Another Apple Ad Banned

[Nenu]

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".

lol, thats a bit like the adverts that are being discussed.
His post was a joke

 

[Martyr]

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.

well, impossbile in the sense that your pentium 2 latop cannot play back 1080p video.


go grab an iphone, get it on fast wifi, and try hitting up like slashdot.

its not click> page loaded. and when you hit a link, its not just bam up


its more like enter webpage
...
...
...
starts loading it
...
...
...
almost done
...
done


scroll down > grey checkers
...
filled in.



click a link
...
...
...
page blanks
...
...
...
starting to get stuff rendered
...
...
almost
...
done

 

[TechieSooner]

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.

It's food, made differently by thousands (millions??) of different employees. Honestly, nobody gives a crap if it looks different than the ad because guess what? Most people eat there because it is A) Cheap or B) Good.

(Not to confuse B with "Good for you" )

You keep saying that. Care to back it up?

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...

 

[TechieSooner]

Curse no edit button...

You keep saying that. Care to back it up?

Sure. View YouTube link posted before. That right there 100% refutes Apple's ad.
If you still want to believe Apple's BS nonsense: produce your own video demonstrating how it can possibly be that fast.

 

[phide]

...

I'm guessing you're trying to make some sort of point here...I just have no idea what it could possibly be. Moving on!

Sure. View YouTube link posted before. That right there 100% refutes Apple's ad.

No, it doesn't. What we're trying to pin down is "can the iPhone complete the tasks as quickly as depicted in the commercial", not "what is one user's experience".

I have seen nothing to suggest that the iPhone isn't physically capable of doing that. That's it.

 

[Atech]

I'm guessing you're trying to make some sort of point here...I just have no idea what it could possibly be. Moving on!


No, it doesn't. What we're trying to pin down is "can the iPhone complete the tasks as quickly as depicted in the commercial", not "what is one user's experience".

I have seen nothing to suggest that the iPhone isn't physically capable of doing that. That's it.

Lie, the video you mention is "SOMETHING to suggest that the iPhone isn't physically capable of doing that"

What you are doing is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, as evidence already HAS been entered in this thread, Mac-boy...

 

[phide]

What you are doing is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, as evidence already HAS been entered in this thread, Mac-boy...

Nonsense. I never made any claim that the iPhone is capable of executing the tasks as quickly as depicted in the commercial. What I said is that I've seen nothing to suggest that the phone is not capable of doing it, being limited by processor speed or otherwise, and that's a factual statement.

The speed barriers seem to be network bound, not processor bound. All iPhones would perform similarly were it not for the phone operating on various types of networks with varying signal strength, varying degrees of latency (the major barrier), etc.. I've yet to see anything that indicates the iPhone isn't capable of this kind of performance under ideal network conditions.

For whatever it's worth, I'd have the same position if we were talking about any other phone manufacturer and so-called "misleading ads", so don't go throwing your little insults around quite yet...

 

[stop!theradio]

I'm guessing you're trying to make some sort of point here...I just have no idea what it could possibly be. Moving on!


No, it doesn't. What we're trying to pin down is "can the iPhone complete the tasks as quickly as depicted in the commercial", not "what is one user's experience".

I have seen nothing to suggest that the iPhone isn't physically capable of doing that. That's it.

It's not a question of weather or not the iPhone is capable of speed like what was advertised - it's weather or not any of us will ever see it perform that fast in the real world.

And I have the answer for that question:

Um, no.

 

[finalgt]

The advert misled customers into believing the product was that fast, when it clearly wasn't, what is ridiculous in that?

I guess in your eyes, Nvidia could show an advert for a GPU running crysis at 200FPS with everything set to full, when it could only achieve 50FPS and that would be perfectly fine.

Wait, what? So it wasn't really that fast? So...what were they filming? It IS that fast on 3G, but 3G isn't always available. That's why the ad was banned.

 

[TechieSooner]

I have seen nothing to suggest that the iPhone isn't physically capable of doing that.

I've seen nothing to suggest that the phone is not capable of doing it, being limited by processor speed or otherwise, and that's a factual statement.

How daft are you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaN1Nz1Dyls

PERIOD.
That right there "suggests" the iPhone isn't capable of physically doing those tasks.

It IS that fast on 3G,

No, it isn't. It isn't even that fast on Wifi, as another member's post demonstrates.

 

[phide]

Before you start throwing around insults, you might want to try and read all of my posts and try to understand the point I'm making. You're deliberately ignoring a number of things I've said that are extremely pertinent to this discussion.

When you want to move forward, let me know. Otherwise...

 

[AceGoober]

What I don't understand is why everyone is arguing the point over and over again.

The iPhone will not perform as fast as the commercial depicts since it is dependant upon its host internet carrier.

If the carrier is slower than molasses running down a tree bark then would it not make sense to assume the iPhone would perform only as well as its internet host can provide?

 

[Martyr]

What I don't understand is why everyone is arguing the point over and over again.

The iPhone will not perform as fast as the commercial depicts since it is dependant upon its host internet carrier.

If the carrier is slower than molasses running down a tree bark then would it not make sense to assume the iPhone would perform only as well as its internet host can provide?

no.



The iPhone will not perform as fast as the commercial depicts because it is physically unable to perform that fast. You could be on a wifi connection loading a web page of your own server and it would not be that fast. Ive had a damn iphone since a week after release, ive used it a pissload, and i know its capabilities.

 

[stop!theradio]

no.



The iPhone will not perform as fast as the commercial depicts because it is physically unable to perform that fast. You could be on a wifi connection loading a web page of your own server and it would not be that fast. Ive had a damn iphone since a week after release, ive used it a pissload, and i know its capabilities.

Well, that's kind of the persons point that you quoted...

...either way, the iPhone will never give us the performance we've seen in commercials, and that's that.

 

[MrWizard6600]

Viagra =/

HAH!

I lol'd.

 

[TechieSooner]

Well, that's kind of the persons point that you quoted...

Not exactly.

If the carrier is slower than molasses running down a tree bark then would it not make sense to assume the iPhone would perform only as well as its internet host can provide?

The iPhone will not perform as fast as the commercial depicts because it is physically unable to perform that fast.

It's nothing to do with the carrier, was Martyr's point. I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[daglesj]

Bizzarly I was watching TV last night (in the UK) and that very ad was shown. However, it had a disclaimer at the bottom stating that events had been edited.

The system of advertising does work here pretty well. Its funny now to see so many beauty products (mainly hair and mascara ads) have to state 'model shown using lash or hair extensions' which kind of destroys their claims of giving you inch long lashes or perfect hair.

It just officially confirms what you thought was bollocks actually is.

 

[Nenu]

...It just officially confirms what you thought was bollocks actually is.

lol spoken like a true Brit

Although MS's ads are just as annoying now in a different way.
I cant stand the "I'm a PC" adverts and actually turn over when they are on, something I dont recall doing before.
FFS, they are NOT PCs!

 

[Kristofff]

It's common sense self-regulation here in the States, I guess. We just don't go around blindly assuming that everything depicted in a television commercial is perfectly accurate

I'm generally fine with misleading ads, sure. I think stations should be allowed to run essentially whatever advertisements they want no matter how misleading they may be. As a consumer, it's my responsibility to make informed decisions based on actual, hands-on experience with products and not on marketing claims. I don't need any government organization telling me what and what isn't misleading on TV.

What the hell does "self-regulation" have to do with "personal responsibility" regarding consumer purchasing.

Anways, your mindset about self responsibility is sickening. We have consumer protection laws for a reason that a based in reality and logic. Just because you have some backwoods-ass mindset about it doesn't make it otherwise. I suppose you take pride in backbreaking hardwork for scraps while CEO's live it up for millions while running companies into the grounds too, don't you? Anything to make the reality more ignorantly enjoyable, eh?

In the US we let our people use their own minds to think and detirmine if it's good enough for them.


But anyways, as for this ruling, I'm actually for it, glad Apple finally gets put back into its place after all the negative ms ads.

What a typical and prideful oxymoron mindset. "I believe in personal responsibility and have a virtuous mindset, but boy do I love bending and abusing laws when it suits my personal vendetta against a company or person."

I have a really difficult time believing you can't differentiate between a claim and a depiction. Do you not know the difference?

So holding a phone in a hand and showing it do things really fast, all the while you are commentating on what is happening exactly on the phone at that moment and saying "with this phone, you can do this thing "really fast"", its not really misleading because he didn't explcitly say, "with this phone, you can do exactly what your seeing happening on this phone in my hand as I talk about what is happening at the exact moments on the phone"?? Really?

Surely whether or not something works "fast" is relative and subjective, and in this case it will depend on factors such as the network speed. I think that's the arguement against it.

Yea let's ignore the fact that it will never actually be that fast under any circumstaces and just argue on vague concepts that may or may not apply to the matter at hand.

You know im all for apple getting ragged on and what not. They need to get there heads our of there asses and take of that ridiculous apple tax if they really want to be better than Microsoft to the whole world.

I myself have macs, pcs and servers so I have quite a few of the major OS's out there (mac, windows, linux).

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.

What has this world come to, to not be able to realize that nothing is 100% correct. If you had a brand new iPhone 3G and were in a 3G hot spot you could probably get those types of results.

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.

In fact I know AT&T has maps of 3G coverage at their stores where you can get the phone. They want to let you know where those hot spots are and what not.

This world in general is starting to sicken me that we have to appoint idiots to inform idiots how idiotic they are...

I like how you claim you're such an expert on electronic things then go on to say that this iPhone, that you obviously do not have, can "probably" run as fast as they are showing, when in fact, it is completely impossible. Care you share more of your genious with us?

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.

Yea why does he hate the bad things about the US. He should be like the rest of us and love everything about our contry unconditionally. USA! USA! USA!

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?

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?

What the ad is claiming is what it is showing. Don't try to say a hand demonstrating a phone in what looks to be "real time" while a voice is giving an up to the second commentary on what is exactly happening on that very phone, while at the same time saying that phone is "REALLY FAST", isn't really what the ad was claiming. That's just stupid and argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

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?

I'd support any legislation forcing all food commercials to match what is commonly observed in the real world product. Any sort of false advertising is bullshit. It would be like car advertising one car and serving you a shitty version of it while claiming, "Hey it has all the same ingredients of plastic and metal and the same general shape as you saw in the ad."

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.

Other people already have. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

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...

Because its humorous and most people know that women aren't such stupid and simple beings that they will suck your dick because you wear Axe?

Not everyone knows an iPhone 3G, being presented in what looks like a real time video with a voice talking about what the phone is doing at that very second and calling it "really fast", isn't going to be possible.

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".

Seriously people, stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

Nonsense. I never made any claim that the iPhone is capable of executing the tasks as quickly as depicted in the commercial. What I said is that I've seen nothing to suggest that the phone is not capable of doing it, being limited by processor speed or otherwise, and that's a factual statement.

The speed barriers seem to be network bound, not processor bound. All iPhones would perform similarly were it not for the phone operating on various types of networks with varying signal strength, varying degrees of latency (the major barrier), etc.. I've yet to see anything that indicates the iPhone isn't capable of this kind of performance under ideal network conditions.

For whatever it's worth, I'd have the same position if we were talking about any other phone manufacturer and so-called "misleading ads", so don't go throwing your little insults around quite yet...

It doesn't fucking matter if even Wifi might enable the phone to do it when the add starts out with, "So what's so great about 3G?", and 3G won't enable that kind of performance on an iPhone 3G.

Wait, what? So it wasn't really that fast? So...what were they filming? It IS that fast on 3G, but 3G isn't always available. That's why the ad was banned.

So you're saying that 3G enables webpages to bee 100% loaded by the time the browser finishes loading?

No.

Before you start throwing around insults, you might want to try and read all of my posts and try to understand the point I'm making. You're deliberately ignoring a number of things I've said that are extremely pertinent to this discussion.

When you want to move forward, let me know. Otherwise...

Seriously stop arguing for the sake of arguing. No one gives a fuck if the iPhones ARM processor is scientifically able to render a webpage instantly if everything is perfectly ideal and every bit and byte is precached to where data transmission isn't a factor.

 

[phide]

Anways, your mindset about self responsibility is sickening.

Thanks!

I suppose you take pride in backbreaking hardwork for scraps while CEO's live it up for millions while running companies into the grounds too, don't you?

Corporations are evil; everyone's out to get me; I can't fend for myself; CEOs are the reason I'm inadequate; blah, blah, blah. I'm right with you, comrade!

So holding a phone in a hand and showing it do things really fast, all the while you are commentating on what is happening exactly on the phone at that moment and saying "with this phone, you can do this thing "really fast"", its not really misleading because he didn't explcitly say, "with this phone, you can do exactly what your seeing happening on this phone in my hand as I talk about what is happening at the exact moments on the phone"??

Effectively, yes. The commentary makes a claim; the footage shows a depiction, and the depiction is not necessarily in line with what you'd observe in the real world. Again, I bring up the Big Mac ads. A Big Mac ad might claim that the burger is, say, "delicious", but they never say "your Big Mac will look just as delicious as this one".

That's just stupid and argumentative for the sake of being argumentative...Stop arguing for the sake of arguing...stop arguing for the sake of arguing...Seriously stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

Now that's a catchy song!

 

[Nenu]

...Seriously stop arguing for the sake of arguing. No one gives a fuck if the iPhones ARM processor is scientifically able to render a webpage instantly if everything is perfectly ideal and every bit and byte is precached to where data transmission isn't a factor.

I care.
Its about time Apple were transparent about the operation of their devices.
Hey, if they told the truth about them, they might actually have to improve them so they are acceptable to be marketed!
Wouldnt that be nice to buy a product that actually does what the Apple adverts claim?

 

[jynxycat]

If you load a mobile version of any news site under Wifi, it's basically instant. It's slightly longer on Wifi if you're loading a normal site, with some more bells and whistles. On 3G, the best I've seen for speeds using a network test app is around 95kB/s, which is 1/6th of what I get on Wifi.

So normal pages do take quite some time on 3G, though still pretty quick when loading mobile sites.

 

[Kristofff]

I care.
Its about time Apple were transparent about the operation of their devices.
Hey, if they told the truth about them, they might actually have to improve them so they are acceptable to be marketed!
Wouldnt that be nice to buy a product that actually does what the Apple adverts claim?

Seriously? You aren't connecting dots properly, at all. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Nenu]

Seriously? You aren't connecting dots properly, at all. I'll just leave it at that.

No, I guess you struggle with comprehension.

 

[Kristofff]

No, I guess you struggle with comprehension.

Hint: Its processor can handle it fine, but it doesn't matter at all because rendering the page is only a small part of the equation. Hence my explicitly stating that it doesn't matter if the processor can handle a completely hypothetical task that has no bearing on the real world.

Of course, I'm sure you're going to tell me that it is, in fact, somehow relevant to something its not.

 

[Nenu]

Hint: Its processor can handle it fine, but it doesn't matter at all because rendering the page is only a small part of the equation. Hence my explicitly stating that it doesn't matter if the processor can handle a completely hypothetical task that has no bearing on the real world.

Of course, I'm sure you're going to tell me that it is, in fact, somehow relevant to something its not.

Comprehension isnt your forte, this isnt tough y'know.
It has already been demonstrated in this thread that the render speed itself is not attainable and that is of significance to many people.
Your trying to exclude that from the debate demonstrates deception or inability to understand basic concepts.

 

[Kristofff]

Comprehension isnt your forte, this isnt tough y'know.
It has already been demonstrated in this thread that the render speed itself is not attainable and that is of significance to many people.
Your trying to exclude that from the debate demonstrates deception or inability to understand basic concepts.

Ugh... the very video linked in this thread shows the website being RENDERED (AKA NOT LOADED OR DOWNLOADED) instantly. Please just stop before you look even sillier.

And again, whether or not it can be rendered at .1ms doesn't matter one god damn bit when under even the best real world scenarios, it will never never never go that fast do to app loading and webpage downloading.

Perhaps it matters if you just want to close and reopen the same precached webpage over and over again. But, that would just make you stupid.

 

[Kristofff]

due* not do

 

[Nenu]

Just because you think an element of this discussion is not valid doesnt mean that is true.
Thats the beauty of a discussion/debate, you get to discuss both sides of the coin.

I've been in many debates where someone gets angry because they are unable to garner the attention they think they deserve.
It often ends up with bullying tactics to stem a point of view, especially when its valid.

This post alone should have been enough for you
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1033380301&postcount=133

The iPhone will not perform as fast as the commercial depicts because it is physically unable to perform that fast. You could be on a wifi connection loading a web page of your own server and it would not be that fast. Ive had a damn iphone since a week after release, ive used it a pissload, and i know its capabilities.

 

[Azhar]

Yea why does he hate the bad things about the US. He should be like the rest of us and love everything about our contry unconditionally. USA! USA! USA!

Nice job, taking my reply completely out of context. You must be proud.

 

[TechieSooner]

it doesn't matter if the processor can handle a completely hypothetical task that has no bearing on the real world.

So, loading a webpage has no bearing in the real world?

Ugh... the very video linked in this thread shows the website being RENDERED (AKA NOT LOADED OR DOWNLOADED) instantly.

I can CARE LESS how fast it renders. All that matters for me, as well as everyone else on both this forum and in the true "real world" is how long it takes from "click" to "viewable". PERIOD.

 

[stop!theradio]

So, loading a webpage has no bearing in the real world?


I can CARE LESS how fast it renders. All that matters for me, as well as everyone else on both this forum and in the true "real world" is how long it takes from "click" to "viewable". PERIOD.

agreed. it doesnt matter what hardware is theoretically capable of. what matters is how the software ACTUALLY performs on the hardware.

 

[stop!theradio]

that is, with all other conditions in place including connection speed, location, etc. and its been proven that location doesnt quite make things any better, either, with the comparison taking place in front of an apple store and all...