Apple argues only a fool would believe its iPhone 3G ads

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 99
    People, it was false advertising on Apple's part, plain and simple. Go take marketing 101. As for comparing Apple's ad to other companies' "deceptive" ads, many of the examples people have tossed around are based on perception and are suggestive. What's different about Apple's ad is that they spelled it out. They said it. There is nothing to suggest, it is absolute- "Twice as fast." So, why then can't we take Apple's ad at face valve, since they so blatently and literally "spelled it out" for us? This lawsuit is fair game.
  • Reply 22 of 99
    dimmokdimmok Posts: 359member
    All Commercials are evil.

    Thats why DVR's were invented.....SKIP IT.



    And move on with your life.
  • Reply 23 of 99
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Silencio View Post


    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.



    AT&T delivered more than 2x the speed to me, and it seems most other people are getting at least 2x the speed. They clearly state on their contract that 3G isn't available in all areas.



    Apple's radios for 3G are capable of 7.2Mbps, which is considerably faster than 2x the theoretical speed of EDGE. But Apple isn't advertising the speed of the 3G radios. They don't even state on teir tech specs page the theoretical speed, yet I doubt their is another 3G cellphone out there on a manufacturer's website that isn't listing that lab speed, yet they don't seem to be getting sued for not actually having 7.2Mbps or 14.4Mbps for their 3G.
  • Reply 24 of 99
    While it may be true that it'd be foolish to take any advertising at face value, I'm surprised Apple is so blunt about it as their defense. It may be true, but it has terrible PR implications. Personally, I think the lawyer writing the argument got his or her grammar wrong. No doubt Steve Jobs is going to wring out whoever came up with this. It'd be interesting to see if Jobs will make note of this during his Macworld keynote.
  • Reply 25 of 99
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Apple never lies or misleads.
  • Reply 26 of 99
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iReality85 View Post


    People, it was false advertising on Apple's part, plain and simple. Go take marketing 101. As for comparing Apple's ad to other companies' "deceptive" ads, many of the examples people have tossed around are based on perception and are suggestive. What's different about Apple's ad is that they spelled it out. They said it. There is nothing to suggest, it is absolute- "Twice as fast." So, why then can't we take Apple's ad at face valve, since they so blatently and literally "spelled it out" for us? This lawsuit is fair game.



    But is it "Half the Price"?
  • Reply 27 of 99
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,283member
    Well, this commercial for another phone doesn't come off as realistic either

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u7_X_irAvQ

    But then again, the same goes for, let me see, err.... just about 100% of all commercials?
  • Reply 28 of 99
    poochpooch Posts: 768member
    that's right wamu ... i said i'd pay my mortgage on time, but if you believed that then you're a fool! and it's ok for me to say that because, well, because it happens all the time.



    i love apple.



    i hold their stock.



    and i hope this guy gets some relief; it'll be better for all of us.
  • Reply 29 of 99
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iReality85 View Post


    People, it was false advertising on Apple's part, plain and simple. Go take marketing 101. As for comparing Apple's ad to other companies' "deceptive" ads, many of the examples people have tossed around are based on perception and are suggestive. What's different about Apple's ad is that they spelled it out. They said it. There is nothing to suggest, it is absolute- "Twice as fast." So, why then can't we take Apple's ad at face valve, since they so blatently and literally "spelled it out" for us? This lawsuit is fair game.



    Yes, some of the example cited were based on perception and/or preference. But there are other ads that claim an absolute, measurable advantage (ie, our batteries last longer than the competition's). How about ATT's ad claiming fewest dropped calls, which in my experience is the most blatant advertising falsehood I've ever seen.



    However, each of those claims can be backed up with hard evidence (usually in a controlled environment). So battery A might perform better than battery B in a flashlight, but B is better in a radio. Both companies could advertise that their battery outlasts the competition. And both would be right. ATT has fewest dropped call...but not in my city. USB 2.0 is faster than Firewire 400 (not the subject of advertising, but another example). Is the iPhone 3G capable of being twice as fast? Yes. Will is always be? No.



    What about cars that advertise a certain MPG, but don't actually achieve that because of the way normal drivers drive or because you are driving up a mountain? What about my Thinkpad that advertises a 4 hour battery life, but only if you turn down the screen brightness and don't to anything but stare at the screen? All quantifiable facts. All true under the right conditions. But not all always true.



    Marketing 101 is the survey class. Welcome to Marketing 201.



    BTW: I'm all for clamping down on dubious marketing claims. But lets start with the get rich quick infomercials and the sweepstakes mailings claiming that I've "alrady won".
  • Reply 30 of 99
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by filburt View Post


    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.



    This page uses javascript.....
  • Reply 31 of 99
    adjeiadjei Posts: 738member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    But is it "Half the Price"?



    Of course it's half the price, when I go and buy the phone at the store, it's 200 dollars, before it was 400.
  • Reply 32 of 99
    adjeiadjei Posts: 738member
    This is the problem we have today, everybody is trying to make a buck and feel they should sue in order to get their way. The iphone is twice the price, 200 dollars vs 400 dollars, and 3g is twice as fast edge. Will it always be twice as fast? Not always, it depends on my location, if I'm in the middle of a forest, will it be twice as fast, probably not. Should I go and sue Apple because it's not twice as fast in a forest or I don't always get "twice as fast" speeds. Every advertisment on TV is not always 100 percent and anyone who doesn't realize that is just being naive, but that's the world we live, which is why we get these lawsuits.
  • Reply 33 of 99
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:

    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.



    MP3 is proprietary too. Arguing against Flash on the basis that it's proprietary is stupid. It's all over the net whether it's an open standard or not.



    Quote:

    Apple argues only a fool would believe its iPhone 3G ads



    Only a fool would have voted for George W. Bush but look what happened...
  • Reply 34 of 99
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iReality85 View Post


    People, it was false advertising on Apple's part, plain and simple. Go take marketing 101. As for comparing Apple's ad to other companies' "deceptive" ads, many of the examples people have tossed around are based on perception and are suggestive. What's different about Apple's ad is that they spelled it out. They said it. There is nothing to suggest, it is absolute- "Twice as fast." So, why then can't we take Apple's ad at face valve, since they so blatently and literally "spelled it out" for us? This lawsuit is fair game.



    Can you please post any research that indicates that 3G is not twice as fast? My iPhone 3G is about twice as fast as it is on EDGE, depending on reception. It's slower in bad spots, and actually faster than 2x in some spots. Performance depends on your location, just like every other wireless technology from FM radio to Wi-Fi.



    And about the iPhone not having access to "the whole internet" or whatever - that's such rubbish. Of course it doesn't - it doesn't have FTP, Torrents, or anything like that either. What it DOES do is display 99% of HTML sites in their entirety, something that can't be said of other smartphones. That's like suing Lexus because their ad says it will take you anywhere, but it actually can't go up mountain trails, in the sand, etc.
  • Reply 35 of 99
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post


    Can you please post any research that indicates that 3G is not twice as fast? My iPhone 3G is about twice as fast as it is on EDGE, depending on reception. It's slower in bad spots, and actually faster than 2x in some spots. Performance depends on your location, just like every other wireless technology from FM radio to Wi-Fi.



    And don't forget that the iPhone hardware is capable of more than twice the speed of EDGE and Apple is not providing data service.
  • Reply 36 of 99
    the iphone kills the user through high data transfer costs. it comes cleverly configured and looks slick but it is not very fast. those of us that knew apple was going to screw people waited ... the others? they now have a phone with a lousy 2 mp camera that costs them a PREMIUM ... bwahahaha
  • Reply 37 of 99
    tmedia1tmedia1 Posts: 104member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bavlondon2 View Post


    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, YOU would have to be naive to believe you can make any claim you want in a tv ad. Apple (and many other companies) deserve to be punished for their misleading BS.
  • Reply 38 of 99
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    The difference being is that MP3 is not owned and controlled by one company. Flash is solely beholden to what Adobe dictates. MP3 isn't beholden to any one company.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


    MP3 is proprietary too. Arguing against Flash on the basis that it's proprietary is stupid. It's all over the net whether it's an open standard or not.



  • Reply 39 of 99
    Sorry guys, this is more or less a boilerplate defense in a case like this. "Puffing" is a legitimate defense - if the elements are met. I'm not saying they are met or not. Apple is simply pleading this defense, along with a laundry list of other defenses so that it doesn't give up its ability to argue this defense later in trial.



    The coverage of this issue makes it look like this is Apple's sole or most important response. It's actually just one of about a couple dozen defenses Apple is throwing out there.
  • Reply 40 of 99
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    What is true or not true can be to a matter of opinion, and to some degree you have to use some common sense. The nature of advertising isn't to tell the truth. The nature of advertising is to make the general public feel inadequate without the product or service being advertised.



    We the consumer should know that Nike shoes won't make you play basketball like Michael Jordon. You won't get sexy girls because of jeans, beer, a car, or all of the other items that feature sexy girls.



    If you really want to get down to the truth, most of us really don't need any of the crap that is being advertised on television. But you couldn't sell these things if you told the truth.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tmedia1 View Post


    No, YOU would have to be naive to believe you can make any claim you want in a tv ad. Apple (and many other companies) deserve to be punished for their misleading BS.



Sign In or Register to comment.