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

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 99
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by applestockholder View Post


    only a fool would believe that

    - 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....



    maybe - a lot of ads are deliberately exaggerated so that it's obvious

    but there is a grey area which needs to be regulated

    because not everyone is able to judge, particularly with technology

    when some (a lot of) people simply aren't as well informed as others as to what's real and what's not



    check this article out... the UK's ASA has stepped in here too

    and basically said there's no creative or poetic licence here, it's just plain lying



    it's that middle ground which misleads people and that's what apple has tried to exploit

    if the iphone really is that fast, then why couldn't they have showed it browsing at normal speed ?



    apple are obviously yet to figure out the difference between creative licence and false advertising
  • Reply 42 of 99
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Their is only 30 seconds for the ad. Its being able to demonstrate the functionality of the phone in that 30 seconds.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by otwayross View Post


    if the iphone really is that fast, then why couldn't they have showed it browsing at normal speed ?



    apple are obviously yet to figure out the difference between creative licence and false advertising



  • Reply 43 of 99
    The use of the word "fool" in this headline is beyond normal AI hyperbole and crossing into libelous territory. Watch it, guys.
  • Reply 44 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.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JavaMan View Post


    This page uses javascript.....





    Java =/= javascript.
  • Reply 45 of 99
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    I wonder what else Apple feels "only a fool would believe"?
  • Reply 46 of 99
    They are also sueing Bubblicious for bubble gums that sticks to their faces.
  • Reply 47 of 99
    4metta4metta Posts: 365member
    So now Apple is taking the Nike defense? LAME.



    For those who don't know what case I'm talking about: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A9659C8B63



    They will set a dangerous precedent because wary consumers will think everything they say is a exercise in free speech in advertising and not fact.
  • Reply 48 of 99
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Their is only so far a company can reasonably go in advertisements of its products. If people are actually expecting a product to perform an advertised function that it really cannot. The company risks consumer backlash and law suits. As well as inviting competitors to take advantage and make a better product.



    But then most competing products basically all do the same thing. The job of advertising is to create brand recognition and customer loyalty. You are not going to gain either one of those telling the full naked truth.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 4metta View Post


    They will set a dangerous precedent because wary consumers will think everything they say is a exercise in free speech in advertising and not fact.



  • Reply 49 of 99
    davidwdavidw Posts: 945member
    Nearly every fast food chain advertises some sort of .99 cents meal. But unless you live in a state with no sales tax, it's going to cost more than .99 cents. Is this false or deceptive advertising? Not really because nearly everyone that has bought food from a fast food diner knows that they must pay sales tax. Just like nealry everyone that has ever used a cell phone knows that the reception and speed of the phone can vary greatly with location. And nearly everyone that has ever used the Internet knows that a page has to load. It doesn't matter how fast the connection or the hardware. You can not go from one site to another instantly.



    Nearly every pain relief medicine shows a person getting relief for the pain with in the time span of the commerical. Is this deceptive advertising? No. Because nearly everyone that has taken a pain relief medicine knows that it takes much more time than 30 seconds before they start feeling the effect of the medicine. Does anybody here actually believe in "instant" relief?



    If there was real truth in advertising then I should be able to in 30 seconds



    clear my clogged up drain

    fall asleep

    clear my sinuses

    get rid of red eyes

    get rid of heartburn

    brew a pot of coffee

    bake a sheet of popping fresh cresent rolls

    install and have working a Magic Jack

    clean a greasy pot

    get an auto insurance estimate online

    get a rental car

    shave

    start a BBQ

    microwave a TV dinner

    have my whole house smelling fresh

    clean my toilet bowl



    And so on.
  • Reply 50 of 99
    As the UK policing advertising claims: RIGHT ON! I wish we'd hold advertisers to a standard of verifiable claims here in the U.S.
  • Reply 51 of 99
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,590member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 4metta View Post


    They will set a dangerous precedent because wary consumers will think everything they say is a exercise in free speech in advertising and not fact.



    I think you over dramatize, as do the plaintiffs. There may well be a legal case here because a statement was made directly and not inferred, but be that as it may who really believes literally everything that is claimed in television ads and other similar forums (shopping channel, print ads, etc) Surely in this day and age 99.9% of consumers have developed some kind of discriminatory instincts in order to filter the sales pitch from the truth. In this case I would ask - twice as fast as what? Who the hell measures, anyway? I am not against holding companies to their word, Apple included, but if the experience can technically be twice as fast under ideal circumstances, it is hard to argue that the statement is untrue. What about all the ads that offer 'peace of mind' if you invest in pension funds, buy Depend, or whatever. Are they open to lawsuits because they don't bring me (not me personally - at least not yet) peace of mind? What about a car that supposedly does 0 to 100k in 7 seconds? I can't do that on my street so should I take the car company to court? Technically the car can do it but the street (city) won't allow it. They didn't tell me that in the ad!

    To me this whole thing is just demeaning.
  • Reply 52 of 99
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by godrifle View Post


    As the UK policing advertising claims: RIGHT ON! I wish we'd hold advertisers to a standard of verifiable claims here in the U.S.



    I wonder how are they effectively able to do this in the UK. It creates a slippery slope. Outside of a company blatantly lying. How do you really verify who has the best tasting burger, the most refreshing beer, or the coolest car?
  • Reply 53 of 99
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,590member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by godrifle View Post


    As the UK policing advertising claims: RIGHT ON! I wish we'd hold advertisers to a standard of verifiable claims here in the U.S.



    Yes, they are stricter in the UK but they still allow inferred 'facts'. There was a series of car ads (Renault?) in which the driver would be stuck in a jam. To the tune of Eric Clapton's 'Layla' he or she would suddenly crank the wheel and turn down an empty street and zoom off. The ads ran for a loooong time and each one strongly suggested through the above simple visuals that by driving a Renault (or was it Mazda?) you would somehow be liberated from the grind of city traffic. Plainly not true. Different technique but in my view just as fraudulent.



    The best advertising campaign belongs to Carlsberg Lager who's copy was 'Probably the best lager in the world'. How can you argue with that? The campaign was so successful the copy line was reduced to the word 'Probably'.
  • Reply 54 of 99
    I don't mean to be rude.



    Just think about all the esteemed responses on this list if MS was implicated in something similar.
  • Reply 55 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.



    It's already been said, but it merits another mention. I'm glad you took marketing 101, but let me know your thoughts on the issue once you graduate with a degree in marketing.



    If you really want to parse details, they didn't specify the unit of measurement. Which means that it wasn't spelled out or absolute. In fact, if you averaged out the use of the phone over a course of time, 3g vs EDGE, I'm certain it would turn out to be twice as fast. That hardly qualifies as false advertising.



    My bigger problem is with the author of this article putting words into Apple's mouth. I'm certain that the word "fool" was never used by apple, in the court documents or anywhere else. So I agree with SpamSandwich, it's borderline libelous. At best, it is shoddy journalism
  • Reply 56 of 99
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,423member
    So then does that mean those male-enhancement pills really do work???

    Or if I take that fat-loss-diet-pill my weight will just melt away?

    Or if I drink Smart Water, my IQ will go up?



    Get real people. Why is Apple being singled out? Just a bunch of people with no life, too much time on their hands with the only ability of finding a bottom-dwelling scavenging lawyer to take the case.



    Let's just put warning labels and disclaimers on everything and wrap every hard surface with bubble wrap so I can be protected from myself.



    Sad, sad world.
  • Reply 57 of 99
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,423member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    Nearly every fast food chain advertises some sort of .99 cents meal. But unless you live in a state with no sales tax, it's going to cost more than .99 cents.



    Sales tax is only charged if you order it to-go. If you have it in the restaurant, it will only cost you .99 cents.
  • Reply 58 of 99
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    Sales tax is only charged if you order it to-go. If you have it in the restaurant, it will only cost you .99 cents.



    That depends on which state you live in and their individual sales tax laws. In New York we pay tax on food in drive through or walk in.
  • Reply 59 of 99
    davidwdavidw Posts: 945member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    Sales tax is only charged if you order it to-go. If you have it in the restaurant, it will only cost you .99 cents.



    Not here in California. It was like that about maybe 25 years ago. In California, if I went over to Oregon (a State with no sales tax.) and bought a .99 cent meal and waited till I was back in California to eat it. I"m suppose to report it on my State income tax form and pay the tax on .99 cents.
  • Reply 60 of 99
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    I wonder how are they effectively able to do this in the UK. It creates a slippery slope. Outside of a company blatantly lying. How do you really verify who has the best tasting burger, the most refreshing beer, or the coolest car?



    I can't remember any UK adverts that claim that their product is the tastiest/most refreshing/coolest. At least not directly.



    ASA bans adverts mainly for being misleading, not for outright lying. The fact that the iPhone advert makes it seem like it's taking you through the actual process for doing various tasks is what makes it misleading.
Sign In or Register to comment.