After appearing on stage with Samsung, Adam Levine tweets from his Apple iPhone

“Last week, Samsung invited Adam Levine from Maroon 5… on stage during its Galaxy Note 4 and Galaxy Note Edge announcement to discuss new partnerships between musicians and the electronics company,” Dan Seifert reports for The Verge.

“Levine was quick to joke about doing a ‘ceremonial iPhone burning after this,’ but it seems like his iPhone has avoided becoming a pile of ash,” Seifert reports. “Just today, Levine tweeted about appearing on The Ellen Show from, you guessed it, an iPhone.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Smirk.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “Dan K.” for the heads up.]

Related articles:
Samsung presenter Rachel Riley is an iPhone user – September 3, 2014
Clueless Samsung wishes best of luck to Landon Donovan in the World Cup – June 25, 2014
Samsung endorser LeBron James’ Samsung Galaxy phone shits the bed – March 13, 2014
Oscars host Ellen DeGeneres uses sponsored Samsung onstage, tweets from her Apple iPhone backstage – March 3, 2014
Samsung gets caught yet again with celebrity tweeting Galaxy ad from their Apple iPhone – December 3, 2013
T-Mobile USA CEO tweets ‘I don’t know what I’d do without my Samsung Note 3′ – from his Apple iPhone 5s – October 22, 2013
Tennis player David Ferrer accidentally tweets Samsung Galaxy S4 ad from his Apple iPhone – April 30, 2013
Oprah tweets ‘love’ of Microsoft’s Surface from her Apple iPad – November 19, 2012

Test proves Apple iPhone users are smarter than those who settle for other handsets – January 2, 2014
Android users poorer, shorter, unhealthier, less educated, far less charitable than Apple iPhone users – November 13, 2013
IDC data shows two thirds of Android’s 81% smartphone share are cheap junk phones – November 13, 2013
IDC: Android worldwide smartphone market share passes 80% – November 12, 2013
Apple Maps makes killer comeback as Google Maps loses access to world’s most desirable mobile customers – November 12, 2013
Android phones 3 times more likely than Apple iPhones to have been bought at discount store – August 22, 2013
CIRP: Apple iPhone users are younger, richer, and better educated than those who settle for Samsung knockoff phones – August 19, 2013
Twitter heat map shows iPhone use by the affluent, Android by the poor – June 20, 2013
Apple’s iPhone generates more in carrier fees than rival smartphones – January 30, 2013
Unsurprisingly, survey says Apple’s iOS is highest priority among mobile developers – January 23, 2013
People buy more Android phone units and do less with them vs. Apple’s revolutionary iPhone – November 14, 2012
Study: iPad users more likely to buy – and buy more – online than traditional PC users – September 29, 2011
iPhone users smarter, richer than Android phone users – August 16, 2011
Yankee Group: Apple iPhone owners shop more, buy more, remain more loyal vs. other device users – July 20, 2010
iPhone owners more likely to pay for digital content – November 26, 2009
Study: Apple iPhone users richer, younger, more productive than other so-called ‘smartphone’ users – June 12, 2009
Apple iPhone users buy many more apps, surf the Web much more than other ‘smartphone’ users – March 27, 2009

34 Comments

    1. For some people, morals and scruples are something to be bought and sold. I couldn’t make myself sell out like that because my values are firm and not movable goal posts. Aren’t all Apple fans the same?

      1. There seem to be quite a few people on this forum who are claiming some very lofty moral ground on this issue. Except there is nothing amoral about it.

        It isn’t like they had pledged their loyalty to Apple and they are now cheating on Apple by taking Samsung’s money to promote it. Nor is it the other way round (pledging their loyalty to Samsung and then cheating with Apple behind Samsung’s back).

        This person, like many other famous people before him, signed a contract which requires him to appear in a promotional event for a Samsung device. In such an event, he was required to say some things and do some things. He got paid to do this.

        I”m not sure there are may people who believe Tom Cruise is really a murderer, just because he played one in “The Collateral”. Or that Cristoph Waltz is really a Nazi German (just because he played on in “Inglorious Basterds”).

          1. I don’t think any Apple fanboi (not even the most rabid ones) would equate marriage with ownership of an Apple device. That is just disturbing on so many levels.

            1. Your point is well taken.

              However, A person say much good about a product he does not want to use, is called a liar.

              Don’t forget so many people are in jail and have been executed unnecessarily, because some liar vouched for their crime.

              Think about it.

        1. I disagree with you on this, Predrag. There is something immoral in pimping yourself out for money by lying about your commitment/involvement with a product or service. It is fraudulent and the people who engage in that practice are sell-outs who are risking their professional reputations (if they have one to risk).

          Personally, I take no stock in celebrity endorsements. What they think, wear, or use has absolutely no influence on my life.

        2. By the way, the last part of your post makes no sense at all, Predrag. There is a distinct and fundamental difference between promoting a product or service as yourself, and acting in a movie. In the former, you are using your personal influence as a celebrity to promote the product or service. In the latter, you are acting. If you are acting when you promote the product or service, then the advertisement is deceptive and misleading.

          There is a difference.

          1. I’m sure there may be people (in fact probably quite many) that genuinely believe a celebrity when (s)he promotes a product or service. After all, this is probably what the advertiser is trying to buy — authentic personal credibility of a celebrity (who eats Wheaties and wears Nikes because that was his personal choice / preference). However, I had always assumed that majority of population is very much aware that these celebrities are paid to promote a product, and that the only point of the exercise is that a celebrity has a louder voice than a no-name actor or some other promotional channel. When Oprah cays she loves Kindle, we all know that she received a big fat cheque from Bezos, so that Kindle is most likely NOT her personal preference, but the point is that we all did hear from her about the Kindle, which we wouldn’t have, if it were promoted by some other less conspicuous way. I don’t think that too many people were genuinely deceived, believing that Oprah truly loves Kindle so much.

            1. Whether or no the majority of people were deceived is not the issue. We were discussing the attempt to deceive…then intent to deceive. The morality of an action is not dependent on its success or failure.

              If the celebrity endorsements did not work then they would not be paid lots of money for them. But celebrities are paid lots of money, so a reasonable assumption is that they work in terms of the bottom line – profits. You can call it what you will, a “louder voice” or simply “influence.” But it amounts to the same thing. Their actions and endorsements impact consumer behavior.

              I do not care about celebrities. You may not care about celebrities. But a lot of people do. And celebrities often have much greater influence on the young and easily impressionable.

              We can disagree on this, Predrag. In the broader scheme of things, we all have more important things about which to worry than celebrities pimping themselves out for endorsement money. But your argument did not make sense to me, and I felt compelled to respond to what I believe is a non sequitur on your part.

            2. You’re right, I still disagree; while you may feel a bit tired of arguing this, I’m just putting it out there, in case you have time to read it.

              If there is an understanding that most people know that these celebrities are just paid endorsers (and not necessarily actual users, of their own choice), then there isn’t any moral issue.

              Then there is a point to be made by all the athletic sponsorships, where a high-profile athlete uses a specific brand of sneakers, racquet, sports attire, etc. These types of sponsorship, where it is clear that the endorsement is an actual personal choice, may sway some parts of population to equate other high-profile Hollywood people with athletes. Still, I can’t think of anyone I know who would base purchasing decisions on what a TV personality is promoting.

    1. Would that be the same publicist who got Adam Levine the Samsung deal in the first place?? In which case, s/he should know that his name is supposed to be linked to Samsung, not Apple. Anyway you look at it, it’s a f*ck up.

  1. You must be joking, who on earth is this Adam Levine?! (really, don´t bother to answer). Nothing new about people selling themselves. You call them……..something.

    Really not worth mentioning MDN. Please God make him use Samsung in the future, please.

    1. The only ones who get it would be juvenile Middle School students who, although rightly despising Samsung, think its clever or funny to give it a Baby name. How about “Poopy-sung” or “Micro-peepie” while you’re at it? Just a pet peeve… sorry. Seriously, folks- Adam Levine may be a nice guy but a walking piece of newsprint has about as much taste as the nerds in Redmond. I predict- when people run out of flesh for their repulsive ink- well, we’ve seen people tat their eyeballs and gums and private parts- nest, open heart surgery with “Mom” on your actual heart. This generation is the tackiest, most shallow and narcissistic ever- see Selfies, watch VMA’s….
      (BIGGEST pet peeve.) But, yes- Samsung Sucks.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.