Apple iPhone ad banned in UK due to "misleading" claims

[AppleInsider]

Advertising regulators in the UK have ruled that one of Apple's iPhone television commercials mislead customers and ordered it banned from further broadcast.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it received complaints from two local viewers who took issue with a claim in the 30-second spot which stated that "all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone."

That assertion was misleading, they said, because the iPhone does not support Flash or Java, two proprietary technologies that sometimes prove integral in the display of certain web pages.

When contacted by the ASA, Apple said it built the Safari web browser on the iPhone using open standards, and that it could not reasonably assure compatibility with every third party plug-in or technology on the market.

The Cupertino-based company also argued that the reference in the ad to "all parts of the internet" was simply aimed at highlighting Internet site availability, not to every aspect of functionality available on every website.

The ASA noted Apple's argument that the ad was about site availability rather than technical detail, but considered in its deliberation that the claims "Youll never know which part of the internet youll need" and "all parts of the internet are on the iPhone" implied users would be able to access all websites and see them in their entirety.

"We considered that, because the ad had not explained the limitations, viewers were likely to expect to be able to see all the content on a website normally accessible through a PC rather than just having the ability to reach the website," the watchdog said in a statement. "We concluded that the ad gave a misleading impression of the internet capabilities of the iPhone."



Specifically, the ASA ruled that the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.2.2 (Implications). It has banned the commercial from further broadcast in its current form.

Readers interested in the backstory to Flash and its absence on the iPhone should check out AppleInsider's three-part series Flash Wars.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Phizz]

Agh... I'm sure they'll just reword it to something which basically means the same thing but is immune to these cry-baby complaints.

[wbrasington]

It appears that no phone, or browser, can make the claim that they handle "all parts of the internet".

Nothing to see here..... move along.

[antiorario]

As a web designer, I con't consider Flash and Java as native web languages – when I feel particularly picky, I barely consider them web languages at all. Plus I'm the essence of Apple fanboyism (if that's a word), and I'm outraged. Really, I am.

[macsimilian]

Time for these people to get a life!

[merdhead]

The right approach to fixing this issue is to stop people using Flash and Java on their websites.

[sapporobaby]

For the most part, when doing a side by side comparison between my iPhone and my Nokia N82, the N82 will run more sites than the iPhone. So in truth the complaint is valid and Apple is wrong, however this could be nit picking on the part of the ASA. At the end of the day, it is false advertising by Apple be you a fanboy or not, the facts are the facts.

[the cool gut]

TUBES! It should be "all of the >>TUBES<< of the internet are on the iphone!" idiots!

[wbrasington]

Originally Posted by sapporobaby

For the most part, when doing a side by side comparison between my iPhone and my Nokia N82, the N82 will run more sites than the iPhone. So in truth the complaint is valid and Apple is wrong, however this could be nit picking on the part of the ASA. At the end of the day, it is false advertising by Apple be you a fanboy or not, the facts are the facts.

So what you're saying is Nokia also can not make the claim that all sites will work.
So much for any of THIS mattering at all......

[RichL]

It's a very valid complaint. 90%+ of "professional" websites using Flash in one form or another - including AI. The iPhone doesn't give you the whole of the web (let alone the Internet) and that's a fact.

Now if only the ASA could do something about all these ISPs/mobile operators claiming to offer "unlimited" services...

[Mark W]

They stopped showing that ad when the iPhone 3G came out anyway (notice that in the YouTube clip, it shows a first generation phone that isn't even running the latest 1.x software) - so by the time they actually made the ruling, Apple had pulled it anyway.
The ads currently out in the UK are "Everyone" and "Hallway" (although the Everyone ad is slightly different to the US version, for example, it depicts UK locations when demonstrating the Maps, also no service provider shows in the top bar, wheras in the US versions it shows "AT&T").

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

It appears that no phone, or browser, can make the claim that they handle "all parts of the internet".

It's a thoroughly stupid phrase to use anyway. Internet != the web.

On the other hand though, the lack of Java means I can't access the built in web server in the UPS for my servers with an iPhone whereas I can with my 5 year old SE so I have some sympathy with the complaint.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

It appears that no phone, or browser, can make the claim that they handle "all parts of the internet".

Nothing to see here..... move along.

OK then - how about:
"Half the Price"- NOt. (Vodoo math)
"Twice as Fast"- Not. (Occasionally)

[foobar]

ActiveX is missing, too!

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

So what you're saying is Nokia also can not make the claim that all sites will work.
So much for any of THIS mattering at all......

Nokia aren't making the claim.

[digitalclips]

Apple ad aside, what a novel concept ... 'Advertising Standards'! If they introduced 'Truth in advertising' laws here in US we'd have about four ads left!

[cosmic68]

Originally Posted by RichL

It's a very valid complaint. 90%+ of "professional" websites using Flash in one form or another - including AI. The iPhone doesn't give you the whole of the web (let alone the Internet) and that's a fact.

Now if only the ASA could do something about all these ISPs/mobile operators claiming to offer "unlimited" services...

So true!

How have ISP's gotten away with those claims of unlimited broadband and Apple get an immediate (but fair) slap on the wrist straight away?

[donlphi]

That's right, before Flash and Java we didn't have the full Internet, we had 300 baud modems and bulletin boards. Who is the sysop over in the UK anyway?

[jfanning]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

So what you're saying is Nokia also can not make the claim that all sites will work.
So much for any of THIS mattering at all......

It matters a lot, a company made a false claim on an ad, a number of countries have bodies in place to protect consumers, and in this the body upheld a valid complaint.

Sure there are people in these forums that know that Flash isn't a standard web feature, but there is a lot that don't, and would assume from the ad that it would work.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by merdhead

The right approach to fixing this issue is to stop people using Flash and Java on their websites.

It would be neat if Apple could somehow run Flash within QuickTime the same way Flip4Mac handles .wmv and .avi files.

[wbrasington]

Originally Posted by teckstud

OK then - how about:
"Half the Price"- NOt. (Vodoo math)

Actually, it is half the price.
(you do the math)

Apple never advertised the cost of the plan with the old phone, and doesn't now either.
The fact that (in the U.S.) AT&T is sticking it to you is not something Apple has concern
over any more than Nokia or Rimm do. (which of course, they are sticking it to those
users also....)

Originally Posted by teckstud

OK then - how about:
"Twice as Fast"- Not. (Occasionally)

Actually, a lot of users are getting much more than twice as fast.

[jfanning]

Originally Posted by RichL

Now if only the ASA could do something about all these ISPs/mobile operators claiming to offer "unlimited" services...

Have you laid a complaint?

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by RichL

It's a very valid complaint. 90%+ of "professional" websites using Flash in one form or another - including AI. The iPhone doesn't give you the whole of the web (let alone the Internet) and that's a fact.

What? 90% of sites are somehow deficient because you can't see flash content on the iPhone? Do you work for Adobe?

If I designed a website that relied on Flash then I'd quickly lose a client. I think you'll find it's more like 90% of sites (if not more) function just fine without Flash.

AI's only use of Flash is advertising and it's not really a bad thing that they don't show as far as a visitor is concerned. It's possibly a bad thing for advertisers and AI although I'm sure they could show GIF animations if the user-agent of the browser showed it was an iPhone. Same for NetNewsWire on the desktop which switches off Flash and Java by default and is why I tend to spend most of my browsing time in that and not Safari.

[donlphi]

Originally Posted by RichL

It's a very valid complaint. 90%+ of "professional" websites using Flash in one form or another - including AI. The iPhone doesn't give you the whole of the web (let alone the Internet) and that's a fact.

Now if only the ASA could do something about all these ISPs/mobile operators claiming to offer "unlimited" services...

90%??? Please! Maybe if you count advertising. I want flash on the iphone just as much as the next guy, but your "facts" needs some serious backing up. There are an aweful lot of websites that do not use flash.

[wbrasington]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

It would be neat if Apple could somehow run Flash within Quick Time the same way Flip4Mac handles .wmv and .avi files.

It would be even better if doing so would not drain your battery.
While it may be true that some sites have a use for flash and write it in a good way, there are too many sites using flash that clearly do not know how to code and whack your cpu and memory usage on your computer. (making it really bad for a cell phone)

The people pushing flash that use "90% of the sites use flash" as an arguement need to remember they are arguing in favor of flashy ads embedded in so many click-through sites.
Since the ability to disable those sections of websites is one of the most requested features of browsers like FF, arguing that they are required for the "web experience" is silly.
Many people go out of their way to install a totally separate browser just to get the stupid flash disabled. And to say even AppleInsider uses flash, is outright stupid. It is the single most annoying thing about AppleInsider and not something to complain about not having enough of.

"Jeepers Mr. Wilson, I had no idea!...... That's right Dennis, now you go along and play."

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by donlphi

That's right, before Flash and Java we didn't have the full Internet, we had 300 baud modems and bulletin boards. Who is the sysop over in the UK anyway?

300 baud modems? Luxury!

We never had 300 baud modems when I was a kid. My father used to make us string up two paper cups wit bit of damp sisal between them and shout gopher* protocol packets down t'line.






* also missing from the iPhone

[petermac]

Originally Posted by RichL

Now if only the ASA could do something about all these ISPs/mobile operators claiming to offer "unlimited" services...

It would seem it only takes 2 people to make their complaint to the ASA to have them do something about it. I agree unlimited should mean unlimited, they must issue different dictionaries to mine when you study advertising 101.

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

It would be neat if Apple could somehow run Flash within QuickTime the same way Flip4Mac handles .wmv and .avi files.

That's how it used to work back in Quicktime 4-ish days.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

Actually, it is half the price.
(you do the math)

Apple never advertised the cost of the plan with the old phone, and doesn't now either.
The fact that (in the U.S.) AT&T is sticking it to you is not something Apple has concern
over any more than Nokia or Rimm do. (which of course, they are sticking it to those
users also....)

The first 8 gig iPhone cost $600
The new 8 gig iPhone costs $200
That's half?

[teckstud]

So I take it that the iPod Touch has the same limitations- no flash? Bummer.

[wbrasington]

Originally Posted by teckstud

The first 8 gig iPhone cost $600
The new 8 gig iPhone costs $200
That's half?

You been in a cave for a year?
Apple hasn't charged 600 bucks for a 8 gig iPhone for a looooong time.
Wake up Sparkey, you missed a lot of price cuts already not just the latest 50%.....

[RichL]

Originally Posted by donlphi

90%??? Please! Maybe if you count advertising. I want flash on the iphone just as much as the next guy, but your "facts" needs some serious backing up. There are an aweful lot of websites that do not use flash.

Yes, I count advertising in that figure. No advertising = no revenue = no website.

[wbrasington]

Originally Posted by teckstud

So I take it that the iPod Touch has the same limitations- no flash? Bummer.

There are a lot of people in this world.
There are people who care about flash.
There just are not a lot of people in this world that care about flash.
Get over it...... I know, it's a bummer for you but wait to you
find out about Santa Clause. Now THAT'S a REAL bummer.

[nvidia2008]

Well, it's good to see a UK body doing something. Now, who's in charge of giving O2 and CarphoneWarehouse a hard kick in the butt for the crappy iPhone 3G rollout in July? Hmm.. maybe that's water under the bridge for many people...

[wbrasington]

Originally Posted by RichL

Yes, I count advertising in that figure. No advertising = no revenue = no website.

No users, = no revenue, = websites that do not matter.

Reminds me of a developer that was big on focusing on building for T-Mobiles U.S. handsets.
The guy said "Do we want to build for one handset (iPhone) or an ENTIRE CARRIER!"
Of course, the iPhone will have more users for the one handset than the entire U.S. T-Mobile
customer base for all handsets they have surfing the web!

So before you say this kind of stuff like there won't be any websites with clicky ads that are flashed based, you need to think it through.

And of course, if Google continues to go down the path of allowing anything a developer wants to do on a phone to run with multiple things at once, the press reports of poor battery usage with be deafening.

Go ahead, complain about flash.
When you take your cell phone to a site that uses tons of memory and spins your processor up on your phone and uses up your battery, you'll be happy you have that
"open community" that is responsible for so many mainstream products. What? None? Or yea....

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

You been in a cave for a year?
Apple hasn't charged 600 bucks for a 8 gig iPhone for a looooong time.
Wake up Sparkey, you missed a lot of price cuts already not just the latest 50%.....

Ok - then -so how much is the subsidy on the iPhone vs the last model? How do you know it's half the price? Prove it.

[monstrosity]

not having flash is a good thing folks.

You will be glad in a few years when flash is dead and buried.

I develop flash sites, but i do not let that cloud my judgement.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by monstrosity

not having flash is a good thing folks.

You will be glad in a few years when flash is dead and buried.

I develop flash sites, but i do not let that cloud my judgement.

What will replace it then? And why is it bad to not have it?

[wbrasington]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Ok - then -so how much is the subsidy on the iPhone vs the last model? How do you know it's half the price? Prove it.

The price?
The price is what you pay for something.
Only a putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.

Correction:Only a jeolous putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.

So let's focus on the price.
The price was 399.
The price is now 199.
Won't quibble over it being LESS than half the price.
You walk into Apple, hand them 199 bucks, you walk out with an iPhone.

You want to argue over the sales tax?
The contract length?
The contract itself?
Fine.
The advertised price, was 399 and now it's 199.
You say it's not.... YOU prove it!
(without referencing money that Apple doesn't charge)

[RichL]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

And of course, if Google continues to go down the path of allowing anything a developer wants to do on a phone to run with multiple things at once, the press reports of poor battery usage with be deafening.

Really? Flash, Java and background tasks are all possible on Nokia's latest smartphones. How many reports of poor battery life have you heard about the Nokia, say, E71? The only times I've heard complaints is when Nokia have chosen to include a ridiculously small battery (i.e. the N95).

Battery life seems to be a catch-all excuse for all of the iPhone's current limitations. If battery life is such a concern, why bother with a 3.5" color screen?