Not to bring in politics, but this thread is about ADVERTISING, nothing more, so this does apply. In CA during the last election, the supporters of Prop 8 spent over $70 million dollars to push this proposition. It was the most money ever spent on a proposition, and of course that money could have been much more useful in other areas.
Anyway, every night during primetime TV you saw almost 3x as many commercials persuading people to vote yes on 8. Their angle was to use female actors portraying school teachers and claiming that "If you don't vote yes on 8, I will have to teach your children about gay marriages." Their taglines was "Protect Marriage" as if a man and woman's marriage would be affected by anyone else wanting to get married.
The proposition had nothing to do with teaching children anything in school. The proposition was simply to overturn a judge's ruling that allowed anyone to get married in CA, namely gay couples. They don't even teach about marriage in school in the first place! They used that angle because they knew people would eat it up, and because they knew people wouldn't even read the proposition in the first place! They intentionally used false advertising to get what they want. It worked, prop 8 passed. By the way, the ads for No on 8 simply stated people have a right to do what anyone else can do, and people should not be discriminated against.
For those of you that immediately jump on the bandwagon claiming Apple's ads are false or misleading, then you probably haven't used an iPhone 3G, because in most cases on a 3G network, it is faster than the original iPhone. Depending on where you are and what you are doing, it may not always be twice as fast, but it is faster than the original iPhone.
For people that believe everything they see on TV, well then they are fools.
Let me begin with what I find most disturbing about this article. The use of the word "fool" by AppleInsider is bad journalism, and is in itself a lie. Apple's statements do no not use the word fool, and to suggest from Apple's statements that Apple believes any of their customers are fools is beyond hyperbole - it is libellous in the sense of "false reporting". Please have someone with an editorial background vet your headings - this kind of characterisation does not belong in a serious publication - online or otherwise.
Apple has already set out their defense for the British case, and in their defense, they stated very clearly that the iPhone is, itself, twice as fast - not the network, not the applications - the iPhone itself. I don't see any problem there, but the Brits did, and who knows what an American judge will say about the same thing. We have the same ad running here in Canada, and so far - no lawsuits!
Tide makes a similar claim in one of their recent advertisements, but couch it in such bad language that is entirely debatable just what the spokesperson (Kelly Ripa) is saying when she says "...cleans twice as good better than the other guys...". Not only that, but the implication is that, within the timespan of the commercial - she actually launders some dirty napkins. Is there an ambulance-chaser in the audience? - better get after Tide too!
We may all laugh at our coffee cups that state that the contents are - "Caution-Hot", and that pictures of cookies have to be annotated to clarify that they are "enlarged to show texture", but these inanities are the result of frivolous lawsuits. Is it because we are all stupid that these "advisories" need to be added to everything? No, it's because of predatory legalists, and the cost of these suits is enormous - both immediately in the case of settlements, and long-term as in the labelling requirements.
Those of us residing outside of the US may find this hilarious, and "could never happen here" - but think again - we must be protected from our own stupidity!
I think that these plaintiffs as with many others are just looking for ways to make some money. Apple seems to be a big target for frivolous lawsuits. In my opinion because they settle so many of them.
I do feel however that the ads are misleading. No, I don't take advertising at face value and I do know that most are exaggerating at best. The part of the ads I take issue with are them speeding up the page loads. Because the ads are so slickly done, and we have grown to expect excellence out of Apple products, it is hard to tell that there was time manipulation going on there. If I didn't know from my own iPhone experience that the web pages just don't load that fast, I would believe it.
So, while we should not condone frivolous lawsuits, we still need to hold the companies accountable to fair and reasonable claims made in their ads.
Even misleading can be up to debate. Its all so subjective and circumstantial who can really be an authority over which product is better than another product.
That is essentially the point of advertising is to convince consumers that one product or service is better or more desirable than their competitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
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.
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.
Congratulations on your beyond-entry level marketing courses.
Obviously you don't need a degree to express or address your thoughts. But to say it is "plain and simple" false advertising is a fairly definitive statement for a subject that clearly has differing interpretations. It's not as cut and dry as you act like it is.
This is not unusual marketing for the United States. While some of those in american society who are of a more litigious bent would see it as false advertising, you would be hard pressed to find a court to back you up.
That being said, it's hardly foolish advertising. Plain and simple, the iphone 3g, as a device, is twice as fast. in practical use, take the average speeds and it is twice as fast as the edge. It's pretty effective advertising, and while somewhat risky, because there is always someone looking to litigate, there's no way they will lose the case here in america.
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.
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).
Actually my examples were aimed toward the claim that Apple deceived consumers by speeding up footage of an iPhone to show some of the things it's capable of doing. Apple was trying to show as many different functions as possible in a small time slot. Which is what my examples were doing. They're all "compressing" the time on their commercial.
The "twice as fast" claim is not deceiving at all. Take a 3G iPhone and test it next to an original Edge iPhone and the 3G will be twice as fast. You see, in most cases the interference that slows down a 3G iPhone will most likely slow down the iPhone on Edge as well. As thus the 3G iPhone will still be "twice as fast" in the same condition. The many links provided on this thread already bears that out. It's not fair to claim that Apple was saying that the actual speed to get on a 3G iPhone will always be "twice as fast" as the theoretical speed of an iPhone on Edge. But the theoretical speed of a 3G iPhone is more than twice that of the theoretical speed of an Edge iPhone.
Not to defend Apple here, but their claims of the phone being twice as fast as previous models, can be true and tested. In some instances faster in some slower. Apple saying only a fool would believe their ads had nothing to do with that claim it had to do with the sped up images on the iphone for the 30 sec spot, which every one does. You have 30-60 seconds you speed up everything. I think it is hilarious if people thought that twice as fast meaning the fastest a new 3g has tested against the slowest the original tested was as fast as the images on the magic box we call TV. It's called commercials your trying to get your point across as fast as possible, every one does that. When you see a a car commercial and it's speeding down the road or flying through the air, do you believe this is really going to happen? lol some people are indeed naive.
"Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact," Apple said in its answer.
Dear Apple, any other claims in your ads that we'd be fools to believe? That your systems really are 100% virus/trojan/malware proof, so much so that they confuse even Apple as to whether you do or don't need antivirus software? That the OS is so easy to use no one ever needs to visit the Idiot Bar that always seems to have a long queue for appointments? I like my Mac, but Apple is most definitely a public corporation first and foremost, and there are a lot of things about them the public has blindly bought into hook line and sinker.
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.
I am smarter than you are because I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. I can fly a Helicopter, I can solve math problems, I can pretty much do anything. That is about as explicit as you can get. Apple is actually quite tame compared to some of the outrages ads out there. Get it
Microsoft has nothing to do with any of this. This is just a red herring thrown in to make fanboy accusations.
No using the MS question drives the point home succicntly.
If it was MS would the fanboys so blindly defend this behavior? We both know the answer to that question don't we?
I suspect that there are more than a few registered Apple employees registered on the board just as there are AT&T employees. That's pretty easy to figure out. The funny thing is that they need not bother to post while the fanboyism exists. The loss of objectivism is never excusable, no matter how much one loves a company's products or their employers.
No using the MS question drives the point home succicntly.
If it was MS would the fanboys so blindly defend this behavior? We both know the answer to that question don't we?
I suspect that there are more than a few registered Apple employees registered on the board just as there are AT&T employees. That's pretty easy to figure out. The funny thing is that they need not bother to post while the fanboyism exists. The loss of objectivism is never excusable, no matter how much one loves a company's products or their employers.
There's no point, no home, and nothing succinct.
What you've got there is an entirely subjective opinion about a speculative circumstance, with a wild accusation thrown in for good measure.
Just reflexively intoning "fanboy" doesn't magically mean you've got anything interesting to say, despite the impression you may have gotten from the internet.
What you've got there is an entirely subjective opinion about a speculative circumstance, with a wild accusation thrown in for good measure.
Just reflexively intoning "fanboy" doesn't magically mean you've got anything interesting to say, despite the impression you may have gotten from the internet.
I suppose you'd have to go to an MS forum and look into threads on the the European court settlement or the Seinfeld ads to see the MS fanboys referred to in the original post made here in action.
I'd go look but I've got no real interest in MS forums.
Your comment is stupid and naive and smacks of a Mac evangelist that can't see the smoke for the trees.
We have the ads in Australia and they do purport a user experience that is just not possible, particularly with our especially sucky telcos.
Don't get me wrong, I love my iPhone, but I represent a fairly slim minority of the population that understands the ads are false. Everyone else could easily be misled by them. Apple is starting to set a fairly dangerous precedent for themselves!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bavlondon2
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.
Comments
Anyway, every night during primetime TV you saw almost 3x as many commercials persuading people to vote yes on 8. Their angle was to use female actors portraying school teachers and claiming that "If you don't vote yes on 8, I will have to teach your children about gay marriages." Their taglines was "Protect Marriage" as if a man and woman's marriage would be affected by anyone else wanting to get married.
The proposition had nothing to do with teaching children anything in school. The proposition was simply to overturn a judge's ruling that allowed anyone to get married in CA, namely gay couples. They don't even teach about marriage in school in the first place! They used that angle because they knew people would eat it up, and because they knew people wouldn't even read the proposition in the first place! They intentionally used false advertising to get what they want. It worked, prop 8 passed. By the way, the ads for No on 8 simply stated people have a right to do what anyone else can do, and people should not be discriminated against.
For those of you that immediately jump on the bandwagon claiming Apple's ads are false or misleading, then you probably haven't used an iPhone 3G, because in most cases on a 3G network, it is faster than the original iPhone. Depending on where you are and what you are doing, it may not always be twice as fast, but it is faster than the original iPhone.
For people that believe everything they see on TV, well then they are fools.
Apple has already set out their defense for the British case, and in their defense, they stated very clearly that the iPhone is, itself, twice as fast - not the network, not the applications - the iPhone itself. I don't see any problem there, but the Brits did, and who knows what an American judge will say about the same thing. We have the same ad running here in Canada, and so far - no lawsuits!
Tide makes a similar claim in one of their recent advertisements, but couch it in such bad language that is entirely debatable just what the spokesperson (Kelly Ripa) is saying when she says "...cleans twice as good better than the other guys...". Not only that, but the implication is that, within the timespan of the commercial - she actually launders some dirty napkins. Is there an ambulance-chaser in the audience? - better get after Tide too!
We may all laugh at our coffee cups that state that the contents are - "Caution-Hot", and that pictures of cookies have to be annotated to clarify that they are "enlarged to show texture", but these inanities are the result of frivolous lawsuits. Is it because we are all stupid that these "advisories" need to be added to everything? No, it's because of predatory legalists, and the cost of these suits is enormous - both immediately in the case of settlements, and long-term as in the labelling requirements.
Those of us residing outside of the US may find this hilarious, and "could never happen here" - but think again - we must be protected from our own stupidity!
Dan
I do feel however that the ads are misleading. No, I don't take advertising at face value and I do know that most are exaggerating at best. The part of the ads I take issue with are them speeding up the page loads. Because the ads are so slickly done, and we have grown to expect excellence out of Apple products, it is hard to tell that there was time manipulation going on there. If I didn't know from my own iPhone experience that the web pages just don't load that fast, I would believe it.
So, while we should not condone frivolous lawsuits, we still need to hold the companies accountable to fair and reasonable claims made in their ads.
That is essentially the point of advertising is to convince consumers that one product or service is better or more desirable than their competitor.
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.
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 --->
Microsoft has nothing to do with any of this. This is just a red herring thrown in to make fanboy accusations.
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.
Congratulations on your beyond-entry level marketing courses.
Obviously you don't need a degree to express or address your thoughts. But to say it is "plain and simple" false advertising is a fairly definitive statement for a subject that clearly has differing interpretations. It's not as cut and dry as you act like it is.
This is not unusual marketing for the United States. While some of those in american society who are of a more litigious bent would see it as false advertising, you would be hard pressed to find a court to back you up.
That being said, it's hardly foolish advertising. Plain and simple, the iphone 3g, as a device, is twice as fast. in practical use, take the average speeds and it is twice as fast as the edge. It's pretty effective advertising, and while somewhat risky, because there is always someone looking to litigate, there's no way they will lose the case here in america.
as for the uk, i have no idea.
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.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
It can be argued that Java is no longer a proprietary technology, at least not in the same class (no pun intended) as Flash.
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
Actually my examples were aimed toward the claim that Apple deceived consumers by speeding up footage of an iPhone to show some of the things it's capable of doing. Apple was trying to show as many different functions as possible in a small time slot. Which is what my examples were doing. They're all "compressing" the time on their commercial.
The "twice as fast" claim is not deceiving at all. Take a 3G iPhone and test it next to an original Edge iPhone and the 3G will be twice as fast. You see, in most cases the interference that slows down a 3G iPhone will most likely slow down the iPhone on Edge as well. As thus the 3G iPhone will still be "twice as fast" in the same condition. The many links provided on this thread already bears that out. It's not fair to claim that Apple was saying that the actual speed to get on a 3G iPhone will always be "twice as fast" as the theoretical speed of an iPhone on Edge. But the theoretical speed of a 3G iPhone is more than twice that of the theoretical speed of an Edge iPhone.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/1wink.gif
I wish I was using my iPhone now, tapping the top of the screen takes me to the top of the page more than twice as fast as scrolling up on my PC...
Command+UpArrow will instantly scroll to the top of any window in OS X. Control+UpArrow will do the same in Windows. Note, this excludes Java apps.
Command+UpArrow will instantly scroll to the top of any window in OS X. Control+UpArrow will do the same in Windows. Note, this excludes Java apps.
I'm using Linux.
I'm using Linux.
It's been awhile since I've used Linux, but I'm surprised that the Windows keyboard shortcut hasn't been programmed into Gnome or KDE.
you were stupid to believe us.
"Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact," Apple said in its answer.
Dear Apple, any other claims in your ads that we'd be fools to believe? That your systems really are 100% virus/trojan/malware proof, so much so that they confuse even Apple as to whether you do or don't need antivirus software? That the OS is so easy to use no one ever needs to visit the Idiot Bar that always seems to have a long queue for appointments? I like my Mac, but Apple is most definitely a public corporation first and foremost, and there are a lot of things about them the public has blindly bought into hook line and sinker.
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.
I am smarter than you are because I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. I can fly a Helicopter, I can solve math problems, I can pretty much do anything. That is about as explicit as you can get. Apple is actually quite tame compared to some of the outrages ads out there. Get it
Microsoft has nothing to do with any of this. This is just a red herring thrown in to make fanboy accusations.
No using the MS question drives the point home succicntly.
If it was MS would the fanboys so blindly defend this behavior? We both know the answer to that question don't we?
I suspect that there are more than a few registered Apple employees registered on the board just as there are AT&T employees. That's pretty easy to figure out. The funny thing is that they need not bother to post while the fanboyism exists. The loss of objectivism is never excusable, no matter how much one loves a company's products or their employers.
No using the MS question drives the point home succicntly.
If it was MS would the fanboys so blindly defend this behavior? We both know the answer to that question don't we?
I suspect that there are more than a few registered Apple employees registered on the board just as there are AT&T employees. That's pretty easy to figure out. The funny thing is that they need not bother to post while the fanboyism exists. The loss of objectivism is never excusable, no matter how much one loves a company's products or their employers.
There's no point, no home, and nothing succinct.
What you've got there is an entirely subjective opinion about a speculative circumstance, with a wild accusation thrown in for good measure.
Just reflexively intoning "fanboy" doesn't magically mean you've got anything interesting to say, despite the impression you may have gotten from the internet.
There's no point, no home, and nothing succinct.
What you've got there is an entirely subjective opinion about a speculative circumstance, with a wild accusation thrown in for good measure.
Just reflexively intoning "fanboy" doesn't magically mean you've got anything interesting to say, despite the impression you may have gotten from the internet.
I suppose you'd have to go to an MS forum and look into threads on the the European court settlement or the Seinfeld ads to see the MS fanboys referred to in the original post made here in action.
I'd go look but I've got no real interest in MS forums.
We have the ads in Australia and they do purport a user experience that is just not possible, particularly with our especially sucky telcos.
Don't get me wrong, I love my iPhone, but I represent a fairly slim minority of the population that understands the ads are false. Everyone else could easily be misled by them. Apple is starting to set a fairly dangerous precedent for themselves!
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.