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

1234579

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


    Advertising is the reason why this website can afford to pay its bills and its the reason why services like GMail, YouTube, Facebook can be given away to the end user for free. Without advertising, the Internet would either be very expensive or it'd go back to a collection of amatuer sites.







    I never said that Flash was the core component of those websites, I just said that 90% of big websites use it. Whether it's advertising, embedded video or a stupid intro - most sites do use it in some capacity. I don't base that 90% figure on any kind of official statistic, just my personal experience.



    I used the example of AI for a reason - it's a website that you won't expect to use Flash. A lot of people on iPhones visit AI and some of the writers for AI are strongly opposed to Flash.



    A very large percentage a mobile browsing users will not be using flash.

    So all those wonderful flash based non-"amatuer" websites that keep all the costs down for everyone will have no traffic from those mobile users.



    The sites, like facebook, that find an easier way to deal with the problem is to join the iPhone army will reap the benefits. The sites tied to flash that hold the line and decide not to participate in a demographic of willing spenders of money will simply give those customers to the companies able to market to them. (via the iPhone) And advertisers

    will be looking for a way to get to those eyeballs. When there are 40 million of them, it will change the argument. Instead of saying, "the iPhone user does not get the full internet"..... the advertisers will say "using flash doesn't get my message in front of much of the mobile community" and of course...... that will force a change.

    That change will either be Adobe getting their act together, or another "standard" erupting in the mobile marketplace. Either way, things are going to improve.
  • Reply 122 of 173
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Will all current websites that utilize flash now also have to re-write all of their content? They would have to replace it as well so your talking like many years down the road- no? And thirdly- why would they?



    Web developers already write in HTML. Version 5 is a more powerful update of tools web developers already use



    Why they would do it, because HTML is ubiquitous on all modern browsers. HTML is capable of performing much the same function of flash faster without heavily taxing system resources like flash.
  • Reply 123 of 173
    jensonbjensonb Posts: 528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by voodooru View Post


    good for the Brits.



    the ad IS misleading. period.



    just like when IiPHONE launched here in the US. all this talk about a full brower and real surfing experience in your pocket.... they forgot to mention no Flash. LOL





    and as suspected all the fanboys are up in arms LOL!!!



    Wow, you're incredibly arrogant and stupendously wrong. Safari touch is a full browser because it accesses web standard sites. HTML and co., you know? As opposed to what most mobile browsers access, which is a subset like WAP or iMode.



    They did not forget to mention no Flash. What are you, insane? Why would they make an ad where they said:



    "iPhone. It has the internet and a web browser so you can go to real websites. It doesn't have Flash though! No Flash."



    It's like making an ad for Frosties where Tony says "I could take them or leave them - tasty, but so unhealthy"



    And setting that preposterous notion aside, Flash is not a part of the web, nor is it (arguably) much to do with the browser. It is a third-party add-on which is not specified in web standards and therefore its exclusion does not disqualify the iPhone and its browser from having access to the "full web".



    There's nothing fanboyish in the facts. The UK ad which has just been banned may have offended or confused a couple of people, but the fact is Apple's claims about the browser on iPhone have not been factually inaccurate, just misinterpreted. Mostly because not enough people have moved on from Flash to open standards yet.



    It will happen. AJAX, h.264, these will replace Flash. Because they're better
  • Reply 124 of 173
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Web developers already write in HTML. Version 5 is a more powerful update of tools web developers already use



    Why they would do it, because HTML is ubiquitous on all modern browsers. HTML is capable of performing much the same function of flash faster without heavily taxing system resources like flash.





    How does this flash differ from flash used in YouTube? iPhone can handle video on Youtube - is that not flash based? thanks
  • Reply 125 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    How does this flash differ from flash used in YouTube? iPhone can handle video on Youtube - is that not flash based? thanks



    YouTube converts video content to H.264 just for the iPhone. So the YouTube you watch on the iPhone is not Flash, by any means.
  • Reply 126 of 173
    virgil-tb2virgil-tb2 Posts: 1,416member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post


    Wow, you're incredibly arrogant and stupendously wrong. ....



    Wait a minute, ... *who* is being arrogant here?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post


    Safari touch is a full browser because it accesses web standard sites. HTML and co., you know? As opposed to what most mobile browsers access, which is a subset like WAP or iMode.



    They did not forget to mention no Flash. What are you, insane? Why would they make an ad where they said:



    "iPhone. It has the internet and a web browser so you can go to real websites. It doesn't have Flash though! No Flash."



    It's like making an ad for Frosties where Tony says "I could take them or leave them - tasty, but so unhealthy"



    And setting that preposterous notion aside, Flash is not a part of the web, nor is it (arguably) much to do with the browser. It is a third-party add-on which is not specified in web standards and therefore its exclusion does not disqualify the iPhone and its browser from having access to the "full web"....



    While I agree with where you are going (Flash sucks, should be replaced etc.), your argument is nonsense IMO.



    Personally, I don't give a hoot about Flash, and the entire argument on this article about it is over the top in terms of temperature vs. the enlightenment it's providing anyone. IMO however, the final blow to the argument that "Flash isn't part of the web" or that without it Apple is still giving us "the full Internet" is that Apple had to create that YouTube app for the original iPhone.



    If this ever went to court (it won't), the fact that the company delivering "the full internet" decided that they needed to create a special app on the iPhone for those exceptions (times when you can't access "the full internet" because you don't have Flash), is rather damning. Legally speaking, it shows that Apple was aware at the time of release that they didn't provide the "full internet" because they built in a special app to handle those exceptions. This is pretty much a black and white issue. Even if we forget about Flash, how can it be the full internet without ftp, nntp, etc.?



    I understand what Apple is doing here and I don't really fault them for it too much. The USA in particular has no effective regulation on truth in advertising, and the UK does. The whole story boils down to that fact. in North America we are used to being lied to in little ways like this, but to turn around and defend it as "not a lie" is a loosing proposition.



    Of course it's dishonest, Advertising is based on deception. That doesn't make it right, and bully for the good old UK for standing up for the truth, albeit only slightly.
  • Reply 127 of 173
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    If this ever went to court (it won't), the fact that the company delivering "the full internet" decided that they needed to create a special app on the iPhone for those exceptions (times when you can't access "the full internet" because you don't have Flash), is rather damning. Legally speaking, it shows that Apple was aware at the time of release that they didn't provide the "full internet" because they built in a special app to handle those exceptions. This is pretty much a black and white issue. Even if we forget about Flash, how can it be the full internet without ftp, nntp, etc.?



    I think you are over stating this a bit. Apple got YouTube to agree to encode all of it videos in h.264 for mobile download. Because h.264 is a more efficient codec than FLV. There is nothing particuarly special about this as h.264 is an official MPEG standard that anyone can use. Their is no technical reason that makes FLV more of the real internet than h.264.



    What exactly do you mean by FTP and nntp are missing. What exactly is missing?
  • Reply 128 of 173
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    It's harsh to call the advertisment a lie. Apple is more specifically saying the iPhone supports official web standards, which most mobile phones don't, and which flash and java are not.
  • Reply 129 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post


    Because Apple is advertising the upfront cost of the phone.

    What part of that do you NOT understand?



    If you buy a house for 350,000, you paid the entire full 350,000 for the house at closing.

    Period.

    It is NOT true that you paid nothing for it at closing.

    Because you don't have the money, you have to get it somewhere.

    Same with the iPhone, if you don't have the 200 bucks, you can use your credit card.

    Is Apple supposed to include your interest charges on the CC in their advertising? Of course not.

    Now, you had to borrow it, and under most disclosure laws you actually have to sign a loan document that shows you will ACTUALLY PAY over a million bucks for your house when those other costs are included. So you PAY 350,000 at closing and have to get the money (through a loan) BEFORE you walk away.



    And of course, ALL THE ADVERTSING for the house through the realtor says the "price" for the house is 350,000 and DOES NOT include the fees, costs and money you give the lendor. The sign doesn't say, million dollar house for sale. It says 350,000 dollar house.

    You walk into settlement with a check at the table for 350,000 bucks from a lendor and you bought the house. Now, over the life "of the contract" you pay a lot more.



    Thanks for making my point.

    Real estate is something most people can understand, and makes the point here pefectly.

    Again, thanks.



    OK. So you want to remove all influence on your final price that comes as a concequence of entering into a contract. Sounds fair.



    It is, of course, impossible to purchase a 3G iPhone in the USA right now without tying it up in a contract. To use the real estate analogy, you walk into settlement with two sums of money: your own $200, plus your lender's (AT&T) subsidy (of an undisclosed amount) which you contractually agree to repay. On the surface it would appear as though the impact of the contract-imposed subsidy is unquantifiable, and therefore you are in the secure position of knowing that nobody can back up any claims which contradict yours.



    Luckily, though perhaps not for you, AT&T has gone on record with pricing details for what happens if you don't open up a whole new contract at the same time as you purchase the iPhone:



    If you are upgrading from any other non-iPhone and you are ineligible for the full upgrade subsidy, you're on the hook for $399 and $499 respectively...



    But that still involves extending your existing contract to the full 2-year period. What if you don't enter into any contract at all?



    Well, AT&T has gone on record to address the question of the contract-free price as well. They don't offer it yet, but they have unveiled plans to offer the iPhone 3G with no contract. The price for such an iPhone would finally be free from any influence due to contractual subsidies. They plan to sell such an iPhone for $599 and $699.



    For the 8GB model, that is approximately 50% more than the $399 price tag of the first generation iPhone.



    Source:

    http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pi...rticleid=25883
  • Reply 130 of 173
    I see the double standards people are out in full force again! My Sunday paper is full of cellphone ads: $199! $99! $49! FREE! 2 of them for FREE! 5 of them for FREE! This apparently somehow doesn't constitute false advertising. Yet Apple and Apple alone should be required to advertise: "Only $2600 for two years of service!" Please, people, buy a clue somewhere!
  • Reply 131 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post


    I see the double standards people are out in full force again! My Sunday paper is full of cellphone ads: $199! $99! $49! FREE! 2 of them for FREE! 5 of them for FREE! This apparently somehow doesn't constitute false advertising. Yet Apple and Apple alone should be required to advertise: "Only $2600 for two years of service!" Please, people, buy a clue somewhere!



    Please don't confuse the monkeys with views of reality.

    Free phones are after all, really free of course.
  • Reply 132 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ...the iPhone does not support Flash or Java, two proprietary technologies that sometimes prove integral in the display of certain web pages.



    That should read: ... that often prove integral in the display of certain web pages, including Appleinsider.com.
  • Reply 133 of 173
    Only on an Apple forum can there be such an almighty argument over something so simple and relatively clear cut. It really is no wonder that Apple fanboys have such a bad reputation.
  • Reply 134 of 173
    sapporobabysapporobaby Posts: 1,079member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    Only on an Apple forum can there be such an almighty argument over something so simple and relatively clear cut. It really is no wonder that Apple fanboys have such a bad reputation.



    Sooooo, soooooo, true.
  • Reply 135 of 173
    enzosenzos Posts: 344member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    Only on an Apple forum can there be such an almighty argument over something so simple and relatively clear cut. It really is no wonder that Apple fanboys have such a bad reputation.



    Of all mad creatures, if the learn'd are right,

    It is the slaver kills, and not the bite.



    Cheers
  • Reply 136 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    Only on an Apple forum can there be such an almighty argument over something so simple and relatively clear cut. It really is no wonder that Apple fanboys have such a bad reputation.



    First of all, I've never met, read anything from, or heard of anyone who has encountered the stereotypical Apple "fanboy." They don't exist. They're a figment of the Microsoft fanboys' diseased imaginations. If you actually read any of the posts on various tech forums, you will find that the nastiness always comes the other way.



    Secondly, I will grant that Apple-oriented forums are unique in that there are always a set of frequent posters who immediately jump on any story remotely favorable to Apple to express their rabid indignation, or onto any story unfavorable to Apple to express their boundless glee. You don't find anything like that on Windows-oriented forums, all you see are adolescent tirades intended to bury the opposition in ungrammatical insults.



    So, yes, Apple forums are unique: glad you like it!
  • Reply 137 of 173
    sapporobabysapporobaby Posts: 1,079member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post


    First of all, I've never met, read anything from, or heard of anyone who has encountered the stereotypical Apple "fanboy." They don't exist. They're a figment of the Microsoft fanboys' diseased imaginations. If you actually read any of the posts on various tech forums, you will find that the nastiness always comes the other way.



    Secondly, I will grant that Apple-oriented forums are unique in that there are always a set of frequent posters who immediately jump on any story remotely favorable to Apple to express their rabid indignation, or onto any story unfavorable to Apple to express their boundless glee. You don't find anything like that on Windows-oriented forums, all you see are adolescent tirades intended to bury the opposition in ungrammatical insults.



    So, yes, Apple forums are unique: glad you like it!



    My only problem really is when errors, flaws, mistakes, misjudgments, suddenly become features and anyone that speaks against this branded Mac haters and immediately flamed upon. Also there are those who seem to believe that Steve jobs is their friend and actually looking out for the "little" guy. Steve Jobs is a salesman who's loyalty is to his current wife, his children, and the shareholders. Not necessarily in that order.
  • Reply 138 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post


    My only problem really is when errors, flaws, mistakes, misjudgments, suddenly become features and anyone that speaks against this branded Mac haters and immediately flamed upon.



    Well, in my observation, it's you who does all the flaming. Anyone who dares to question any of your tirades is immediately accused of being too stupid to understand it, needing someone to read it for them, etc., etc.



    P. S. Just to save time: Yes, we get it! They like Nokia in Finland. Those of us who were going to keel over with a coronary from that shocking bit of news already did so a long time ago, so there's no need to keep posting it!
  • Reply 139 of 173
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,569member
    Why all the flash hate around here? Granted, I'm a Windows XP user, but I've never had a problem with flash content be it in advertising or in website content.



    It really sucks that the iPod touch/iPhone don't have flash at all. I was laying in bed this morning reading the release of the new Nikon D90 D-SLR and its new D-Movie mode. I pointed Safari on my iPod touch to the Nikon website to check out the features:



    http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/im...90/en/d-movie/



    All I get are banners telling me to install Adobe flash. So I had to get up and resume my notebook from hibernate to view it the site. It's simple stuff like this that pisses me off.



    So what's the problem here? Why the hatred? Is it because:



    1) Is flash support on Mac computers spotty/crappy?

    2) Do you just not like flash in general?

    3) You just hate flash advertising?

    4) Apple says flash is bad so flash is bad?



    I don't I really don't see what the big deal is with flash. I've just grown accustomed to it over the years and just expect it as a common, requisite part of browsing on today's internet.



    And nothing sucks worse than browsing to a webpage with my iPod touch with an embedded YouTube video only to have to be taken away from Safari to the built-in YouTube app. Then I have to go back to Safari only to find out that the YouTube app used up so much memory that my existing Safari webpage has to refresh again since it couldn't hold the page contents in memory.
  • Reply 140 of 173
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post




    So what's the problem here? Why the hatred? Is it because:



    1) Is flash support on Mac computers spotty/crappy?

    2) Do you just not like flash in general?

    3) You just hate flash advertising?

    4) Apple says flash is bad so flash is bad?



    It's because Flash is a barely-functional, bloated resource hog (like all of Adobe's products) that makes browsing on any computer a living hell. The Flash Light that Apple could fit on the iPhone and other cell phones have is not Flash, properly so called, and wouldn't do you much good. No mobile device can run full Flash or come within miles of having the system resources to do so.
Sign In or Register to comment.