012 report). The Cupertino tech giant was No. 2 on Interbrand's list last year, and No. 8 in 2011. 

“Every so often, a company changes our lives, not just with its products, but with its ethos," said Interbrand's 2013 report. "This is why, following Coca-Cola’s 13-year run at the top of Best Global Brands, Interbrand has a new No. 1 — Apple.”
 

 
Before 2013, Coca-Cola took first place for the last 13 years. But the value of the Coca-Cola brand only increased 2 percent this year to $79.2 billion (up from 2012). 

Companies residing on Interbrand's top five include Apple (1), Google (2), Coca-Cola (3), IBM (4) and Microsoft (5). 

According to Interbrand's global chief executive Jez Frampton, Coca-Cola is an "efficient, outstanding" marketer, but Apple's climb to No. 1 was inevitable. He went on to say that Apple and other tech brands have become “the poster child of the marketing community.”

Placing Apple at No. 1 could be very meaningful for the tech industry, showing how ubiquitous gadgets like laptops, smartphones and tablets have become over the years. The unveiling of tech products -- like the iPhone, for example -- have become closely-watched events that people speculate over months ahead of release. Consumers even wait outside of Apple stores days or even weeks ahead of a launch.  

Other tech companies seen in Interbrand's list include Samsung at No. 8, Intel at No. 9, Hewlett-Packard at No. 15, Amazon at No. 19 and Facebook at No. 52. In fact, Facebook was named "Top Riser" on the list for jumping from No. 69 last year to No. 52 this year. 

Source: Interbrand



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Coca-Cola
By mik123 on 9/30/2013 12:42:53 PM , Rating: 3
Did Coca-Cola change our lives? With its ethos?

LOL




RE: Coca-Cola
By exeedorbit on 9/30/2013 12:54:20 PM , Rating: 3
HAHAHAHAAHHAHHHAHAAH god damn you.


RE: Coca-Cola
By inperfectdarkness on 9/30/2013 1:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
and yet...I'm a die-hard coca-cola zero loyalist; and you couldn't pay me to own an apple product.

...just saying.


RE: Coca-Cola
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/30/2013 2:29:54 PM , Rating: 3
If someone gave you $1 million dollars to take possession of an iPod touch, you'd say no? ;-)


RE: Coca-Cola
By sprockkets on 9/30/2013 6:55:56 PM , Rating: 3
I would, since there was no stipulation to actually use it :)

And I've actually used one. It was nice, except for the times it presented an apple logo when its ROM corrupted, which happened twice, which then takes 50 minutes to download the firmware, install it, boot it, then re sync all the data.

Biggest PITA.


RE: Coca-Cola
By StevoLincolnite on 9/30/2013 7:36:33 PM , Rating: 4
I tried to use a friends iPhone once to browse and buy them something off ebay.
I actually got frustrated looking at such a tiny screen and used my Lumia 920 instead.

That's probably the only time I've ever used an Apple product.


RE: Coca-Cola
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/30/2013 7:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, I have *rattle*tinkle* 2nd gen iPod touch *rattle,krinkle* buried in this *klink!* drawer somewhere....

Aha!


RE: Coca-Cola
By sunny27 on 10/1/2013 1:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
I would take possession of the iPod, take the money and then burn the ipod. No one said anything about using it, did they?


RE: Coca-Cola
By Integral9 on 9/30/2013 3:23:01 PM , Rating: 5
I dunno, but it tastes a whole lot better than anything from Apple.


RE: Coca-Cola
By embedded_bill on 10/4/2013 3:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly you didn't drink the Apple Koolaid!


Stock Value
By btc909 on 9/30/2013 3:56:36 PM , Rating: 3
So why is Crapple down to 476 a share? iOS7 bugs probably?




RE: Stock Value
By mosu on 9/30/2013 3:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
The moment they made the announcement is stock related...


RE: Stock Value
By Bateluer on 9/30/2013 4:36:54 PM , Rating: 4
Their customers were using Apple Maps on their iPhones to get to the Apple store to buy the 5S and tried to cut across an active runway.


Yesss indeeed...
By geekman1024 on 9/30/2013 9:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
the brand itself could have cost you a few hundred bucks.




As Jesse Pinkman Would Say...
By Oyster on 9/30/13, Rating: 0
IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By DukeN on 9/30/13, Rating: -1
RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By DaveLessnau on 9/30/2013 11:07:09 AM , Rating: 4
Just because a company doesn't sell all that much to Joe-bag-o-donuts doesn't mean they don't do tons of business. IBM is huge in corporate and government sales. Extremely well-known with a good reputation.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By brshoemak on 9/30/2013 11:54:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Extremely well-known with a good reputation.
Well, maybe for products and services, but not so much for enterprise support. After the sale is made IBM tends to just move on to greener pastures (the green that comes in paper form).


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By spamreader1 on 9/30/2013 12:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
They have great enterprise support on everything I've called them on. With one huge exception. You have to really, really learn how to contact them for each product. Once you get the right team they respond quickly and usually are top notch folks, instead of going through tiers of support.


By Monkey's Uncle on 9/30/2013 6:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
ehrm... no comment (hides)...


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By hughlle on 9/30/2013 11:10:16 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe not individual home consumers, but i imagine there are still a hell of a lot of businesses still buying IBM products, services, or derivatives.

But i'm sure that you know best and that no one else has caught on to the fact that this company just pulls figures and statistics out of thin air.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By Argon18 on 9/30/13, Rating: -1
RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By ilt24 on 9/30/2013 2:41:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The POWER chips are the fastest CPU's in the world, way faster than anything from intel or AMD.

Are you talking about some specific benchmark? Looking at Spec CPU2006:

A pair of Power 7+ @ 4.2Ghz in an IBM p740 score 884 Int and 602 FP.
A pair of Xeon E5-2697 @ 2.7Ghz in an IBM x3650 score 963 Int and 696 FP.

Results are for testing performed by IBM and can be found at http://www.spec.org/benchmarks.html


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By Nutzo on 9/30/2013 4:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
He's probably using the same methodology apple used to use back in the days when their computers used the power pc chip.
Apple computers were faster because they could show 1 benchmark that was faster, specifically a photo shop filter that was specifically optimized to use a feature on the power pc chip.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By superstition on 9/30/2013 4:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
Power 8 is about to be released. It's supposed to be a lot faster.

quote:
The 12-core, 4Ghz Power8 chip can execute 96 threads simultaneously, and is expected to be 2x to 3x more powerful than IBM's Power7 chip, which was used in the Watson supercomputer that competed on the game show. The Power8's capability to move data has been dramatically improved over previous designs, including the interim Power7+ chip that IBM shipped in 2012. According to the Hot Chips presentation on Monday by Jeff Stuecheli, the chief nest architect for Power8, the new processor features 230 GB per second of sustained memory bandwidth between the L4 caches and the processors, and total peak I/O of 48 GB per second along the new on-die integrated PCI-Express 3.0 controllers, making it a very speedy chip. One of the cool things IBM has done with those integrated PCI-Express 3.0 controllers is to design a new transport layer called the Coherence Attach Processor Interface (CAPI) that will enable co-processors, including GPUs or field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) to be connected directly to the Power8 chip and to share data stored in its memory.


http://www.hpcwire.com/hpcwire/2013-08-27/what_wil...
www.computerworld.com/s/article/9241920/IBM_s_new _Power8_doubles_performance_of_Watson_chip
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2047505/ibms-watson...


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By ilt24 on 9/30/2013 7:45:51 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe, but the post I replied to wasn't talking about a chip to be released in 6 to 9 months.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By retrospooty on 9/30/2013 11:13:25 AM , Rating: 2
"This is hilarious - how many people worldwide nowadays even own or have bought anything IBM in the last five years?"

It's measuring the power of the brand name. IBM, Coke, Apple, Micorosoft, all very powerful brand names. I am not sure about the exact measures they use, but obviously these are all powerful brands.


By Monkey's Uncle on 9/30/2013 6:33:40 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. IBM is a household name in the enterprise world.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By Just Tom on 9/30/2013 11:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
IBM had sales of $104B in 2012, so my guess is an awful lot of people bought IBM products.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By jbwhite99 on 9/30/2013 12:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
IBM makes only a limited amount of hardware.

What happened is that a lot of people hired IBM to do services, or they licensed IBM hardware. That is over 80% of IBM's revenue - services and software.


By Monkey's Uncle on 9/30/2013 6:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
Correction for you. IBM is still very big in hardware, just a certain kind of hardware. They no longer operate in the same public-savvy circles as Microsoft and Apple. They got that message loud and clear way back in the Windows 95 vs OS/2 days.

Today all their Laptop, PC and Small server divisions have been sold off to specialist vendors. They are however very big in the enterprise server, mainframe and infrastructure world. And they are very, very big in the enterprise BPM world.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By SpartanJet on 9/30/2013 11:41:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, I mean why would Microsoft be ahead of Samsung when it has the best and most widely used OS in the world while Samsung just sells consumer electronics. Its crazy I tell you.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By nemoshotyany on 9/30/2013 12:01:28 PM , Rating: 5
Consumer electronics? You might wanna take a second look into all the business that Samsung and its subs dabble into.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By Nutzo on 9/30/2013 4:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone buying an Apple 5s, is actually buying a phone with a CPU manufactured by Samsung. :)


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By datdamonfoo on 9/30/2013 4:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
And everyone buying an Android phone is paying Microsoft for their patents. :)


By Monkey's Uncle on 9/30/2013 6:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's a vicious circle.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By Argon18 on 9/30/13, Rating: 0
RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By DukeN on 9/30/2013 1:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it's not a whole lot of customers, its a much smaller number of business, primarily big business customers.

You could argue that Samsung's customer base is in the hundreds of millions, with a mostly positive opinion.

Samsung also has many business that sell only to businesses, including the semi-conductor and display side of things.

Uh, and FWIW I evaluate and buy IT gear for a living so I am more than familiar with various server, storage and other enterprise offerings from vendors like IBM (who coincidentally sell a lot of re-branded storage stuff).


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By Fleeb on 9/30/2013 4:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
Aside from OEMs, which vendor doesn't?


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By DukeN on 10/1/2013 9:38:42 AM , Rating: 2
HP doesn't, for the big bucks enterprise gear.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/30/2013 7:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, I would direct you to look at any car manufacturer. If you buy a Chevy, do you thingk GM is making every siongle part of that car? Do they make all the tires? Lightbulbs? Seat covers? Radios? Batteries?

Is a Dell or HP server made up only of Dell or HP parts?

Yet just like Chevrolet makes a huge amount of money selling their "Chevy" cars, Dell, HP and IBM makes many millions selling their servers - regardless of who is making the component parts of them.

But this is all beside the point.

This is about the value of the BRAND. IBM has been around an awful lot longer than Samsung, Apple or Microsoft. Samsung while older than Apple or Microsoft, really didn't become a world brand until about 1970. IBM has had since its incorporation as CTC in 1911, IBM has and over 100 years to establish and build its brand. If you ask anyone what IBM, Microsoft, Coke or Apple does, you will get some kind of halfway accurate answer. Somehow I just don't think you will get the same response when asking about Samsung.

Sorry -- I just retired after working for them for 25 years so the IBM tattoo on my ass hasn't quite faded away yet.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By DukeN on 10/1/2013 1:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, HP doesn't re-sell a NetApp SAN with an HP logo on it.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/1/2013 3:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
Again I am failing to understand why this is a problem.

Does NetApp put out an inferior SAN?

So what if IBM puts their logo on it? NetApp is apparently allowing IBM to do that. IBM as well is in essence giving that SAN their blessing and standing behind it with their hardware support teams - something I am sure NetApp appreciates very much.

So what to you is smarter? Try and develop your own SAN and watch your SAN competitors leave you in the dust, or form a partnership with a top rank SAN manufacturer and let them do the dirty work of keeping up with the competitors? If I were running a company with a net worth of 112 billion USD, I know which way I would go.

The point is, it does not matter if IBM puts its name on infrastructure components (and a SAN is an infrastructure component). They are worth more than Samsung and their name is worth more than Samsung's name.


RE: IBM, Microsoft ahead of Samsung?
By DukeN on 10/1/2013 5:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
To pick bones, NetApp has traditionally been more of a NAS than a SAN company. IBM is about the only big storage vendor that takes someone else's product and sells it with their label.

What I was trying to say is that Samsung has much more revenue, and much more positive exposure to a larger group of people (probably a hundred-fold or more). And this "study" thinks IBM has more brand-power?

Laughable.


By bim27142 on 10/1/2013 8:57:16 AM , Rating: 1
And what do you think IBM is selling nowadays? PC's and Smartphones?


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki