Not at all. It's noticeable because it's awkward. Shots will linger on the Bing search page, or on the Metro Start Menu for a couple of seconds before the character does something, and then the character taps an app and gets into what they're doing. If it wasn't product placement, it would be bad direction.
I've been watching Arrow lately and it's really obnoxious there (though not really any more so than other shows that Microsoft has their marketing hooks into). For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyRZ03SFB68
This is consistent. Every time a character uses a computer, there are several solid seconds of LET US SHOW YOU THE NEW WINDOWS.
When we notice Apple's branding and recognize it as product placement it is equally awkward because it breaks down the fourth wall without advancing the narrative or being symmetric with the themes of story. The cinematography is contrived, it is just that audiences have been conditioned to give Apple a free pass to the point that we expect every computer to be product placed by Apple and are shocked when it is not.
To put it another way, the frontal shots typically used to frame the Apple logo are from the conventions of dialog, not atmospherics. The Apple logo tells us about the executive producer and nothing about the character. It's not ironic, satirical, or editorial. Just cynical.
Complete nonsense. All product placement is awkward when it lingers on the product and tries to show off its features instead of just being the characters and camera acting naturally while using a particular product. It doesn't matter what brand it is.
Also, as for the Apple devices, you only see the device itself. Never a shot of the UI. I have yet to see someone on TV use a Mac and interact 1:1 with the regular version of OSX that is installed on there.
Of course, MS can't do that with the surface cause it is so unremarkable so they just have to show the UI which is what makes it awkward as they really like to linger and make sure you really see that this is the original UI the device comes with.
When you see people using a Mac, for example on "Bones", you will just a custom created UI they interact with. I hear these are mostly flash animation that are supposed to look "techy" while not being boring. Which, incidentally is why things like tracking an IP or similar is looking to hilarious as it is done in the most graphical, bells and whistles kind of way. Even when they just send an email out in a scene they will use a custom animation instead of having the character really interact with OSX and use the standard mail client.
Yeah, Apple is clever to have their logo on the back, lit up. So when they pay for product placement, the laptop is just sitting on the desk, with the actor using it and facing the camera, with the logo nicely framed on screen.
I've read in the past that Apple does very little product placement (that may have changed) and that the primary reason that Apples are so predominant is that is what they have available on set. This may be more true for photo shoots than TV/Movie production.
I'm not certain, to be honest. I know that 30 Rock includes Apple in the product placement credits at the end. But I've also seen stories that say that Apple doesn't pay for product placement beyond giving the product away for free. And of course none of this is public knowledge, so who knows.
And of course none of this is public knowledge, so who knows.
Part of me really wants this kind of information to be recorded somewhere and made public some number of decades into the future. It would be absolutely fascinating as a student (in the broader sense) of technology and business to read all the confidential agreements, product placements, and back-room deals that facilitated the outcomes of technological history, even if it's after a very long delay.
By any practical measure Apple is indeed paying in that they gift the show with free iPads / iPhones / Computers / etc. Hence why the credits usually say that "promotional considerations" were provided by Apple.
However as others have said, Apple appearances do tend to be much more subtle, insofar as a big Apple logo is subtle.
And the fact is, Apple wouldn't really need to do that. I mean, how often have you seen scenes where the character was clearly using am iMac but the Apple logo was covered by a post-it or something?
In those cases, Apple is clearly not paying to have their merch being used and the show clearly didn't get approval to "officially" use the Apple logo which is why they had to cover it. But, in the end, it is still clear that this thing they use is an iMac.
You don't need approval to show a logo on a prop. The reason the post-it is there is to provide an incentive to the company to sponsor them. No money, no logo.
Apple (claims to) never pay for product placement. At this point their brand is so valuable that TV show producers put their products in when they want a certain feel.
Most of the time they cover their logo (because who doesn't keep stickers in the dead-middle of their laptop's screen), but there aren't a lot of manufacturers using aluminum for their machines, or have the iMac's back shape.
I have been having this trouble with all Tv shows lately. It's supposed to be the Golden Age of TV, and I have loved shows like Breaking Bad and Lost, but I can't shake the fact that the people producing the shows have no interest in anything other than ad views.
TV is just ads for ads. There's a reason Hulu sucks so much.
even worse with Apple and Sony placements in House of cards if you want. Personally I have been noticing awkwardness since the 80s mostly because directors don't have a clue about real IT use cases, mostly they try to impress, that's all.
That doesn't bother me so much, because if Sherlock were a modern figure, he'd carry some kind of mobile device and use it the way he does in the show. There isn't a lot of pomp and cirucmstance made about him unlocking his phone and carefully navigating the nanometer-engineered laser-etched icon menus, isn't this device amazing, you should buy one. You near a text message notification (which many of us hear, from our own devices, or our neighbors', on a daily basis), he looks at the phone, the shot shows the phone, and highlights the contents of the message as a storytelling device, rather than as an advertisement for how pretty Apple's software is.
I'd like to clarify that I'm not an Apple fanboy by any means - my mobile devices are all Android, and I primarily work on Windows machines. I don't have any issue with characters using modern technologies as part of a story, but when the storytelling detours for the sole purpose of advertising a product, it gets wonky.
On the flip side, Chuck did Subway's product placement very well - they just leaned into it and played it for laughs, rather than trying to oh-so-cleverly have Serious Characters eat Serious Lunch with Serious Nutritional Value. The show just owned the fact that Subway had shoved a crackload of cash at them and went overboard with it.
It's so noticeable to me because people don't use Windows Phone and Surface products in real life. It's actually possible that a typical person in a real situation would be using an Apple or Google device.
a typical person (does not)time travels (Fringe) or busts into high security research facilities (Sherlock). Of course the typical person does not drive Acura (Thor), so what is the point - Product placement is what it is. A company product trying to get eye-balls - for some reason if Microsoft does it - its a heinous crime. They are paying money for the shows - and you as a "freeware" consumer have to put up with it.
