Only a putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.
Correction:Only a jeolous putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.
So let's focus on the price.
The price was 399.
The price is now 199.
Won't quibble over it being LESS than half the price.
You walk into Apple, hand them 199 bucks, you walk out with an iPhone.
You want to argue over the sales tax?
The contract length?
The contract itself?
Fine.
The advertised price, was 399 and now it's 199.
You say it's not.... YOU prove it!
(without referencing money that Apple doesn't charge)
It sounds like you can get away with an awful lot of stuff when advertising in America. If Apple were saying it was half the price in the UK, it would *have* to have a disclaimer at the bottom explaining that it was only the handset that was half the price, not the contract. It would also have to say subject to 18 month minimum term contract.
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?
Pretty funny... I mean really.....
The mear fact they included a ridiculously small battery proves that people don't use it to surf.
It sounds like you can get away with an awful lot of stuff when advertising in America. If Apple were saying it was half the price in the UK, it would *have* to have a disclaimer at the bottom explaining that it was only the handset that was half the price, not the contract. It would also have to say subject to 18 month minimum term contract.
If it was in the U.K., the price would have to include the tax and tarrif information needed to pay for the protection from those really bad advertisements that don't run anymore.
(BTWid the price you pay for the iPhone in the U.K. cut in half or are the taxes, tags, and destination charges changing your mileage. Did this campaign actually run in the U.K.?)
Your argument is moot because you cannot simply "walk out with an iPhone" without a contract.
I might have missed it, could you please show me where the advertising of the 400 dollar price included the carrier money?
And oh by the way, not sure if you're new to Apple but you can walk into an Apple store with 200 bucks and not a penny more and walk out with an Iphone without spending a single penny more than 200 bucks.
So that would make you........ wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
And I already proved it. $600 vs $200- that's half? You need to re-enroll in mathematics 101.
The price didn't drop from 600 to 200.
The price dropped from 400 to 200.
The LAST advertising campaign talked about the 600 to 400 price drop.
(BTW: Did the price you pay for the iPhone in the U.K. cut in half or are the taxes, tags, and destination charges changing your mileage. Did this campaign actually run in the U.K.?)
Tax is always included in UK prices and there's generally no add-ons from the carrier to worry about (activation charges, service access fees, etc.).
The thing that complicates the situation in the UK is that the iPhone went from a fixed pricing scheme (£269 on all tariffs) to a more traditional variable pricing scheme (£99 on £30/35pm tariffs, free on more expensive tariffs).
The iPhone was essentially cut by more than half in the UK. I've only seen adverts on UK TV explaining the higher Internet speeds though.
Only a putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.
Correction:Only a jeolous putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.
So let's focus on the price.
The price was 399.
The price is now 199.
Won't quibble over it being LESS than half the price.
You walk into Apple, hand them 199 bucks, you walk out with an iPhone.
You want to argue over the sales tax?
The contract length?
The contract itself?
Fine.
The advertised price, was 399 and now it's 199.
You say it's not.... YOU prove it!
(without referencing money that Apple doesn't charge)
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.
Tax is always included in UK prices and there's generally no add-ons from the carrier to worry about (activation charges, service access fees, etc.).
The thing that complicates the situation in the UK is that the iPhone went from a fixed pricing scheme (£269 on all tariffs) to a more traditional variable pricing scheme (£99 on £30/35pm tariffs, free on more expensive tariffs).
The iPhone was essentially cut by more than half in the UK. I've only seen adverts on UK TV explaining the higher Internet speeds though.
I might have missed it, could you please show me where the advertising of the 400 dollar price included the carrier money?
And oh by the way, not sure if you're new to Apple but you can walk into an Apple store with 200 bucks and not a penny more and walk out with an Iphone without spending a single penny more than 200 bucks.
So that would make you........ wrong?
The price didn't drop from 600 to 200.
The price dropped from 400 to 200.
The LAST advertising campaign talked about the 600 to 400 price drop.
Where have you been?
What makes you think that because you don't pay money up front that it's not a cost? Your argument is entirely specious.
By your logic I bought a house and it was free. I didn't put one cent down on closing. Oh but I owed the bank $350,000.
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.
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...
What makes you think that because you don't pay money up front that it's not a cost? Your argument is entirely specious.
By your logic I bought a house and it was free. I didn't put one cent down on closing. Oh but I owed the bank $350,000.
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.
It's a thoroughly stupid phrase to use anyway. Internet != the web....
I'm glad someone finally pointed this out. I used the "Internet" a lot in the (later) 80's, but the web didn't come along until the 90's in my area.
I don't disagree with the ruling though, fair is fair. The UK still has some "truth in advertising" laws that actually mean something and they are prepared to enforce them. North America could do a lot worse for the viewing public than to bring back a few of our own. Lying and deception in advertising is practically the norm over here.
Anyway ... Apple has got away with this idea that the iPhone has "the whole internet" (that's the phrase from their very first commercial), or the complete internet for a couple of years now, and we all know it's false or at best a bit of an exaggeration.
They got away with it, fair enough .... now they are caught out, and that also seems fair enough to me. People on both sides are probably making a mountain out of a molehill here.
It hasn't really been a couple of years now has it?
Well that's why i used a colloquial phrase, so as to have wiggle room for something I didn't have time to look up.
In fairness the ads were out before the iphone was available though, at least two or three of them were about having the "whole" internet in your pocket. So ... year and a half? year and a quater? The point I made still stands though.
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......
If you are having a hard time reading what I said, go back and read it again but try it slowly this time. I said that my N82 can work with more sites that my iPhone. DId you miss that? DId I go to fast? I thought I made it pretty clear. I will try to include slides next time so as to not confuse you..
Comments
The price?
The price is what you pay for something.
Only a putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.
Correction:Only a jeolous putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.
So let's focus on the price.
The price was 399.
The price is now 199.
Won't quibble over it being LESS than half the price.
You walk into Apple, hand them 199 bucks, you walk out with an iPhone.
You want to argue over the sales tax?
The contract length?
The contract itself?
Fine.
The advertised price, was 399 and now it's 199.
You say it's not.... YOU prove it!
(
Your argument is moot because you cannot simply "walk out with an iPhone" without a contract.
And I already proved it. $600 vs $200- that's NOT half? You need to re-enroll in mathematics 101.
The price?
The price is what you pay for something.
Only a putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.
Correction:Only a jeolous putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.
So let's focus on the price.
The price was 399.
The price is now 199.
Won't quibble over it being LESS than half the price.
You walk into Apple, hand them 199 bucks, you walk out with an iPhone.
You want to argue over the sales tax?
The contract length?
The contract itself?
Fine.
The advertised price, was 399 and now it's 199.
You say it's not.... YOU prove it!
(
It sounds like you can get away with an awful lot of stuff when advertising in America. If Apple were saying it was half the price in the UK, it would *have* to have a disclaimer at the bottom explaining that it was only the handset that was half the price, not the contract. It would also have to say subject to 18 month minimum term contract.
The price?
The price is what you pay for something.
Only a putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.
Correction:Only a jeolous putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.
So let's focus on the price.
The price was 399.
The price is now 199.
Won't quibble over it being LESS than half the price.
You walk into Apple, hand them 199 bucks, you walk out with an iPhone.
You want to argue over the sales tax?
The contract length?
The contract itself?
Fine.
The advertised price, was 399 and now it's 199.
You say it's not.... YOU prove it!
(
zzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzz
LOL!
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?
Pretty funny... I mean really.....
The mear fact they included a ridiculously small battery proves that people don't use it to surf.
How lame is THAT.
It sounds like you can get away with an awful lot of stuff when advertising in America. If Apple were saying it was half the price in the UK, it would *have* to have a disclaimer at the bottom explaining that it was only the handset that was half the price, not the contract. It would also have to say subject to 18 month minimum term contract.
If it was in the U.K., the price would have to include the tax and tarrif information needed to pay for the protection from those really bad advertisements that don't run anymore.
(BTW
Your argument is moot because you cannot simply "walk out with an iPhone" without a contract.
I might have missed it, could you please show me where the advertising of the 400 dollar price included the carrier money?
And oh by the way, not sure if you're new to Apple but you can walk into an Apple store with 200 bucks and not a penny more and walk out with an Iphone without spending a single penny more than 200 bucks.
So that would make you........ wrong?
And I already proved it. $600 vs $200- that's half? You need to re-enroll in mathematics 101.
The price didn't drop from 600 to 200.
The price dropped from 400 to 200.
The LAST advertising campaign talked about the 600 to 400 price drop.
Where have you been?
(BTW: Did the price you pay for the iPhone in the U.K. cut in half or are the taxes, tags, and destination charges changing your mileage. Did this campaign actually run in the U.K.?)
Tax is always included in UK prices and there's generally no add-ons from the carrier to worry about (activation charges, service access fees, etc.).
The thing that complicates the situation in the UK is that the iPhone went from a fixed pricing scheme (£269 on all tariffs) to a more traditional variable pricing scheme (£99 on £30/35pm tariffs, free on more expensive tariffs).
The iPhone was essentially cut by more than half in the UK. I've only seen adverts on UK TV explaining the higher Internet speeds though.
The price?
The price is what you pay for something.
Only a putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.
Correction:Only a jeolous putz is going to focus on what APPLE gets paid.
So let's focus on the price.
The price was 399.
The price is now 199.
Won't quibble over it being LESS than half the price.
You walk into Apple, hand them 199 bucks, you walk out with an iPhone.
You want to argue over the sales tax?
The contract length?
The contract itself?
Fine.
The advertised price, was 399 and now it's 199.
You say it's not.... YOU prove it!
(
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.
Tax is always included in UK prices and there's generally no add-ons from the carrier to worry about (activation charges, service access fees, etc.).
The thing that complicates the situation in the UK is that the iPhone went from a fixed pricing scheme (£269 on all tariffs) to a more traditional variable pricing scheme (£99 on £30/35pm tariffs, free on more expensive tariffs).
The iPhone was essentially cut by more than half in the UK. I've only seen adverts on UK TV explaining the higher Internet speeds though.
Good information.
I might have missed it, could you please show me where the advertising of the 400 dollar price included the carrier money?
And oh by the way, not sure if you're new to Apple but you can walk into an Apple store with 200 bucks and not a penny more and walk out with an Iphone without spending a single penny more than 200 bucks.
So that would make you........ wrong?
The price didn't drop from 600 to 200.
The price dropped from 400 to 200.
The LAST advertising campaign talked about the 600 to 400 price drop.
Where have you been?
What makes you think that because you don't pay money up front that it's not a cost? Your argument is entirely specious.
By your logic I bought a house and it was free. I didn't put one cent down on closing. Oh but I owed the bank $350,000.
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.
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...
What makes you think that because you don't pay money up front that it's not a cost? Your argument is entirely specious.
By your logic I bought a house and it was free. I didn't put one cent down on closing. Oh but I owed the bank $350,000.
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.
It's a thoroughly stupid phrase to use anyway. Internet != the web....
I'm glad someone finally pointed this out.
I don't disagree with the ruling though, fair is fair. The UK still has some "truth in advertising" laws that actually mean something and they are prepared to enforce them. North America could do a lot worse for the viewing public than to bring back a few of our own. Lying and deception in advertising is practically the norm over here.
Anyway ... Apple has got away with this idea that the iPhone has "the whole internet" (that's the phrase from their very first commercial), or the complete internet for a couple of years now, and we all know it's false or at best a bit of an exaggeration.
They got away with it, fair enough .... now they are caught out, and that also seems fair enough to me. People on both sides are probably making a mountain out of a molehill here.
for a couple of years now,
Oh now let's be fair now.
Truth in advertising and all that.
It hasn't really been a couple of years now has it?
What on earth do burger joints advertise there?
After two complaints?
What on earth do burger joints advertise there?
Hehehehe....
"McDonalds - Tens and Tens of people served."
How does a car company advertise milage?
"Toyota - We go a long way on a liter, longer than most".
Nope.
"Toyota - We go a long way on a liter, longer than many".
Nope.
"Toyota - We go a long way on a liter, longer than some".
Ok, that'll work.
Oh now let's be fair now.
Truth in advertising and all that.
It hasn't really been a couple of years now has it?
Well that's why i used a colloquial phrase, so as to have wiggle room for something I didn't have time to look up.
In fairness the ads were out before the iphone was available though, at least two or three of them were about having the "whole" internet in your pocket. So ... year and a half? year and a quater? The point I made still stands though.
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......
If you are having a hard time reading what I said, go back and read it again but try it slowly this time. I said that my N82 can work with more sites that my iPhone. DId you miss that? DId I go to fast? I thought I made it pretty clear. I will try to include slides next time so as to not confuse you..
Nokia aren't making the claim.
You noticed that too huh? Obviously it was lost on him.