Another Apple Ad Banned

tdktank59 said:
Anyways, I think the UK was wrong in this sense. Apple was simple advertising how fast there phone could be in prime conditions. In a good 3G network area with good speeds, and probably a new phone without any clutter on it. So what.

Apple was simple advertising that there phone could do this in the proper environment. None the less they said "Actual phone speeds may vary with quality of network coverage." That right there can clarify a lot.
Click to expand...
You're wrong to the point of it not even being an argument. The phone will NEVER be able to achieve speeds under ANY condition because it doesn't have the physical processing power to do so. It can't even do that over my wireless network on a newly formatted phone on my own server. It's blatantly obvious you have never used an iPhone.
 
Atech said:
No, I just want an OS that say a biiit more "does not work".
Click to expand...

I was kidding ;) I was referring to the fact I've seen a bunch of the "Mac Geniuses" or whatever the heck they're called replace the entire hardware of the machine because of a software problem. Lacks both logic and common sense, :D
 
Blown 89 said:
You're wrong to the point of it not even being an argument. The phone will NEVER be able to achieve speeds under ANY condition because it doesn't have the physical processing power to do so. It can't even do that over my wireless network on a newly formatted phone on my own server. It's blatantly obvious you have never used an iPhone.
Click to expand...

I don't know of ANY phone on earth that works as fast as their ad shows.

So, since no phones perform this fast, how do other companies handle their marketing? They show the positive things their phones can do! Novel idea, right?
They don't manipulate the ads because their phones won't look snappy in a video.

Once more: Kudos to the UK. I just wish the US Government had some more balls, but we're so freaking socialistic it's like we don't want to offend anyone anymore :rolleyes:
 
good that this ad got banned!
it was misleading. When apple were saying that the iphone is "really fast" it was when compared to a 2G phone

FFS every 3G phone is "really fast" compared to 2 generation ago phones...
That is the problem the the broacasting std have with apple. had they done the comparision with a like for like phone (say symbian 3rd ed based) and said it was "really fast" and it actually was then sure

I bet in the states when you see mascara ads it doesn't have at the bottom "the actesses here have eyelass extension" does it? ie the ad is misleading the (potential) customer into what the mascara can deliver. THANKFULLY a ruling a few years ago found again the cosmetic industry and now EVERY ad has this disclaimer (as well as hair dye adverts) just goes to show they were all doing it

Ads have actually started showing the number of people they used in a trial (7 out of 10 people prefer this butter) WOW... but when they say only 20ppl were actually sampled meh! its quite shocking now such numbers are shown, next to no people are actually picked (god know how many results are just "lost" either)
 
gaspah said:
it'd never happen in the usa, cas 'it would hurt business' and with all the politicians pockets lined with gold from such corporations, misleading ads would never get banned. kudos UK, thinking about the people rather than the fatcats..
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, gaspah, why the hell do you hate the US so much? Almost every post you reply to has anti-US messages. Let go already.
 
Azhar said:
Jesus Christ, gaspah, why the hell do you hate the US so much? Almost every post you reply to has anti-US messages. Let go already.
Click to expand...

You consider banning deceptive ads as Anti-US?

I think his point is valid...lies have no place anywhere...why is a deceptive ad better than expresing distaste for allowing such ads to air?
 
Atech said:
You consider banning deceptive ads as Anti-US?

I think his point is valid...lies have no place anywhere...why is a deceptive ad better than expresing distaste for allowing such ads to air?
Click to expand...

I'm not defending Apple or the American media. Just about every post Steve ever makes about another country, gaspah doesn't pass up an opportunity to berate the United States about something. It gets old.
 
Azhar said:
I'm not defending Apple or the American media. Just about every post Steve ever makes about another country, gaspah doesn't pass up an opportunity to berate the United States about something. It gets old.
Click to expand...

Got it ;)
 
mine is that fast on wifi. but its not as unbearably slow as everyone makes it out to be on 3g. my palm was a slow pos.
 
TechieSooner said:
Once more: Kudos to the UK. I just wish the US Government had some more balls, but we're so freaking socialistic it's like we don't want to offend anyone anymore :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Dude, thanks for the kudos (not that Mr Brown deserves it) but it's nothing to do with being "socialistic". The US probably just has a different (and by the the sounds of it, more lenient) way of regulating advertising.
 
im all for bashing apple, but all they said in that commercial was 'its really fast' a bunch of times.

well, truth is, it IS one of the fastest phones you can do that stuff with. now if motorola put that ad out for the q9c, then i would have a problem with it. but this ad, gimme a break its tame in comparison to most american ads.

shit, what did the UK do when apple claimed you have to buy all new hardware to run vista?
 
http://codegrinder.net/iphonewifi.avi


this isnt to say the ad isnt misleading, 3G is not that "fast". But there where somes posts saying it cant render webpages that "fast". I couldn't imagine them loading any faster on a mobile device.

34 seconds to open safari, google is my homepage, hit news, hit the first article i seen. it fully loaded and then went to maps and had it locate me. i could probably shave the 4 seconds off just by using a tripod for the camera.
 
codegrinder said:
http://codegrinder.net/iphonewifi.avi


this isnt to say the ad isnt misleading, 3G is not that "fast". But there where somes posts saying it cant render webpages that "fast". I couldn't imagine them loading any faster on a mobile device.

34 seconds to open safari, google is my homepage, hit news, hit the first article i seen. it fully loaded and then went to maps and had it locate me. i could probably shave the 4 seconds off just by using a tripod for the camera.
Click to expand...

The Apple ad does WAAAAAY more in 30 seconds, you have just proven that they used a deceptive ad...I even see load times on your video, that does NOT appers in the Apple ad, thanks for the video.
 
i didn't say the ad wasnt deceptive, I'm just saying it can do all of that stuff on wifi... when i find my tripod i will shoot another...
 
codegrinder said:
i didn't say the ad wasnt deceptive, I'm just saying it can do all of that stuff on wifi... when i find my tripod i will shoot another...
Click to expand...

It does all that on 3G too.
Just more slowly.

Either way you put it, even on land-based connections using WiFi, you just proved their stuff isn't that fast. You didn't even demonstrate the loading of Contacts or any other app actually on it- but there's nothing on there that is as fast as the commercial.
 
Martyr said:
the iphone physically CANNOT render web pages as fast as seen there, regardless of internet speed.
Click to expand...
Can't it? ;)

Atech said:
The Apple ad does WAAAAAY more in 30 seconds, you have just proven that they used a deceptive ad...I even see load times on your video, that does NOT appers in the Apple ad, thanks for the video.
Click to expand...
You're really stretching the "deceptive" claim. Is it your belief that Apple's intention is to accurately depict the time it takes an iPhone on an average connection to complete certain tasks, such as loading a web page or triangulating the user's position on the map? What specific claim is being made on Apple's part? That the Apple is that fast or that the iPhone is relatively fast?

Are Big Mac ads accurate depictions of average Big Macs you'd receive at your average McDonalds? Are such ads deceptive because the depiction of the Big Mac is inaccurate with respect to what's commonly observed in the real world? What specific claims are being made on McDonald's part about the appearance and quality of Big Macs when they depict the Big Mac in ads?

Now, if we take the common sense approach, we assume that Big Macs don't ever look as good as they do in commercials or other ads. We assume there are specific similarities -- that a Big Mac has all of the components as depicted in advertisements, just not that the quantity or quality of those components is necessarily as good.

The bottom line is that Apple never makes any claim regarding the actual observed iPhone's speed in that ad, saying only that it's "really fast" (which is meaningless). What's shown is a merely a depiction of the iPhone completing tasks, not necessarily an accurate depiction.

Now, I think returning an iPhone to Apple or the carrier is acceptable if a consumer feels deceived. That kind of thing would be handled on a case-by-case basis here. To demand government intervention against Apple? Ridiculous.

 
codegrinder said:
i didn't say the ad wasnt deceptive, I'm just saying it can do all of that stuff on wifi... when i find my tripod i will shoot another...
Click to expand...
Go ahead and do that....it will be equally as slow. I just preloaded the NY Times just as the ad did and closed Safari. It took me 25 seconds on the dot to open Safari, load the page, zoom into the lead link, and open the lead link. All of that was on WiFi. Side by side with the ad the computer in my sig loaded the non cached NY Times article a hair slower than the phone did in that ad
 
25 seconds to open Safari, load the precached cover page, zoom in on the link, and open the link to completion. The exact same process as in the ad.
 
phide said:
Now, if we take the common sense approach, we assume that Big Macs
Click to expand...
There's also something called a variable here.
Each Big Mac is built differently. I think everyone can assume McDonalds built the one on TV to look fantastic, get some zoom-in shots to make it look bigger, etc.

In the iPhone's case, ech iPhone is built the same. There's no way to make it look better than it actually is, WITHOUT MANIPULATING REALITY.
I know "Reality Distortion Field" is thrown around alot with Apple, but goodness: it has some truth.


phide said:
Now, I think returning an iPhone to Apple or the carrier is acceptable if a consumer feels deceived. That kind of thing would be handled on a case-by-case basis here. To demand government intervention against Apple? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not ridiculous at all.
It is like pulling teeth to get any cell carrier to give you what you want. Plenty of horror stories about that everywhere you go.
There has been plenty of people doing that exact thing (or at least attempting to return it), hence the class action.

Blown 89 said:
25 seconds to open Safari,
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of flat out manipulating their ads and cutting out this 25 seconds (IE, lying to customers), show the ad with Safari already started. No manipulation involved there at all, because they don't see the load times. It's what other companies do: focus on the positives, they don't lie about the negatives.
 
I think you guys are misunderstanding what I did. It took 25 seconds to complete all of the tasks, not 25 seconds of waiting for Safari to open. From home screen to test completion to home screen took 25 seconds.
 
Blown 89 said:
I think you guys are misunderstanding what I did. It took 25 seconds to complete all of the tasks, not 25 seconds of waiting for Safari to open. From home screen to test completion to home screen took 25 seconds.
Click to expand...

Regardless. There's still load times applicable. Even with WiFi.

Browsing out the window, application load times still exist as well. In Apple's fantasy land, they suddenly just disappear??? :confused:
 
Blown 89 said:
I think you guys are misunderstanding what I did. It took 25 seconds to complete all of the tasks, not 25 seconds of waiting for Safari to open. From home screen to test completion to home screen took 25 seconds.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was about to say...

Safari with a precached page opens instantly. If it hasn't been opened in a while we're talking two or three seconds before you can start making inputs. Slow it isn't...
 
TechieSooner said:
Each Big Mac is built differently. I think everyone can assume McDonalds built the one on TV to look fantastic, get some zoom-in shots to make it look bigger, etc.
Click to expand...
Even taking the variability aspect into account, what McDonalds does with their Big Macs is depict the ideal: you've never gotten a Big Mac that looked anywhere near as delicious as the ones on TV ads. Apple does the same thing here. It's simply a depiction of the ideal.

TechieSooner said:
It isn't manipulation of reality, it's simply a depiction of an ideal reality (and probably one that nobody ever experiences, admittedly). Much like a Big Mac :)

I keep bringing up these words -- depiction and claim -- for a reason. Think about what Apple depicts and what they claim and make a reasonable judgment call on whether the ad is designed to mislead based on that.
Click to expand...
 
I just want to note that the reason I fucked up the quote above is because I'm retarded. Carry on.
 
its not a depiction of an ideal reality. its a depiction of an impossible reality.
 
I'm not a fan of Apple's tactics, but this is a bit ridiculous. Almost all ads are misleading, like the house ware products, women's beauty products. Hell, even the damn morning cereal ads are misleading. They're meant to to captivate people's attention, not necessarily to show how the product really works. That's the definition of an ad.

Take the men's gillette ads for example. There's always some guy that is supposedly using it for shaving and when he uses it, his face is as smooth as a baby's behind, where he proceeds to splash is face with fresh water (in slow motion of course...). Every man in the planet knows that's not possible, yet they make shaving with that particular product, seem like God's greatest gift. It's an ad...Anyone that believes in that, should be fooled, so that they can learn how to use the brain properly. Trial and error...I see this Apple situation the same. It's just another ad to promote a product...
 
I've got an idea...
Rather than letting adverts run riot and become totally devoid of reality, why isnt there a body that monitors things and stops bad adverts.
Oh wait, there is one!
They also seem to be doing their job in this case.

I think its great that companies like Apple get it stuck to them when they try and exceed tolerated bullshit methods.
 
Martyr said:
its not a depiction of an ideal reality. its a depiction of an impossible reality.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that. Care to back it up?

I certainly don't know if what it's doing is impossible. I won't pretend as if I do.

 
Nenu said:
I've got an idea...
Rather than letting adverts run riot and become totally devoid of reality, why isnt there a body that monitors things and stops bad adverts.
Oh wait, there is one!
They also seem to be doing their job in this case.

I think its great that companies like Apple get it stuck to them when they try and exceed tolerated bullshit methods.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but why aren't other ads (much worse than this one) being banned ?

I remember that "Axe" for Men one where a guy that uses it, gets cute girls attached to him instantaneously. That's classic attention capturing ad, devoid of reality, but it wasn't banned in the EU...
 
Silus said:
I agree with that, but why aren't other ads (much worse than this one) being banned ?

I remember that "Axe" for Men one where a guy that uses it, gets cute girls attached to him instantaneously. That's classic attention capturing ad, devoid of reality, but it wasn't banned in the EU...
Click to expand...

A good question.
Maybe its because of the high price premium and the huge interest in devices of this nature.
It could also be that its easy to pull the wool over peoples eyes with tech related products making them more prone to scrutiny by the standards bodies.

For example, in the UK with have Lynx deodorant adverts which sound very similar to the "Axe" advert you mentioned.
To most people, its obvious they are applying humour rather than BS to sell the product.
There will be a small minority that will believe the advert but as the general populace hasnt been taken in, they let it slide.
Its a hard thing to draw a line on at times as they dont want backlash from the publc from being overzealous.
 
Silus said:
I agree with that, but why aren't other ads (much worse than this one) being banned ?

I remember that "Axe" for Men one where a guy that uses it, gets cute girls attached to him instantaneously. That's classic attention capturing ad, devoid of reality, but it wasn't banned in the EU...
Click to expand...

You missed one thing mate, they also used a young and handsome man in that ad, the ad will certainly be banned if they used a fat old man with almost no hair left on his head. :p
 
Nenu said:
A good question.
Maybe its because of the high price premium and the huge interest in devices of this nature.
It could also be that its easy to pull the wool over peoples eyes with tech related products making them more prone to scrutiny by the standards bodies.

For example, in the UK with have Lynx deodorant adverts which sound very similar to the "Axe" advert you mentioned.
To most people, its obvious they are applying humour rather than BS to sell the product.
There will be a small minority that will believe the advert but as the general populace hasnt been taken in, they let it slide.
Its a hard thing to draw a line on at times as they dont want backlash from the publc from being overzealous.
Click to expand...

I agree, using humor to sell your products is different than outright lieing in a way to decieve your customers. That is like the VW commericals bout how people are having babies just to get the routan. Nobody truly believes that this is a problem, that people are getting preganant just to buy that van. Well nobody who isn't completely stupid doesn't atleast. Therefore that is fine as it is just trying to apply humor. Same as the axe dark, where after using it the guy turns into chocolate and starts to having girls swarm him and rip pieces off him,... You know that isn't real. Just like you know a large talking rabbit isn't going to try to steal your trix, or a small teady bear isn't going to appear in your drier huging your clothes. Stuff like that is fine.

However when you get to stuff like those sign up for our service and you will start making $1000+ a day from your own living room commercials that have a different url every week those are fraud. When you see all those commericals claiming how you can eat all you want and lose weight in a safe healthy manor those are fraud. However they do at least have a thing at the bottom or some thing somewhere that claim the results are not typical. So that is how they can get away without being called a fraud.

Like somebody said had they had a little blurb about how what you are seeing is not representive of actual times then it wouldn't have been that much of a problem. However when they show it working really fast, and keep claiming it is going to work really fast, it is only natuaral that the really fast they are saying is the same really fast that you are seeing.
 
alg7_munif said:
You missed one thing mate, they also used a young and handsome man in that ad, the ad will certainly be banned if they used a fat old man with almost no hair left on his head. :p
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, since it's still misleading. The girls would be attaching themselves to the guy, because he's good looking, not because he used "Axe".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top