Apple argues only a fool would believe its iPhone 3G ads
you were stupid to believe us.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/A...s-Anyway-99450
Apple: Who Believes Our Ads Anyway?
Company responds to iPhone 3G speed false advertising suit...
02:57PM Wednesday Dec 03 2008 by Karl Bode
tags: business · wireless · bandwidth · Mac · consumers · AT&T
Apple has been taking heat over global advertisements that show the iPhone 3G performing at speeds vastly faster than real world 3G (or 2G) networks operate. Two such ads were recently banned in the UK, to which Apple responded that the ads were "relative rather than absolute in nature." Here in the States, one 70-year-old San Diego resident filed suit against Apple for misleading advertising. Techdirt directs our attention to the fact that Apple this week responded to the suit, denying that the ads lie, but then adding this comment:
"Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact," Apple said in its answer.
In other words, we're not lying, but you're an idiot if you believed what we were saying. Of course there's a fairly obvious chasm (see video comparison) between the ads and real-world performance. Apple faces five lawsuits related to the performance (or lack thereof) of the iPhone when connected to networks in the real world, but the attorney for this false advertising case thinks their case "has the most teeth and the most legs to it."
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/A...s-Anyway-99450
Apple: Who Believes Our Ads Anyway?
Company responds to iPhone 3G speed false advertising suit...
02:57PM Wednesday Dec 03 2008 by Karl Bode
tags: business · wireless · bandwidth · Mac · consumers · AT&T
Apple has been taking heat over global advertisements that show the iPhone 3G performing at speeds vastly faster than real world 3G (or 2G) networks operate. Two such ads were recently banned in the UK, to which Apple responded that the ads were "relative rather than absolute in nature." Here in the States, one 70-year-old San Diego resident filed suit against Apple for misleading advertising. Techdirt directs our attention to the fact that Apple this week responded to the suit, denying that the ads lie, but then adding this comment:
"Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact," Apple said in its answer.
In other words, we're not lying, but you're an idiot if you believed what we were saying. Of course there's a fairly obvious chasm (see video comparison) between the ads and real-world performance. Apple faces five lawsuits related to the performance (or lack thereof) of the iPhone when connected to networks in the real world, but the attorney for this false advertising case thinks their case "has the most teeth and the most legs to it."
Comments
That's essentially Apple's legal response to a lawsuit filed by San Diego resident William Gillis back in September alleging that Apple and AT&T knowingly oversold the new iPhone alongside misleading ads that promised it would perform twice as fast as the original model.
Apple's 9-page reply begins early off by maintaining that any statements it made "were truthful and accurate and were not misleading or deceptive." But it was a bullet point response a few pages later the caught the eye of Wired, as it suggests that only a fool would believe what the company says in its ads.
"Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact," Apple's attorneys wrote.
Gillis' complaint was the second of now half a dozen to charge the iPhone maker with selling a handset that didn't live up to the company's hype. Apple has moved to dismiss several of the other complaints, but hasn't made the same request regarding the suit at hand.
Michael Ian Rott, Gillis' attorney, believes that's because his client's allegations have "the most teeth and the most legs" and that if there was "any way that Apple could get out of it, they would have filed a motion to dismiss here, too." Or, it could be that Gillis is no stranger to Apple.
The 70-year old and an acquaintance sued Apple back in 2005 for misrepresenting the size of hard drives shipping in the then popular PowerBook G4. Apple ultimately settled, giving Gillis a free iPod and Ian Rott -- yes, the same lawyer -- $7500 to cover his legal fees.
Word of Apple's response in the iPhone suit comes just days after the UK's Advertising Standards Authority banned a television advertisement for the touch-screen handset after 17 viewers "complained that the ad was misleading, because they believed it exaggerated the speed of the iPhone 3G."
Apple's latest banned iPhone ad
The ad, which claimed the iPhone 3G could surf the Internet "really fast," was the second to be pulled from the air by ASA on grounds that it was misleading. In August, the regulator banned a similar 30-second spot which stated that "all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone."
That assertion was misleading, the ASA said, because the iPhone does not support Flash or Java, two proprietary technologies that sometimes prove integral in the display of certain web pages.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Apple isn't lying in television ads that tout the iPhone 3G as twice as fast as its predecessor, but customers would have to be fools to take those claims at face value, the company argues.
That's essentially Apple's legal response to a lawsuit filed by San Diego resident William Gillis back in September alleging that Apple and AT&T knowingly oversold the new iPhone alongside misleading ads that promised it would perform twice as fast as the original model.
Apple's 9-page reply begins early off by maintaining that any statements it made "were truthful and accurate and were not misleading or deceptive." But it was a bullet point response a few pages later the caught the eye of Wired, as it suggests that only a fool would believe what the company says in its ads.
"Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact," Apple's attorneys wrote.
Gillis' complaint was the second of now half a dozen to charge the iPhone maker with selling a handset that didn't live up to the company's hype. Apple has moved to dismiss several of the other complaints, but hasn't made the same request regarding the suit at hand.
Michael Ian Rott, Gillis' attorney, believes that's because his client's allegations have "the most teeth and the most legs" and that if there was "any way that Apple could get out of it, they would have filed a motion to dismiss here, too." Or, it could be that Gillis is no stranger to Apple.
The 70-year old and an acquaintance sued Apple back in 2005 for misrepresenting the size of hard drives shipping in the then popular PowerBook G4. Apple ultimately settled, giving Gillis a free iPod and Ian Rott -- yes, the same lawyer -- $7500 to cover his legal fees.
Word of Apple's response in the iPhone suit comes just days after the UK's Advertising Standards Authority banned a television advertisement for the touch-screen handset after 17 viewers "complained that the ad was misleading, because they believed it exaggerated the speed of the iPhone 3G."
Apple's latest banned iPhone ad
The ad, which claimed the iPhone 3G could surf the Internet "really fast," was the second to be pulled from the air by ASA on grounds that it was misleading. In August, the regulator banned a similar 30-second spot which stated that "all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone."
That assertion was misleading, the ASA said, because the iPhone does not support Flash or Java, two proprietary technologies that sometimes prove integral in the display of certain web pages.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
wow I beat Kasper to it!!
The ads now over here have a sting at the end saying the video has been sped up and speed depends on network ect....lol
apple deserve to be royally scr**ed for this.
No they dont. If yours stupid enough to watch the ad and then say mine doesnt do it as fast as that then you are just plain naieve.
no they said it was 'twice as fast'.... and it wasn't.
no they said it was 'twice as fast'.... and it wasn't.
Actually, according to most tests, "twice as fast" is a conservative claim.
http://www.everyipod.com/iphone-faq/...d-testing.html
Apple isn't lying in television ads that tout the iPhone 3G as twice as fast as its predecessor, but customers would have to be fools to take those claims at face value, the company argues.
Uh, Apple, that's exactly what you've conditioning your user base to do, take everything at face value.
- tide actually washes whiter than other detergents
- Coke tastes better than Pepsi (or vice versa)
- AIG is the best insurance
- Geiko is the best insurance deal for cars
- etc.
or?
-------
Please tell me which car to buy, cause I need some honest opinions, wait! I will watch prime time TV tonight, sure to find an honest answer there
-------
Anyone who believes any advertisements is setting themselves up to be fooled. I do not understand why Apple is being held to a higher standard than any other advertiser. As a previous poster pointed out, there are definitely circumstances in which G2 iPhones are 2 or more times faster....
just a biased opinion by an applestockholder...!??
MS lies about Vista, Coke lies about their product, my national internet company lies about their internet can make people smarter so this is just a way for people to get money the easy way.
Ads is meant to sound nice for people to read and hear. Go and read reviews and forums for the real truth. Period
Well not everyone believes that drinking coors light is gonna get you laid ether so it kind of make sense, but it is twice as fast as the previous version but nothing more
Yeah, it is hard to feel sorry for someone who takes advertising at face value...
It is not as if you couldn't wait until the phone had been out for a a few weeks and do some casual research into the reviews.
I am quite sure that Apple exaggerated their examples (the videos for example), but they did wrap them around a grain of truth which is the standard for advertizing in this day and age.
I don't think it is ideal, but a lawsuit? Frivolous comes to mind...
It's stupid people like the ones who complained about it being misleading that make companies have to write "enlarged to show texture" on cereal boxes.
That assertion was misleading, the ASA said, because the iPhone does not support Flash or Java, two proprietary technologies that sometimes prove integral in the display of certain web pages.
I am not aware of any web sites (that are not obscure anyway) that still use Java. Heck, not even Java's website uses Java.
That said, I do think the ad is misleading.
No they dont. If yours stupid enough to watch the ad and then say mine doesnt do it as fast as that then you are just plain naieve.
I beg to differ - on a phone network OK but on wireless no way Jose. Safari is quite slow to render pages even when you are sitting next to the router on a corporate network connection where I would define the bandwidth with 'sufficient'
I can see how people might be disappointed about this and as it is the trend of the time to immediately sue, hoping one gets at least a free iPod and 15 Minutes of fame.....
A decent 3G network should be twice as fast as EDGE with plenty of room to spare, but good old ATT couldn't deliver and Apple's the one getting dinged for it.
This is so rediculous. Apple is trying to show off the different features of the iPhone. Does anyone really want to watch a 10 minute commercial showing the features in real time? Hell no!
Exactly! People go to the keynote for that. And we've all seen Steve taking a little while to load nyt.com on his iPhone... despite the ads.
Whatever settlement Apple is stuck with in this case, they should turn to ATTWS and present them with the bill.
A decent 3G network should be twice as fast as EDGE with plenty of room to spare, but good old ATT couldn't deliver and Apple's the one getting dinged for it.
Excellent point! ATT has underserved most of the US with their promised Super 3G Upgrade
that only happened in certain areas (and slowly).
Was the ad misleading? Sure it was. All ads are misleading. That's their purpose:
Portray your product in the most glorious possible way and using snappy, cool,
memorable terms, without actually lying.
Ads are supposed to push the envelope. Did this one push a little too far? Did
it cross the line? We'll see how the suit turns out . . .