Specifically, Jobs said that he admired Zuckerberg “for not selling out, for wanting to make a company,” statements which resonate with Jobs’ own history of wanting to build something at Apple that achieved the same kind of lasting success as Disney or HP. Zuckerberg says in his interview with Rose that the two Silicon Valley executives discussed things like “how to build a team around you that’s focused on building as high quality and good things as you are,” according to Bloomberg.

The two also discussed “the aesthetics and kind of mission orientation of companies,” according to Zuckerberg, which is a subject close to Jobs’ heart. Jobs maintained a degree of focused control over Apple that managed to stay away from catering to populist thinking and market research groups, something Forbes  has said Zuckerberg also manages to accomplish at Facebook.

The funny thing is, despite their mutual respect and Jobs’ role as something of a mentor for Zuckerberg, the two companies haven’t always seen eye-to-eye. Facebook integration in Apple’s social music service Ping was cut early on after Facebook and Apple couldn’t come to agreeable terms regarding a partnership, and has never been reintroduced.

Facebook was also rumored to have been intended for deep integration in iOS like Twitter, but so far, nothing has come of those reports. One has to wonder whether those things never came to pass because the two Silicon Valley icons didn’t share an obstinate streak as well as healthy professional opinions of each other.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Facebook’s IPO filing: ideas and implications
• 12 tech leaders’ resolutions for 2012
• Mobile Q2: Smartphone growth surges; iPad’s rule continues

The watchdog site compiled info from 27 million statements made on Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites during the year to measure consumer sentiment regarding Apple. Keywords like “great,” “best,” “good” and “love” were used to determine positive statements, and typical comments that made up the 170,000 positive mentions noted in August included things like “Apple will be fine thanks to his leadership” and “Apple all the way.”

In contrast, negative sentiments about the company (there were around 64,000 such statements in August as measured by ConsumerAffairs.com) focused mostly on “technical and pricing issues,” including problems with software updates and concerns about the Mac malware that had been more of a problem earlier in the summer.

Consumer confidence is arguably the most important thing Apple needs to retain as it transitions to a new CEO and decreased involvement for Jobs. Even if some analysts and investors see Jobs’ passing of the torch as potentially problematic down the road, most without a personal axe to grind will likely see reason as long as Apple keeps selling, growing and beating expectations. If customers see the brand in a positive light, there’s every reason to believe that’s exactly what will happen.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Building a better paywall: strategies for monetizing news content
• Flash analysis: Steve Jobs

The iPad debuted last year and sold very well for a brand new class of device, beating all analyst expectations. The iPad 2 continues to dominate the tablet market; all the resulting revenue is additive for Apple, and so far hasn’t seemed to have cannibalized Mac revenue, as some suspected it would.

Apple’s total value, as measured by Millward Brown (which is based on “financial data combined with consumer measures of brand equity,” according to the company), is $153 billion, while Google’s is $112 billion. Rounding out the top five are IBM  at $101 billion, McDonald’s at $81 billion, and Microsoft at $78 billion. All experienced some growth in value during the year except for Google. Apple’s 84-percent rise easily outstripped that of any other company in the top 10 most valuable brands. McDonald’s was next closest, with a 23-percent increase in brand value.

Even if Apple continues to cede global smartphone market share to Google, which isn’t guaranteed to happen (Apple still has plenty of markets to expand to before it matches Android’s reach), its commanding lead in the consumer tablet sector will give it the ability to stay well ahead in brand value. And because Apple controls both hardware and software for its products, it has greater control over consumer perception of its brand, which has an effect on these rankings.

It’s worth noting, though, that the same study also found AT&T is the most valuable telecom brand. AT&T ranked seventh overall in the top 100, despite significant continued negative customer perception because of the company’s spotty coverage in major metropolitan areas like New York City and San Francisco.

While brand value may not always accurately reflect the experience of customers, it does provide an interesting picture of how companies that aren’t often compared to one another measure up. The top 10 brands, despite being from very different industries (with the exception of the many tech and telecom brands represented) are all ones whose logos most would instantly recognize. The only exception is likely China Mobile, which came in ninth and leads 12 Chinese brands among the top 100.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories
• Mobile Q1: All Eyes on Tablets, T-Mobile and AT&T
• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015

It’s no coincidence that I’m thinking about this the week following Macworld, arguably one of the Apple faithful’s most important annual pilgrimages. While I’ve yet to go myself, both Weldon and Dave are regular attendees who speak about the event with something approaching reverence. Even now that Apple no longer graces the Macworld floor with its presence (arguably limiting the show’s newsworthiness), early estimates put show attendance for 2011 at as much as 25,000. It’s hard to imagine a similar turnout at, say, an HP-focused convention where HP wasn’t in attendance.

Macworld isn’t the only recent development that sparked this introspection. CNET today has a great interview with Mike Daisey, a devoted Apple fan and theatre geek who actually visited Foxconn facilities in Shenzhen, China to see where the products he loves are made. Daisey has just started a one-man show called “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs,” in which he compares his choice of operating system to a religious choice. And if you’ve seen the ardent defense mounted by Apple apologists (myself sometimes included) when their brand is besmirched, you have to admit the comparison is apt.

For me, Apple is so closely tied up in who I am partly because its products seemed to make my life so much easier once I switched from Windows-based devices, and partly because evangelizing the adoption of Macs and iDevices among my friends has left me feeling that I have a personal stake in the reputation of the company behind them. If Apple’s image suffers, so too does my own. After all, what happens to The Apple Guy when everyone’s using Android devices?

Apple is also a company that makes products designed to breed loyalty. After half a year with an iPad, I recently tried switching to a Galaxy Tab, which is a fine device by most accounts, including those of my colleagues. As Kevin noted, I returned my Tab soon after purchase, citing the somewhat ambiguous complaint that I found myself wishing it was an iPad. If I had to articulate, I’d say that feeling stemmed from relatively insignificant isolated user experience differences that, taken together, I was unwilling to learn to overcome after years of getting to know and love iOS.

Motorola just introduced a new promotional spot for its Android-powered Xoom tablet in time for the Superbowl. In it, the company obliquely compares Apple to Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984, which ironically takes a page out of Apple’s own playbook. Granted, it’s a hyperbolic comparison, but isn’t my knee-jerk urge to call it baseless, ridiculous and uniformed before I’d even seen it at least somewhat indicative that it isn’t totally off the mark?

As a journalist, I’m able to put aside my fandom and think critically about the decisions of Apple and its competitors. But as a user and consumer, it’s much harder to separate myself from the products I use and live with every day. But is that something to be worried about, or just a testament to the quality of the products Apple creates?

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• 5 Companies That Ruled Mobile in 2010
• 5 Connected Consumer Companies to Watch in 2011
• 5 Connected Consumer Companies That Ruled 2010

The survey, which Crowd Science performs semi-annually, addresses smartphone brand loyalty. This time around, it found that iPhone and Android customers were well satisfied with their choice of smartphone, but that BlackBerry is hemorrhaging users badly to both of those primary competitors.

A little over 90 percent of both iPhone and Android smartphone owners plan to stay with that OS when they purchase their next device, while nearly 40 percent of BlackBerry owners said they would opt for an iPhone next time around, and 34 percent said they’d go with Android instead of a RIM device.

It’s bad news for the Waterloo, Ontario-based BlackBerry maker, and this latest survey shows that Apple isn’t exclusively to blame for the company’s steady decline. According to Crowd Science CEO John Martin:

These results show that the restlessness of Blackberry users with their current brand hasn’t just been driven by the allure of iPhone. Rather, Blackberry as a brand just isn’t garnering the loyalty seen with other mobile operating systems.

For me, the real surprise is not that many are dissatisfied with RIM, which seems to have done very little but make incremental cosmetic upgrades with its devices over the last couple of years, but that Android is nearly matching the iPhone in terms of consumer awareness and desire.

Apple still has the advantage in terms of who its customers are and what kind of money they’re willing to spend — and on what — though. iPhone owners tend to be slightly older and more affluent, and are much more likely to buy paid applications compared to other smartphone users. Android owners skew younger and less affluent, and accordingly are much less likely to spend money on paid applications. And they do download more free apps than any other user group.

Finally, the Nexus One is making a big splash, even if it isn’t selling in droves. Android awareness in general jumped six percentage points to 66 percent since the last survey period, and 32 percent of BlackBerry owners would swap their current devices for a Nexus One right away, given the chance. That number jumps to 60 percent for users of smartphones not made by Apple or BlackBerry.

While RIM is the company that should really be scared by the results of this survey, Apple shouldn’t exactly be patting itself on the back, either. Android is making steady gains, especially among current smartphone users, and they seem to have scored a special place in the hearts of young consumers, which, when combined with the 90 percent-plus brand loyalty result, could pay off huge going forward.

Related GigaOM Pro Research (sub req’d):

Report: Surveying the Mobile App Store Landscape

A revamp of the web site is part of the Windows 7 launch campaign, and it includes a brand new store that stocks more than just software. You can now purchase a range of Windows 7-toting computers from HP, Acer, Dell, Lenovo and Sony, which are the real heavy-hitters in the PC arena. You can also pick up a single desktop, a Lenovo A600 all-in-one. Selection seems slim, but Microsoft is being a good copycat and not overwhelming consumers with an overabundance of choice.

All of the computers available on Microsoft’s web site come in stock configurations only, with no customization options beyond the ability to choose a color on select models. Users looking for more in the way of upgrades should still continue onto the manufacturer’s web site to order their machine, but Microsoft isn’t playing to that crowd. Instead, it’s aiming at first-time buyers or people with little to no computer expertise who just want the buying process to be as simple as possible.

And if you’re not too keen on the fancy new Internets, you can always take a trip down to Scottsdale, Ariz., where Microsoft today opened its first retail store. Here’s Microsoft’s own description of what it’s like, since I’m a little out of reach of the Scottsdale area:

As soon as you enter the store, there are laptops on large cedar tables, with seating so shoppers can sit and tinker. The walls are lined with giant LCD screens that envelop the space with landscapes and product images designed to create interest and spark curiosity. Below the images, stylish all-in-one PCs are set up with Zunes, Xboxes, headphones and widescreen displays, showing how all the items work together to create a multimedia experience.

Toward the back are laptop bags and an array of software titles before you turn the corner and reach a veritable mecca for Xbox enthusiasts — a gaming zone featuring a 94-inch widescreen, with immersive sound, seating and an array of controllers to play with.

Sounds like the whole premise is designed more around showing, rather than selling, as early speculation suggested. Microsoft is clearly pushing the experience, rather than trying to sell the component parts. I’d say something snarky about how this points to a lack of imagination on the part of your average PC customer, but being Mac users, I’m sure we can all come up with much more creative snark on our own.

All of this image and distribution re-imagining on Microsoft’s part is great news for one company: Apple. There’s no better sign that you have your main competitor on the ropes than when it resorts to parroting your moves. All Apple needs to do is continue to set the trend, and watch as Microsoft tries to follow it.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft
• The Future of Work Platforms: An Overview
• A 2011 Connected Consumer Forecast

I’ll posture that not many of us know the anniversary of the date we purchased most of our cellular phones — at least not before the iPhone hit the streets. (And if you do remember, hopefully you remember other, important anniversaries, too!) But things changed on June 29, 2007. Lines formed, and tons of iPhones were sold. Similar happenings have occurred both summers since, as the iPhone hardware has been updated. And although I’m on my third iPhone model, I’m not concerned with what my next phone will be, because I’ll own an iPhone for life.

This concept seemed like a fairly singular thought when it crossed my mind recently. But then I saw a link on Gruber’s site to this photo on Flickr. The subsequent comments clearly indicate that I’m not alone in holding my iPhone above those that came before. No longer do I scour the Internet for news of the next big thing (unless it’s iPhone-related, of course).

iPhone for life (I’m not a tattoo guy, but if I were…) is a concept I absolutely believe in. It sounds awfully shortsighted and absolute, I realize, but I have faith in Apple. The company has proven time and again that it can innovate, and lead the pack. With my iPhone, I have all the features in my pocket that I could ever care to have. The army of developers who flood the App Store with hundreds of new apps each week mean that I’ll always be able to find whatever I want to extend the abilities of my iPhone. As competition, such as the Palm Pre, hits the streets, apps have become a big deal. And while marketing departments have hung their hat on the ‘apps’ buzzword as of late, they’re playing catch up in a big way.

Beyond just the iPhone, Apple has turned the act of purchasing — and using — its products into something special. The designs alone elicit awe and excitement. Apple gets at them early, too, with offerings like free camps so little ones can learn to love its products while they’re impressionable (my son is enrolled in Summer Camp at the local store over the next couple of weeks, and is totally stoked about it). Adding free technical support and workshops takes it that much further. There’s a feeling that you belong to something when you own an Apple product, and that is what I believe makes the brand as sticky as it is today. Apple is not just a brand; it’s a culture.

I’ve seen firsthand the way that the iPhone has taken the iPod’s “Halo Effect” to the next level. Many friends have picked up iPhones over the past 24 months. They’ve loved these smartphones so much that they’ve gotten excited about taking the plunge into an entirely new computer system as well. (Some are even going for a MacBook just because they figured it would sync with their phone easier — at the very least, a great excuse to jump on the bandwagon!) Once they’ve taken that step, almost unanimously, they’ve wondered to me how they ever got along on the PC for so long when such an awesome alternative was out there waiting.

Not everyone is a gadget junky, as I myself tend to be. This life tends to be one of neglecting the gadget you’ve got, while drooling over the one that will hopefully come. But I’ve found bliss with my iPhone. Using the iPhone is just a great experience, not necessarily perfection (blasphemer!), mind you, but it truly is a joy to use. Apple already had me as a lifelong customer with its computers. But the iPhone has nestled its way into a niche in my life that for a very long time, was up for grabs. No longer — iPhone for life, baby!

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

Greenpeace released the 12th edition of its Guide to Greener Electronics today (PDF), with Apple falling somewhere between tangerine and burnt orange. For those who take the rating seriously, Apple scored 4.7 out of 10, unchanged from last time, though the company slipped from 10th to 11th place in the ranking of 18 companies.

The guide is based on three “demands” (their word) by Greenpeace: eliminating toxic substances, e-waste recycling and energy usage. Those demands are then broken down into four sub-demands, which are ranked: bad, partially bad, partially good, and good. Overall, Apple scores mostly in the middle, but with several bad grades.

The single, wholly positive ranking Apple receives is for the timeline on phasing out nasty PVCs and BFRs from manufacturing. As Apple and the Environment notes, “Printed circuit boards, electrical components, mechanical parts, and internal cables are BFR-free and PVC-free.” However, Greenpeace even takes issue with that claim because Apple has “unreasonably high threshold limits for BFRs and PVC in products that are allegedly PVC-/BFR-free.”

Greenpeace criticizes Apple strongly on e-waste recycling, while at the same time noting the company has extended coverage of its recycling program to Asia, and that Apple has set a goal of a 50 percent recycling rate by 2010. The main problem, according to Greenpeace, is a matter of disclosure on the part of Apple. On the issue of energy, Apple again scores poorly. First, because the company does not report on GHG (greenhouse gasses) emissions, Apple fails. Second, because the company does not report on renewable energy usage, Apple fails.

If you don’t see a pattern here, what it comes down to is that Greenpeace grades companies on words as much as action. Apple is a secretive company by nature. Considering how confrontational Greenpeace has been with Apple in the past, it’s hardly a surprise that Apple makes no effort to meet the “demands” of Greenpeace.

The real question here is why Greenpeace focuses so much on Apple. Both Dell and HP sell far more computers than Apple. Both have dropped in ranking, according to the latest guide, and both now score lower than Apple. Does this mean we will see protestors at the headquarters of HP? Will there be advertising campaigns about a “yellow” Dell? If Greenpeace followed its own guide, that’s what should happen.

However, the difference between Apple and every company in the guide is brand. Apple is easily the most popular brand. By focusing on Apple negatively, Greenpeace can theoretically threaten Apple’s brand popularity. Further, any changes Apple makes because of pressure from Greenpeace could then be leveraged against companies that actually pollute more than Apple. Finally, attacking the most popular company raises awareness of Greenpeace itself, not that the environmental organization would ever be so self-serving.

Keep going green, Apple, but keep going without Greenpeace.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• NewNet Q4: Platform mania and social commerce shakeout
• Infrastructure Q2: Big data and PaaS gain more momentum
• Mobile Q2: Smartphone growth surges; iPad’s rule continues

If you’re as old as I am, you remember when music first came to personal computers. I mean real music — not beeps and boops or nasty synth-heavy wav files. I mean music — the kind you get on CD. (In case you’re not as old as me, a CD is a type of storage media from the Bronze Age. It was, for a brief time, the dominant species of music distribution before the iTunes Store and P2P networks slashed and burned their way to the top of the food chain.)

In the early 90s, getting real music on my computer was a Big Deal; just a few short years earlier, I had been playing vinyl records on my parent’s turntable at home. In those days, portable music meant cassette tapes, which were hissy and clunky, and you had to turn them over half-way through!

Compared to vinyl records and rattling old tapes, CDs were practically magic. Not only could I play them on the family stereo, I could play them on my computer, too. Suddenly my favorite tracks from Michael Jackson’s “Bad” were a mere double-click away. Awesome.

It’s hard to imagine a time without iTunes, but if you grew up in those dark days, you know iTunes arrived really late to the Music Player party. Real Player and Winamp both appeared in the mid-90s (’95 and ’97, respectively) and, along with various flavors of Microsoft’s Media Player, dominated the market. Even when iTunes finally made an appearance in 2001, it would be another four years before Apple’s music management software would become the undisputed King of Music Players.

Magic

It was a magical combination of ingredients that propelled iTunes to global domination. The iPod plus iTunes Store was perhaps the most compelling reason to want to get the MP3 player. After all, the device was stylish and, for saintly types who preferred lawful content acquisition, the music was cheap. More importantly, iTunes made the portable music experience easy and hassle-free. Importing a CD collection, buying new music and getting it all on to a shiny new iPod was made so simple anyone could do it. And they did. Before iTunes, MP3 players were firmly rooted in the domain of geeks and tech-savvy kids. After iTunes, MP3 players were called iPods (including those that weren’t iPods) and even your grandmother knew how to subscribe to podcasts.

Thing is, we’re still talking about a venerable old iTunes from way back when. Take a look at the application today and you’re seeing something, superficially at least, that looks much the same as it always has. Now take a (metaphorical) look beneath the bonnet. (This is where I would insert some clever and funny car engine analogy if I knew anything about engines.) Where once lay a single-cylinder engine better suited to a lawnmower, now lies a Formula One beast. (Did that work? No? You get the point…)

iTunes has changed. Massively. What used to be an application dedicated to finding and playing digital music files on your hard drive has become a multimedia powerhouse for television shows and movies (in both standard and high-definition formats), music videos, games, podcasts and applications. It’s a management tool for your connected home media, from the Apple TV in your den, to the iPod in your pocket, to the iPhone you simply can’t live without. It’s a portal into the world’s biggest online media store. Oh yeah, don’t forget Audiobooks, Internet Radio, and the (somewhat gimmicky and underused) Ringtones. I strongly suspect we’ll be seeing eBooks make an appearance, too, once the mythical iTablet-thingy makes its debut later this year.

iTunes has become the standard for all media management/playback software. The rule of thumb for software developers in this space is now “If you can’t produce something at least as good as iTunes, you really shouldn’t bother.” (I’m talking ‘bout you, Windows Media Player.) iTunes achieved this status partly because the iPod has been such a sales success, but also because Apple’s “less is more” approach to user experience and elegant design has produced an application so intuitive that everyone can get to grips with it. (Cue earlier grandmother reference for added emphasis.)

Some might describe the software as “multifunctional,” while less generous souls might call it “bloated.” Whatever your opinion, with all these features and capabilities, I wonder if “iTunes” is still the right name? After all, it has been years since it was a music-only media player. You might argue the majority of iTunes users only fire it up when they want to listen to a bit of Michael Jackson, or dip in to their custom-made playlist of “Stargate” soundtracks, but there’s still an interesting dilemma here.

What’s in a Name?

In a previous article I noted how a friend recently had problems on his Windows PC (I know, hard to believe) and had to reinstall his email application. I won’t bore you with the gory details, but one of his stumbling blocks was not due to a lack of IT literacy, but entirely the result of Microsoft’s decision to bundle applications like Windows Live Mail, Photo Gallery and Messenger — all contextually sensitive and appropriate names given their respective functionality — into a single suite called “Essentials.” Baffling, really, because, unless you know what you’re looking for and what it means in advance, “Windows Live Essentials” absolutely does not communicate “Your email is here!” to the average user.

This is now happening with iTunes. The name doesn’t reflect the true scope of the application’s functionality. It might seem like I’m making a silly point, particularly if you have grown up with iTunes, but bear with me, I’ll explain myself…

Time for Some Role Play

Imagine you’re Granny. You’ve just got your first computer. You want to listen to music, and a cursory glance through your applications presents iTunes as an obvious candidate for the right software to use. Easy. Job done.

But what about buying and downloading episodes of “The Golden Girls”? What do you use for that? Or subscribing to the “Silver Surfer’s Videocast”? How about downloading that movie you saw advertised the other day (because you do like Matthew McConaughey, he’s such a polite young man). The question is, what makes more sense to you as the right application to launch — iMovie or iTunes?

No matter how you spin it, iTunes doesn’t quite fit the bill. The name implies music and nothing beyond music. I can’t help but think Microsoft, usually the least likely software company to come up with decent names for anything, managed a far more appropriate moniker with “Windows Media Player.”

Given all its features and functionality today, perhaps a name change would be useful, though I don’t envy any marketing executive’s task of dreaming up a replacement. iMedia? iPlayer? iDoEverythingSoStopClickingAroundAndJustChooseMe?

In January, Phil Schiller announced the iTunes store had sold more than 6 billion songs. With those numbers in mind, I’m sure Apple doesn’t feel any urgent need to worry about updating or changing the iTunes brand. But as iTunes continues to grow in both features and functionality, its name becomes ever more inappropriate and, at least for newbies, potentially misleading. Apple has a long history of choosing contextual names for its software; consider Pages, Numbers, iPhoto, iDVD and so on. There was a time when iTunes was the perfect fit. Not any more.

Is it too late to change it now? Apple certainly has the financial resources and the marketing talent to convince the world that any change is good. The real spanner in the works here, though, is how important the iTunes Store is as a source of revenue for Apple (6 billion songs, people!) The notion of doing anything that might, potentially, reduce those roaring cash rapids to, say, a babbling brook of Benjamins, would have Apple’s shareholders shaking in their boots.

What’s more important: honoring a well-established branding philosophy that communicates Apple’s commitment to simplicity and ease of use, or milking a cash cow for all it’s worth?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Report: Monetizing Digital Content
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce

Consumers may be perceiving Apple as a more ecologically friendly company than they actually are, according to a new report by marketing research firm TDG.

Results of a survey of randomly selected participants found that roughly 30% believed Apple was the most environmentally friendly tech brand, with Dell and HP the next most popular choices, at 21% and 15% respectively.  The results are somewhat baffling, since Apple does not do nearly as much as some other companies to paint themselves as a so-called “green” company.

Survey participants were also just plain wrong about Apple.  While it has recently improved its standings in Greenpeace’s “Guide to Green Electronics,” it still falls behind Dell and HP based on the environmental organization’s comprehensive ranking system.  In the inaugural study in August of 2006, Jobs’ baby scored a paltry 2.7 out of a possible 10.  September 2008′s results saw Apple’s score climb to 4.1, which is still behind LG, Toshiba, Dell and HP.  Apple was listed as having improved in some categories, but still isn’t quite up to snuff on energy management and recycling.

So how does Apple get to be the greenest without actually getting the best scores or engineering their image through huge green-specific ad campaigns?  According to the author of the TDG study, Michael Greeson:

Chalk it up to effective marketing and the brand’s aura of simplicity in both design and usage.  In today’s market, aesthetics in branding and design matter when it comes to portraying a pro-environment message. Independent of whether Apple’s products and services are actually environmentally friendly, consumers perceive them as such. While other CE vendors may have to invest a fortune to improve their green image, Apple doesn’t seem to have this problem.

In other words, Apple’s branding seems to be subtly, inherently green.  It’s true that consumers tend to to cluster environmental responsibility with contemporary, clean, simple brands.  Apple is perhaps the best example in computer electronics, but Ikea demonstrates the same effect in the home furnishing sector.

When marketing trend analysts, and even some environmentalists, are forecasting an end to the effectiveness of green marketing, Apple may represent the green company of the future.  Commercials with voiceovers about carbon emission reduction are beginning to fall on deaf ears, but a company that appears casually environmental seems to strike a chord with those resistant to the in-your-face approach.  So how best to capitalize on this consumer misconception?  Bottom line is that Apple should just continue doing what they do, offering more services like iPod battery disposal and reducing their ecological footprint, but without showing off.  It’s the “Meh” approach to green marketing, and it sure seems to beat wrapping everything in bamboo.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The Public Cloud Will Dominate Enterprise IT — One Day
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era