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

1235789

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 173
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by merdhead View Post


    Ah, do you get ripped off a lot when you buys things?



    The old phone was $399 and you could buy it without a contract.



    The new phone is $199 and it requires you to sign a contract for 24 months. Furthermore that contract is at least $240 more expensive than if you got the same contract on the first phone. In some markets you can get the phone without a contract and it costs about $800 or more.



    So if we look only at what the customer pays, the new phone is either slightly more expensive or twice the price.



    Thank you. Either way he's wrong- vs the original's original price or most recent price. He must believe everything that's advertised or just dense- probably the latter.
  • Reply 82 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post


    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......





    The difference being that Nokia never made this claim. Also, whether the Nokia N82 can reach "all of the internet" or not, has no effect on Apple's misleading advertisement.



    I was surprised to find that my iPod Touch cannot access certain areas of sites (language learning) that I need to use on a daily basis. I am forced back to using my laptop when I had hoped the Touch would fulfill my needs.



    Stop the fanboyism nonsense. Apple screwed the pooch on this one and deserves to have the add banned.
  • Reply 83 of 173
    I still can't slam dunk a basketball after buying my Air Jordans.....



    Regardless, the point I understood from Apple on this is that their web browser is not limited to special websites designed for Mobile Devices. Where it is true that it stinks trying to go to a website that is entirely in flash, (anyone writing a website totally in flash is selling themselves short since search engines can't read the site), I put more blame on Adobe for that, since they have made it harder to incorporate flash into the Safari iPhone browser, wouldn't you think that Apple would have if they could. Where Java is a standard, Flash is not, so much so that Microsoft has it's own version, (Silverlight)
  • Reply 84 of 173
    nceencee Posts: 836member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


    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?



    My battery life is outstanding, but then again, I use my iPhone, as a phone only



    Skip
  • Reply 85 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post


    Universal translation: Sapporobaby kicked my ass again. I better resort to changing the subject otherwise my lack of knowledge will become even more apparent.



    Don't let the facts get in your way......
  • Reply 86 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    The difference being that Nokia never made this claim. Also, whether the Nokia N82 can reach "all of the internet" or not, has no effect on Apple's misleading advertisement.



    I was surprised to find that my iPod Touch cannot access certain areas of sites (language learning) that I need to use on a daily basis. I am forced back to using my laptop when I had hoped the Touch would fulfill my needs.



    Stop the fanboyism nonsense. Apple screwed the pooch on this one and deserves to have the add banned.



    Of course, that's why I didn't say Nokia made that claim.

    Ok?

    Of course Apple screwed the pooch.

    What's funny, is how sensitive everybody is and how much everybody thinks it matters.

    This is about an ad that wasn't running when it was banned.

    It's even less important than flash is on a cellphone. (if that's possible)
  • Reply 87 of 173
    Original iPhone (8Gig) = $399

    3G iPhone (8Gig) = $199



    EDGE Service = $20/month

    3G Service = $30/month (Actually less than what Verizon charges)
  • Reply 88 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post


    Ah, but that isn't what Apple said.

    And it's not what I said.



    I said you can walk into the Apple store with only 200 dollars in your pocket and walk out with an iPhone. Not a penny more than 200 bucks.



    And you used to walk into the Apple store with 400 bucks in your pocket, not a penny more.



    Now, 400 bucks to 200 bucks is half the price.



    So you walk into an Apple store and walk out with their phone for half what you used to pay for it.



    Now, if you want to quote rates for how you use it, you're going to have to talk about what AT&T is doing with THEIR advertising and not what Apple is doing.



    But then, you already know that I''m sure.



    BTW:If someone could explain to me how I'm wrong about my facts, ok.

    But making stuff up is a Yahoo board game that makes a monkey out of ya...



    You are not wrong on your "facts" but you are using the facts to mislead. That in itself is wrong. You know good and well that a person is going to have a contract to use that new iphone (and pretty much the same for the old iphone) so the total cost of that device over two years is not half the cost. Playing games with semantics might make you "right" but it gives no credence to your arguement...instead it makes you sound like the stereotypical used car salesman.
  • Reply 89 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wishchild View Post


    Original iPhone (8Gig) = $399

    3G iPhone (8Gig) = $199



    EDGE Service = $20/month

    3G Service = $30/month (Actually less than what Verizon charges)



    Apple is selling you the faster phone for the half the price...

    AT&T is selling you the faster wireless service for $10 more...
  • Reply 90 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wishchild View Post


    Apple is selling you the faster phone for the half the price...

    AT&T is selling you the faster wireless service for $10 more...



    I pay much less for my computers now than I did 5 years ago but my fast broadband internet service cost 3x more than what I used to pay for my slow dial-up service.
  • Reply 91 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post


    Of course, that's why I didn't say Nokia made that claim.

    Ok?

    Of course Apple screwed the pooch.

    What's funny, is how sensitive everybody is and how much everybody thinks it matters.

    This is about an ad that wasn't running when it was banned.

    It's even less important than flash is on a cellphone. (if that's possible)



    Sorry, I am not sensitive to Apple making a mistake. I do find it humorous that so many folks will not admit when it is obvious that Apple makes an honest mistake. Should Apple be punished, no, but they should not be allowed to make that claim.



    But, it does matter. Things matter in life, and telling the truth is one of them. As is admitting when one makes a mistake. That does matter.
  • Reply 92 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by merdhead View Post


    Ah, do you get ripped off a lot when you buys things?



    The old phone was $399 and you could buy it without a contract.



    The new phone is $199 and it requires you to sign a contract for 24 months. Furthermore that contract is at least $240 more expensive than if you got the same contract on the first phone. In some markets you can get the phone without a contract and it costs about $800 or more.



    So if we look only at what the customer pays, the new phone is either slightly more expensive or twice the price.



    This guy was just responding to an original assertion by teckstud. You should go back and read that so you can perhaps better understand this conversation.
  • Reply 93 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wishchild View Post


    I pay much less for my computers now than I did 5 years ago but my fast broadband internet service cost 3x more than what I used to pay for my slow dial-up service.



    Of course our broadband internet is a joke here in the U.S. I have a friend teaching Japanese near Isahaya, Kyuushu and for about 60 bucks a month he is getting 50MB download and 15MB upload. Grrrrrr.......Charter, thieves at best.
  • Reply 94 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    This guy was just responding to an original assertion by teckstud. You should go back and read that so you can perhaps better understand this conversation.



    I did read the entire thread and do understand the conversation. Thanks for your concern regarding my comprehension capabilities, though. Sorry if I didn't respond correctly.
  • Reply 95 of 173
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,153member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by merdhead View Post


    Ah, do you get ripped off a lot when you buys things?



    The old phone was $399 and you could buy it without a contract.



    The new phone is $199 and it requires you to sign a contract for 24 months. Furthermore that contract is at least $240 more expensive than if you got the same contract on the first phone. In some markets you can get the phone without a contract and it costs about $800 or more.



    So if we look only at what the customer pays, the new phone is either slightly more expensive or twice the price.



    Actually the original iPhone was sold with a contract but was not enforced the same way it is enforced now. Whether you abide by the contract or not is totally not related to how much the iPhone cost since you need a data and voice plan (both cost money). Furthermore, once you unlocked your iPhone (original) and use it with T-Mobile you will lose your warranty and support for breaking the contract, which you agreed on once you bought the original iPhone.



    I don't see how you consider the data and voice plan to be part of the iPhone cost since you cannot use it without both and they are both charges for services provided and collected by third party. As far as I know, all phones are sold to work with voice and/or data plans.



    Today I saw an motorcycle ad on the TV that said you can own one for $85/month. They didn't include the price of gas, service and maintenance, and insurance (where you get gas is irrelevant since the cost everywhere is almost the same, at least in one state. Did they lie? Should they include the cost of gas with the price?
  • Reply 96 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    You are not wrong on your "facts" but you are using the facts to mislead. That in itself is wrong. You know good and well that a person is going to have a contract to use that new iphone (and pretty much the same for the old iphone) so the total cost of that device over two years is not half the cost. Playing games with semantics might make you "right" but it gives no credence to your arguement...instead it makes you sound like the stereotypical used car salesman.



    I DO KNOW good and well exactly that.



    And PRETENDING that people who read a 3 foot by 5 foot poster in big letters that says "199 - Half the Price" can not understand that they actually have charges for the cell service is also using the facts to mislead.



    Everybody on the planet knows you have to pay for cell service to use a phone.

    Even if you bought the old one and walked out, to use it you need to pay somebody something.

    And if you use the old one WITHOUT a dataplan, you could save a lot.

    But you don't see companies advertising the iPhone costs quoting the non-data plan cost of using one and you could have done that. (of course, if anyone did that it would be MISLEADING)



    I never said anywhere at any time, that Apple claimed the multiple year cost of the phone was half the cost. I've never seen anyone try to make that argument except a few lonely soles here.



    The argument seems to be that Apple, and no other handset maker, needs to advertise the cost of their handsets including the fees paid to the carriers added up for the life of the contract. And of course, that's silly.



    Apple says you pay them half what you used to pay them.

    The cell service cost can go up or down, isn't set by Apple, isn't advertised on the posters inside the Apple store.



    Yes, I'm teasing these guys and they like playing the role of Monkey in the "Tease the Monkey" game.



    Parsing words, it was 399 and it's now 199.

    That is half the cost.



    It may be true that the money Apple will get for the new 3G over the life of the contract is actually more than what was considered a gold mine for the version 1 phone.

    But you takes out your 199 and pluck it down, pluck down half as much.

    The fact that Apple is making even more money, that's what's bothering a lot of people.

    Apple ignored tethering.

    They ignored flash.

    And now they've proven just how important those things really are. (NOT)
  • Reply 97 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post


    I DO KNOW good and well exactly that.



    And PRETENDING that people who read a 3 foot by 5 foot poster in big letters that says "199 - Half the Price" can not understand that they actually have charges for the cell service is also using the facts to mislead.



    Everybody on the planet knows you have to pay for cell service to use a phone.

    Even if you bought the old one and walked out, to use it you need to pay somebody something.

    And if you use the old one WITHOUT a dataplan, you could save a lot.

    But you don't see companies advertising the iPhone costs quoting the non-data plan cost of using one and you could have done that. (of course, if anyone did that it would be MISLEADING)



    I never said anywhere at any time, that Apple claimed the multiple year cost of the phone was half the cost. I've never seen anyone try to make that argument except a few lonely soles here.



    The argument seems to be that Apple, and no other handset maker, needs to advertise the cost of their handsets including the fees paid to the carriers added up for the life of the contract. And of course, that's silly.



    Apple says you pay them half what you used to pay them.

    The cell service cost can go up or down, isn't set by Apple, isn't advertised on the posters inside the Apple store.



    Yes, I'm teasing these guys and they like playing the role of Monkey in the "Tease the Monkey" game.



    Parsing words, it was 399 and it's now 199.

    That is half the cost.



    It may be true that the money Apple will get for the new 3G over the life of the contract is actually more than what was considered a gold mine for the version 1 phone.

    But you takes out your 199 and pluck it down, pluck down half as much.

    The fact that Apple is making even more money, that's what's bothering a lot of people.

    Apple ignored tethering.

    They ignored flash.

    And now they've proven just how important those things really are. (NOT)



    I am not "pretending". I really hate to say this, but there ARE people out there that cannot understand the BIG SIGN + contract idea. I dealt with many of them when I was in the army and they would not agree with you regarding the half the cost idea. There are also some seriously smart folks out there that would also disagree as they would see the purchase of a cell phone as to include the contract cost. Now if Apple didn't get a penny of that contract money, then the argument would stand firm (actually the 2nd iPhone is only 47.84% as expensive, so it is less than half the cost), but if Apple receives any of the money paid to the carriers, the the half the cost argument can be thrown out the window.
  • Reply 98 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post


    Of course, that's why I didn't say Nokia made that claim.

    Ok?

    Of course Apple screwed the pooch.

    What's funny, is how sensitive everybody is and how much everybody thinks it matters.

    This is about an ad that wasn't running when it was banned.

    It's even less important than flash is on a cellphone. (if that's possible)



    ***BEEP****BEEP****BEEP*****





    The sound of backing up......
  • Reply 99 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    We're not here to argue about whether flash is a good thing or not. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. Regardless of this, Apple's claim that 'all parts of the internet are on the iPhone' is false, and hence the advert has been pulled for false advertising and misleading customers. All they need to do is say 'most parts of the internet are on the iPhone'. It might not sound as good, but at least it's honest!



    What generally replaces Flash, anyway? Ajax?
  • Reply 100 of 173
    foo2foo2 Posts: 1,077member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    what is anything? are you certain you are alive? am i a brain stimulated by electrical pulses in a pickling jar in 2078 AD?



    The only thing i know for certain is that nothing is certain.



    Unlike you and me then, the ASA is certain that Java and Flash are parts of the Internet. It's official now. The British government has proclaimed Java and Flash are parts of the Internet.
Sign In or Register to comment.