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

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 99
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


    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.



    In the UK you're not allowed to say the your burger tastes the the best. You can say you make a 'damn fine burger' though. Basically, unverifiable absolute statements are a no no. Similarly, footage that is edited in such a way as to hide the fact it's edited is seen in a bad light.



    Apple did both in this case: 'iPhone 3G is twice as fast', and the sped up footage



    Every advertiser has to follow the same rules, but Apple has been caught out by them at least 3 times. McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Nike, and other internationals all manage to abide by the rules, it's just the fact the Apple PR department seem to like to ignore the fact the the rules are different in different countries.



    I'd go as far as saying that Apple needs to hire a UK ad agency for TV. Most of their ads come across as superior or smug. They just don't work here. It's a different country, different culture. The iPod+iTunes ads are probably the exception, but they centered on the music.
  • Reply 62 of 99
    angang Posts: 1member
    [QUOTE=applestockholder;1345588]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....



    I agree, how stupid you are if actually believe these ads. Everyone knows the people that own these products inflat the ads to improve sales.
  • Reply 63 of 99
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,990member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post


    you were stupid to believe us.



    In other words, we're not lying, but you're an idiot if you believed what we were saying. Of course there's a fairly obvious chasm (see video comparison) between the ads and real-world performance. Apple faces five lawsuits related to the performance (or lack thereof) of the iPhone when connected to networks in the real world, but the attorney for this false advertising case thinks their case "has the most teeth and the most legs to it."



    Ma, hamburger looks nuffink lahk the pitchers Ah see'd on the TeeVee, who here's got fancy book lernin' so's Ah kin sue dem?



    Truth in advertising, why yes I want a hamburger that's been sitting under lights for four hours, painted with glycerine so it looks juicy and a bit of dry ice to make it look like it's steaming.



    Could the person making my burger also go through a few boxes of lettuce, tomatoes and buns and select only the pieces that are just right for photographic goodness.



    Only then will the ad be "true".



    Storm meet teacup.
  • Reply 64 of 99
    4metta4metta Posts: 365member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vrkiran View Post


    I don't mean to be rude.



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



    So true. The intensity of blind fanboyism here sometimes makes me --->
  • Reply 65 of 99
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member
    maybe I should sue the car manufacturer because their ad says that my car can go from 0 to 60 in 6 seconds but no matter how hard I try it just doesn't quite and the ad did not mention the speeding tickets that would result form trying to replicate the 0 to 60 times.



    perhaps they would have fared better if they said "up to twice as fast"



    or maybe they should had a disclaimer "do not try this at home"



    if you actually believed everything you saw on TV then you would have to make sure not to be the last on your block to be where all your friends will be
  • Reply 66 of 99
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,990member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 4metta View Post


    So true. The intensity of blind fanboyism here sometimes makes me --->



    There is an Ad on TV in Australia by a phone company, in which a person is depicted using a certain model of phone to apparently produce clones of himself who follow him around town.



    I want a phone that makes clones of me so I can send one to work while I stay home and relax.



    I don't know if the same ad appears elsewhere, the phone company is a multi-national starting with V and the phone is from a company starting with N. 96 is the number of times I must have seen it.



    Should I sue them if it doesn't work?
  • Reply 67 of 99
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by themoonisdown09 View Post


    This is so rediculous. Apple is trying to show off the different features of the iPhone. Does anyone really want to watch a 10 minute commercial showing the features in real time? Hell no!



    It's stupid people like the ones who complained about it being misleading that make companies have to write "enlarged to show texture" on cereal boxes.



    Hahahaha.. Does it really say that??? I love the US
  • Reply 68 of 99
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by halfyearsun View Post


    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



    And I suppose you're a marketing genius? Well, I've taken a few beyond-entry level marketing courses on my way towards obtaining my BSBA in accounting. I wasn't aware I needed a degree to address my thoughts.



    At the very least, "twice as fast" represents foolish advertising. Apple certainly isn't in the business of telecom infrastructure, so unless this line was handed down from AT&T themselves, Apple really had no business advertising the capabilities as such. I'm actually quite surprised Apple would even consider such an ad, seeing as how the usability of the iPhone depends entirely on AT&T's network. By issuing this ad, if AT&T's 3G network fails to provide twice the speed as EDGE (as it often does), it is Apple that looks bad, not AT&T. You can bet AT&T is smiling with this blunder. As a company, you never, EVER take the blame for another company's short-coming, which is exactly what Apple set itself up for with the "twice as fast" ad. But its too late; Apple issued the statement in big, bold letters and they must deal with the consequences. If AT&T did actually say they could speak on behalf of their 3G network, then AT&T needs to take a hard look at its coverage and reception
  • Reply 69 of 99
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,990member
    Join us on this ship of fools.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzVYF5syNBc
  • Reply 70 of 99
    adjeiadjei Posts: 738member
    What about when KFC advertises toonie tuesday but I actually end up paying close to 3 dollars with taxes and everything, should I sue them?
  • Reply 71 of 99
    adjeiadjei Posts: 738member
    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. 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.



    Well said, dude.
  • Reply 72 of 99
    adjeiadjei Posts: 738member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 4metta View Post


    So true. The intensity of blind fanboyism here sometimes makes me --->



    Who gives a damn about Microsoft, this is about common sense son.
  • Reply 73 of 99
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,595member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iReality85 View Post


    At the very least, "twice as fast" represents foolish advertising. Apple certainly isn't in the business of telecom infrastructure, so unless this line was handed down from AT&T themselves, Apple really had no business advertising the capabilities as such. I'm actually quite surprised Apple would even consider such an ad, seeing as how the usability of the iPhone depends entirely on AT&T's network. By issuing this ad, if AT&T's 3G network fails to provide twice the speed as EDGE (as it often does), it is Apple that looks bad, not AT&T. You can bet AT&T is smiling with this blunder. As a company, you never, EVER take the blame for another company's short-coming, which is exactly what Apple set itself up for with the "twice as fast" ad. But its too late; Apple issued the statement in big, bold letters and they must deal with the consequences. If AT&T did actually say they could speak on behalf of their 3G network, then AT&T needs to take a hard look at its coverage and reception



    Much as I think it is a difficult point to prove that you were taken in by the advertising claim (I mean, if you are THAT stupid how come you are managing to organazize your lawyers?), I must agree with iReality85. My feeling is that they loved the simplicity of the message and didn't expect it to be taken so literally. "Twice as fast" is in my view ambiguous enough to support this thinking, but having said that Apple really shouldn't make claims on behalf of networks unless they have an agreement (maybe they do). I do find it surprising that Apple had to pull this ad in the UK. Most car makers give a mpg statistic for their new cars. I have never been able to achieve those figures under normal driving conditions. I haven't sued because a) If I cared THAT much I'd probably be locked up by now, and b) I am bright enough to read between the lines.
  • Reply 74 of 99
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    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.



    Not really. Again, like I stated in a previous post, that is your perception of the product. I can think of no commercial from the list you gave where the company says it takes 30 seconds. Please provide youtube examples if I am wrong. I know for a fact that no coffee maker in their right mind would ever explicitly state that you can brew a pot of coffee in 30 secs (although you can brew a K-cup in 30 secs, actually ). Same thing for shaving, etc. beacuse its not possible. If you're perceiving the length of the commerce as the length time it takes to complete one of these actions, then thats your perception of the product, and thats not the company's fault. Apple's ad is different in that they actually s-t-a-t-e-d the iPhone is "twice as fast" (see my 2nd post about this).
  • Reply 75 of 99
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post


    no they said it was 'twice as fast'.... and it wasn't.



    The iPhone 3G is twice as fast as the original iPhone. I have done side by side comparisons with my original iPhone and a 3G and the webpages load twice as fast. You would have be a complete dumbass to think it would be twice as fast ALL the time. You don't see people suing their internet provider for not providing top speed ALL the time. They can't control traffic on the highway.



    Figures some 70 year old with the same lawyer would be suing. I can't believe they settled a hard drive lawsuit in 2005 when it was clearly advertised even back then that formatted size was less than unformatted size. I like the settlement though, here is your free iPod, now get out of the courtroom.
  • Reply 76 of 99
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freelander51 View Post


    I beg to differ - on a phone network OK but on wireless no way Jose. Safari is quite slow to render pages even when you are sitting next to the router on a corporate network connection where I would define the bandwidth with 'sufficient'



    I can see how people might be disappointed about this and as it is the trend of the time to immediately sue, hoping one gets at least a free iPod and 15 Minutes of fame.....



    A corporate network? That is false advertising in itself! The company I last worked at had such a slow network that it was no faster than a dialup network. My original iPhone is quite fast on my wireless network at home.
  • Reply 77 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.



    However, the iPhone is twice as fast as the original iPhone. I have done side by side comparisons and web pages loaded about twice as fast on 3G compared to mine on Edge. Of course we are dealing with the internet, so some pages take longer to load than others, and network traffic affects everything, not just cell phones.
  • Reply 78 of 99
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


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



    They are quoting Apple's response in the lawsuit. Read the article.
  • Reply 79 of 99
    I'm a skeptic about advertising, and since I don't watch TV, I avoid a lot of it. I never even saw this TV ad. But long before the iPhone 3G came out, I somehow had it planted in my head that it was "twice as fast." Not sure where this came from ... I guess discussion sites like this one, and descriptions of AT&T's network in relation to other devices. And even though I'm pretty tech-savvy, it seemed believable that a network that used a different architecture could actually be "twice as fast." This is not Apple's fault, but they definitely jumped on the bandwagon.



    My point: given the general discussion in the community, and the hoopla about AT&T rushing to upgrade its network for the 3G rollout, topped by Apple's repetition of this claim, I think it's a weak defense to call someone a fool for expecting that the new device would actually be "twice as fast."



    P.S. An earlier post said something to the effect of, "Do you also believe Coors Light will get you laid?" My response is that Coors Light ads use sexual imagery by association but don't actually say the product will get you laid. But if they said it had "half as many calories," well, then I'd expect that it had half as many calories.
  • Reply 80 of 99
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    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.



    Apple is being singled out because they have the most money in their wallet right now, compared to other providers. That is what lawyers do. All they want is their cut of attorney fees. They don't give a shit about their client. I did insurance claims for 15 years. Some of the lawyers never even met their "clients" that were claiming injury. Here is the best part, if the policy was cancelled and no coverage existed, the attorneys immediately dropped their clients because they knew they could not get their 33%. They only went where the money is. They didn't care about their clients. They just knew that if there was a "wallet" involved, they would make money. It was amazing what some of these lawyers would claim trying to get money.



    Since this lawyer got his 70 year old client an iPod and he got $7,500 in fees over a stupid lawsuit about hard drive size, which was clearly specified in the specs, why not make a claim about the iPhone? It won't take much effort to get another $7,500 and his client an updated iPod.
Sign In or Register to comment.