My favourite. Not quite as business-driven as the first, but not quite as entertainment-driven as the second either.

I think it strikes a good balance.

Certainly the least entertaining for me too, but I can't help wonder if it's simply because we're used to the format. Most people who watch shows like this tend to say the first series is the best or at least hark back to the early years - I know I did with Big Brother, which I've given up on now and not watched this year. The Apprentice is still entertaining but as with any reality show as it goes on it seems to attract and/or feature more TV hungry types.

SAS complained that last year's candidates were not good and claimed this year's were better. He ends up with two people who have been no more impressive than Michelle and in some ways less so andwho made more bad decisions.

He seems to have been obsessed by the Michelle experience and got rid of all the pretty younger women and then interrogated all the semi finalists on their breeding and child caring status. Michelle's major sins though seem to have been to have sex in her spare time and to be bright enough to point out that the company he sent her to set up was based on a daft idea. Ironically Tre's comment on Michelle's job is that he would have told him where to stick it as it was nonsensical and Tre, Lohit and Katie all seem to have decided they didn't want to work for SAS before they even got the job.

This is the first time I've watched The Apprentice and I have to say I throughly enjoyed this series.

They do seem to be much more inept at the tasks. However as watching them cock it up is naturally more entertaining maybe that's what the producers are focusing on.

I couldn't see the point of the quantum Physicist or scientist on a business programme as she was bound to fall flat on her face like Nargis from series 2 (calender episode).

Rory had 3 failed businessesd before he came on the show?????

I think the boardrooms are weaker. People like Gerri and Sophie seemed like quite strong candidates but couldn't handle the boardroom. We also had a lot of weak PMs, who usually got fired: Andy, Rory, Natalie, Paul, Adam, Ghazal.

One difference that strikes me is that in series 2 it was often edited to fool you as to who would lose (that's how I remember it, at least). In this series, the editing has focussed mainly on the losing team and the result has rarely been a shock. There have been more spoilers too. It's been more like 'Tune in tonight to see so-and-so lay into so-and-so in the boardroom' than 'Who will win?'

In the previous series, I could site episodes where someone sold brilliantly or dealt with customers wonderfully or in some way obviously shone, even if I didn't like them. In this series I cannot say that I have been impressed by anyone, though I have liked some of them on 'You're Fired' or 'Beyond the Boardroom'. I don't know if that is editing or if they are less talented this time, but the emphasis of the programme has been more, I think, on failure and incompetence.

They never gave both teams equal airtime on the tasks in this series.

The live TV selling for example, it was virtually all concentrated on Simon's team c*cking-up.

It's still very watchable but I think the novelty is equally fast wearing off.

If Alan Sugar is not careful in the next series he'll be saying goodbye to the show too sooner than he thinks like Trump who took his eyes off the ball & got more interested doing the show not for it's initial intent but more as just an entertainment slot on mainstream tv.

AS should stay focus on why he's actually doing the The Apprentice show & get rid of candidates you can actually smell from a mile who's only in it for fame pronto.

They've all been really good...
...but for different reasons. The contestants make it, and because they are different, so is each series.

Great enterainment, if not great business.

I do think that if any other person on the show, like Katie, had lost 6 times out of 8 and had been in the boardroom twice (and you knew that she had only been kept out on the previous occasions by cosying up to the PM), they would have been out on their ear.

so for me it's been more like a reality show - 'keep the horrible ones in in case they kick off and boost the ratings!' type of mentality

Something similar has happened every year. Last year Ruth was on the losing side 7 times out of 10, and for four of them she was also in the boardroom, and for one of them she lost as PM. Yet she was a finalist, and many people thought she should have won.

The year before, Saira lost 6 times out of 10, including both times she was PM, was in the boardroom 3 times; and she was a strong finalist too. I think a lot of people were surprised when Tim beat her.

By comparison Katie was on the losing side 6 times out of 10, was only in the boardroom twice, and won both times she was PM. So according to that, Katie performed better than both Ruth and Saira. She would have been a strong finalist too - much stronger than Simon in my opinion.

The more the series goes on the less the result of the tasks seems to matter. Siralan starts to form a view of you and if you don't fit you get fired...