Not to hound you for your opinion, I understand your thoughts, however I have to agree with my other colleagues here, commercial advertising has always been idealized, take the case of food, which is painted and coated to make it appear very appetizing, when if fact the aesthetic chemicals could be hazardous and inedible, you have to take all advertising with a grain of salt. Sorry that was in response to v5v thoughts.
You are referring to the old way food photography used to be. There are fairly strict rules on how food may be prepped and photographed now.
Of course I'm the only one who has limited success getting the correct information from Siri. For everyone else it is perfect. Seriously, about half the time she gets it wrong. Even when she prints to the screen the exact phrase, the answer is completely off. For example recently I asked her to show me an address on the map. I gave her the complete street address and city (the city where I was located), yet she insisted on pinning a completely different city a hundred km away which had the same name as the street address and informed me it was pretty far from where I was. I get crazy stuff from her all the time.
I get the address thing even within the Maps app and typing in an address that doesn't include a city. I don't understand why it wouldn't look for a best match in the vicinity over assuming I mean a city a thousand miles away.
I'm also not a fan of the lack of intelligence of the mapping service locating me a stop along my route. For example, I can have an active route in Maps and ask Siri for a restaurant or gas station along my route and often the results will be something close by that I have passed. My TomTom had the ability to find stops along the remaining route so I do expect Apple's Maps to include this service.
Not exactly. The Apple lawyers get paid, of course, but if they weren't working on this crazy lawsuit, they'd be working on another one.
The plaintiffs' lawyers, though, don't get paid unless the lawsuit is successful. However, it depends on the contract they wrote up - it could say their clients have to pay them for certain expenses anyway, like filing fees (but usually they pay nothing unless they win, and then the lawyer takes so much of the award that the clients are left wondering why they bothered in the first place). These people have shown themselves to be really stupid, so they could have actually signed a bad contract with the scammy lawyer.
I don't think Apple can ask for legal costs in a case like this, so the plaintiffs are lucky there. And I agree - why did this take 2 years to be dismissed?
While the lawsuit is obvious slop, I do find it a little disturbing that the judge has now, through wording of the judgement, created a precedent that says "Commercials are bullshit, and you can't expect a product to work as advertised." Yikes.
Quote:
Are you implying that commercials are not bullshit, and you can expect a product to work as advertised?
Do you work for Google or are you hopelessly naive?
I'm fine with the lawsuit being tossed. However, Siri really is not particularly reliable in comprehension in various situations, even for contexts it supports.
Hoo, boy. If my wife ever decided to take me in front of the judge for all the times I heard her wrong, I'd be in divorce court doo-doo!
This suit hearkens back to that other California lawsuit against Apple back in 2010, complaining that iPads overheated and shut down for awhile when used for a time in direct sunlight. That one got tossed also.
Apparently there's high unemployment among the young, recently graduated lawyers who dream up this drivel. It's reasonable to surmise that a lot of these fledgling F. Lee Baileys are flapping their wings and jumping from the nest on their own, attempting their first flights and ending up crashing. They're pretty stunned when hard reality collides with a bang against their little brains.
Where have they advertised that Siri works 100% of the time?
Are you sure you're comfortable with that position? How are you going to feel when you sue for car trouble and the judge says, "You should know that commercials are fiction and besides, no one said the car would start EVERY day."
I'm not defending the ridiculous lawsuit, but the wording of the judgement is pretty troubling.
Do you say the same thing when you go to McDonalds and the burgers you are served are not as plump and juicy as shown on their menu cards...?
Are you implying that commercials are not bullshit, and you can expect a product to work as advertised?
Do you work for Google or are you hopelessly naive?
I'm saying it's not encouraging for consumers when a judge throws out a lawsuit on the grounds that people should not expect truth in advertising. That opens the door to ads making false claims with the tacit protection of the courts. A commercial tells you that a new wonder drug will repair your heart while you sleep and will for sure NOT kill you if taken with Aspirin. When it DOES kill you the lawsuit is thrown out because you should know better than to believe what a commercial tells you.
That's obviously an exaggerated example and again, the suit we're discussing was OBVIOUSLY ridiculous, but the wording of the judgement may still be cause for concern.
Do you say the same thing when you go to McDonalds and the burgers you are served are not as plump and juicy as shown on their menu cards...?
Obviously some forms of "stretching the truth" are more egregious than others, which is essentially what the judge said. I just think she might have thrown in a little "gotcha" in her decision. Saying that consumers should EXPECT advertising to be bullshit, thus possibly tacitly protecting an advertiser's right to lie, strikes me as bad legal precedent.
The rest of her points about the plaintiffs failing to provide the most fundamental evidence made me wonder who was in charge of the claim and if said individual rides the short bus to court? Given that, according to some people here, Siri actually does have some genuine shortcomings, I wonder if a sharper legal mind might have had some success? I don't use Siri so I don't know myself, how good/bad is her hit/fail ratio? How clear has Apple been about Siri being a "Beta" product? Was there any grain of merit to the plaintiffs' claim?
Since Apple were throwing advertising weight behind Siri, which elsewhere they labelled as a "beta" product, I think they were a little bit lucky here.
While the lawsuit is obvious slop, I do find it a little disturbing that the judge has now, through wording of the judgement, created a precedent that says "Commercials are bullshit, and you can't expect a product to work as advertised." Yikes.
I hate to tell you, but in the US that is already a precedent. Companies are allowed to "puff" up the merits of their products.
…the judge has now, through wording of the judgement, created a precedent that says “ ommercials are bullshit, and you can't expect a product to work as advertised."
Except that’s not what he said at all.
"Apple made no promise that Siri would operate without fail," Wilken wrote when ordering the dismissal. "A reasonable consumer would understand that commercials depicting the products they are intended to promote would be unlikely to depict failed attempts."
While the lawsuit is obvious slop, I do find it a little disturbing that the judge has now, through wording of the judgement, created a precedent that says "Commercials are bullshit, and you can't expect a product to work as advertised." Yikes.
Does it help that I made my comment without caring if the judge was male, female, or the 50 other gender options Facebook now offers users? I tend to use both they and he to refer to an unspecified gender. The former is now considered old-fashioned but it's still common, probably because it sounds better in certain contexts because they is usually used to refer to more than one person. Perhaps we need a new all encompassing term to refer to a single person.
You made your comment without caring, and yet assumed male as default. That matters. You shouldn't.
The argument that you use "he" or "his" as genderless singulars is nonsense, no serious person does that. Facebook is not relevant.
She and her. Or "the judge" if you want to keep gender out of the equation altogether, as would be proper.
1) Facebook has one the highest number of active users and traffic on the internet but you think they are irrelevant? Seriously?
2) You can check out usage to see that he and his has been used exclusively up until quite recently to denote an unknown gender.
3) The real issue is your inability to see your own bigotry and sexism at play since you think it's perfectly acceptable to use a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent but have no capacity to allow a similar action for a masculine term to also be gender-agnostic within the same context.
4) How about I start referring to you as the gender-agnostic it to appease your unfounded sensibilities? I personally would think that would be offensive but it is gender-agnostic, is it not.
PS: Let us know how you feel about sexist laughter. hehe
Comments
She
Great, another game of he said she said.
You are referring to the old way food photography used to be. There are fairly strict rules on how food may be prepped and photographed now.
I get the address thing even within the Maps app and typing in an address that doesn't include a city. I don't understand why it wouldn't look for a best match in the vicinity over assuming I mean a city a thousand miles away.
I'm also not a fan of the lack of intelligence of the mapping service locating me a stop along my route. For example, I can have an active route in Maps and ask Siri for a restaurant or gas station along my route and often the results will be something close by that I have passed. My TomTom had the ability to find stops along the remaining route so I do expect Apple's Maps to include this service.
And the lawyers make money either way.
Not exactly. The Apple lawyers get paid, of course, but if they weren't working on this crazy lawsuit, they'd be working on another one.
The plaintiffs' lawyers, though, don't get paid unless the lawsuit is successful. However, it depends on the contract they wrote up - it could say their clients have to pay them for certain expenses anyway, like filing fees (but usually they pay nothing unless they win, and then the lawyer takes so much of the award that the clients are left wondering why they bothered in the first place). These people have shown themselves to be really stupid, so they could have actually signed a bad contract with the scammy lawyer.
I don't think Apple can ask for legal costs in a case like this, so the plaintiffs are lucky there. And I agree - why did this take 2 years to be dismissed?
While the lawsuit is obvious slop, I do find it a little disturbing that the judge has now, through wording of the judgement, created a precedent that says "Commercials are bullshit, and you can't expect a product to work as advertised." Yikes.
Are you implying that commercials are not bullshit, and you can expect a product to work as advertised?
Do you work for Google or are you hopelessly naive?
Hoo, boy. If my wife ever decided to take me in front of the judge for all the times I heard her wrong, I'd be in divorce court doo-doo!
This suit hearkens back to that other California lawsuit against Apple back in 2010, complaining that iPads overheated and shut down for awhile when used for a time in direct sunlight. That one got tossed also.
Apparently there's high unemployment among the young, recently graduated lawyers who dream up this drivel. It's reasonable to surmise that a lot of these fledgling F. Lee Baileys are flapping their wings and jumping from the nest on their own, attempting their first flights and ending up crashing. They're pretty stunned when hard reality collides with a bang against their little brains.
Where have they advertised that Siri works 100% of the time?
Are you sure you're comfortable with that position? How are you going to feel when you sue for car trouble and the judge says, "You should know that commercials are fiction and besides, no one said the car would start EVERY day."
I'm not defending the ridiculous lawsuit, but the wording of the judgement is pretty troubling.
Do you say the same thing when you go to McDonalds and the burgers you are served are not as plump and juicy as shown on their menu cards...?
Do you work for Google or are you hopelessly naive?
I'm saying it's not encouraging for consumers when a judge throws out a lawsuit on the grounds that people should not expect truth in advertising. That opens the door to ads making false claims with the tacit protection of the courts. A commercial tells you that a new wonder drug will repair your heart while you sleep and will for sure NOT kill you if taken with Aspirin. When it DOES kill you the lawsuit is thrown out because you should know better than to believe what a commercial tells you.
That's obviously an exaggerated example and again, the suit we're discussing was OBVIOUSLY ridiculous, but the wording of the judgement may still be cause for concern.
Do you say the same thing when you go to McDonalds and the burgers you are served are not as plump and juicy as shown on their menu cards...?
Obviously some forms of "stretching the truth" are more egregious than others, which is essentially what the judge said. I just think she might have thrown in a little "gotcha" in her decision. Saying that consumers should EXPECT advertising to be bullshit, thus possibly tacitly protecting an advertiser's right to lie, strikes me as bad legal precedent.
The rest of her points about the plaintiffs failing to provide the most fundamental evidence made me wonder who was in charge of the claim and if said individual rides the short bus to court? Given that, according to some people here, Siri actually does have some genuine shortcomings, I wonder if a sharper legal mind might have had some success? I don't use Siri so I don't know myself, how good/bad is her hit/fail ratio? How clear has Apple been about Siri being a "Beta" product? Was there any grain of merit to the plaintiffs' claim?
I hate to tell you, but in the US that is already a precedent. Companies are allowed to "puff" up the merits of their products.
Except that’s not what he said at all.
Nowhere can what you claim be construed.
I see no issues with his wording.
Being Beta wouldn't affect this one way or another.
Her wording.
Come on people, not all judges are male.
Does it help that I made my comment without caring if the judge was male, female, or the 50 other gender options Facebook now offers users? I tend to use both they and he to refer to an unspecified gender. The former is now considered old-fashioned but it's still common, probably because it sounds better in certain contexts because they is usually used to refer to more than one person. Perhaps we need a new all encompassing term to refer to a single person.
You made your comment without caring, and yet assumed male as default. That matters. You shouldn't.
The argument that you use "he" or "his" as genderless singulars is nonsense, no serious person does that. Facebook is not relevant.
She and her. Or "the judge" if you want to keep gender out of the equation altogether, as would be proper.
1) Facebook has one the highest number of active users and traffic on the internet but you think they are irrelevant? Seriously?
2) You can check out usage to see that he and his has been used exclusively up until quite recently to denote an unknown gender.
3) The real issue is your inability to see your own bigotry and sexism at play since you think it's perfectly acceptable to use a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent but have no capacity to allow a similar action for a masculine term to also be gender-agnostic within the same context.
4) How about I start referring to you as the gender-agnostic it to appease your unfounded sensibilities? I personally would think that would be offensive but it is gender-agnostic, is it not.
PS: Let us know how you feel about sexist laughter. hehe
And if that mattered to the argument in any capacity, I’m sure we’d apologize for it.
The argument that you use "he" or "his" as genderless singulars is nonsense, no serious person does that.
No, all European and European-derived languages and cultures do that. It’s also irrelevant to the point we’re making.