[ort888]

http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+in+Co...ticle13583.htm

Apple states, "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."

[shifuimam]

Yet, oddly enough, they stated several defenses prior to the above:

Any statements made by Apple were truthful and accurate and were not misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive Plaintiff or the purported class, and could not have been reasonably understood by Plaintiff or any member of the purported class in a manner that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.

Apple should probably make up its mind on this one - either it claims its advertising was accurate, or it claims its advertising was misleading. They can't have it both ways.

[FireWire]

Effing morons from the UK!! I fail to see the problem here.. According to this article, "IPhone Not "Really Fast" Say UK Officials". I don't know what reference they use, but here in Canada I tested at 1.5 Mbps, which qualifies as "really fast" in my opinion. Put that in the perspective that you're talking about a portable device, and you can say it's "amazingly fast". Stupid whiners!

[shifuimam]

I think it's more that Apple blatantly said that nobody should interpret their advertisements as truthful and accurate.

No idea what 3G speeds are in the UK - it could very well be that the 3G network there was slammed with a sudden spike in users after the iPhone release, which could have effectively slowed down the network quite noticeably.

[FireWire]

They reacted badly but there should have been no fuss to begin with... I think their comments about accuracy refers more about "the whole Internet" claim, which I agree a decently intelligent person would not interpret literally.

[ort888]

I was actually more annoyed with their "half the price" claim, since it was not "half the price" for me and many people like me.

As a current AT&T user under contract, the iPhone would have set me back $399. If they would have told me this at the beginning it wouldn't have been a big deal. But rather then do that, they kept all of the details hidden until a week before launch and they completely changed the way they handle current AT&T users upgrade eligibility.

However, the most annoying thing was that I was lied to three times about the whole thing. Twice (on record) by AT&T. And once by an Apple store employee. All of them promised me over and over that I would be able to get an iPhone for $199 on launch day.

[starman]

This makes me LOL. How many commercials have we seen that don't completely reflect a real-world scenario? Yeah, the car CAN do 120 MPH. Yeah, the Bounty IS the quicker picker-upper....or is it?

The problem with technology is that it's measurable.

[Dakar V]

If you're claiming no reasonable person would take your ads at face value, maybe you should reconsider the ads you're making.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

If you're claiming no reasonable person would take your ads at face value, maybe you should reconsider the ads you're making.

Here's the problem. If this gets taken to court and Apple loses, that means that every single technology device shown in a commercial is going to have to be shown to work as it really does.

Remember the Swiffer commercials where the broom did the sweeping on its own? That doesn't happen, but it's implied that it's easy.

That's what they mean. Any reasonable person knows that any wireless link to the internet is not going to be that fast. You only have 30 seconds...

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by starman 

Here's the problem. If this gets taken to court and Apple loses, that means that every single technology device shown in a commercial is going to have to be shown to work as it really does.

I'm sure I've seen ads with fine print clarifying that TV magic is being used.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by starman 

Here's the problem. If this gets taken to court and Apple loses, that means that every single technology device shown in a commercial is going to have to be shown to work as it really does.

Remember the Swiffer commercials where the broom did the sweeping on its own? That doesn't happen, but it's implied that it's easy.

That's what they mean. Any reasonable person knows that any wireless link to the internet is not going to be that fast. You only have 30 seconds...

Please. Any reasonable person knows that a broom cannot sweep on its own. Most people do not just how fast the Internet will be on a particular phone.

The level of defense that Apple gets here is getting ridiculous.

[ort888]

Apple should stick to making up words like Thinnovation. You can't argue with a made-up word.

The iPhone... Truly Spectabulocitous.

[Dakar V]

It's scrumtrilescent.

[osiris]

It's safe to assume that most advertising is at least 50% BS.

[CharlesS]

Here are the ads that this lawsuit is apparently about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sPVfFXC6AY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OknElEusVhM

[imitchellg5]

That's good for the Mac vs PC campaign too. Maybe Macs do have viruses. You never know if you're not reasonable enough to know the ads are lies.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Yet, oddly enough, they stated several defenses prior to the above:



Apple should probably make up its mind on this one - either it claims its advertising was accurate, or it claims its advertising was misleading. They can't have it both ways.

Yes, actually, you can. That's a good description of most of the science we're taught in schools. For example, computers don't actually contain ones and zeroes, but we talk about them that way because it's simpler than explaining transistors and electrons, and it's generally thought of as truthful and accurate.

In this case, Apple's claims about the iPhone were truthful and accurate — I don't think Apple meant to trick anybody. Moreover, there's no evidence that anybody was actually deceived by this commercial.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

In this case, Apple's claims about the iPhone were truthful and accurate — I don't think Apple meant to trick anybody. Moreover, there's no evidence that anybody was actually deceived by this commercial.

So what's so great about 3G?

It's what helps you get the news, really fast. Find your way, really fast. And download pretty much anything, really fast.

The new iPhone 3G. The Internet, you guessed it, really fast.

When the purpose of an ad is to make consumers aware that the product is "really fast," and the ad shows the product doing things far more quickly than it does in real life, it's called misleading consumers.

[Chuckit]

So when an ad is about how easy a broom is and it shows the broom doing things all by itself, is that called misleading consumers?

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So when an ad is about how easy a broom is and it shows the broom doing things all by itself, is that called misleading consumers?

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies 

Any reasonable person knows that a broom cannot sweep on its own. Most people do not know just how fast the Internet will be on a particular phone.

Because otherwise vBulletin claims that this message is blank.

[::maroma::]

If the plaintiff seeks truth in advertising he's is fighting a losing battle. The word "truth" when it relates to advertising doesn't have the same definition as it does when it relates to everything else. If you've ever worked with a marketing team, you'd see that they spend a good deal of time trying to find ways to claim something that isn't entirely true, but can be legally backed up. It actually makes my stomach hurt to sit in on a marketing meeting sometimes.

[Chuckit]

I think just as much as they could be expected to know brooms aren't animate, any reasonable person knows the Internet will not be faster on a mobile phone than it is on a wired-up PC.

Like I said before, you can throw out phrases like "deceptive" and "truth in advertising" till the cows come home, but I don't know anyone who was actually had by this terribly cunning attempt at deception.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Apple should probably make up its mind on this one - either it claims its advertising was accurate, or it claims its advertising was misleading. They can't have it both ways.

I don't know the specifics of Apple's defense, but you are typically allowed to plead in the alternative.

I don't think the ads are any more deceptive than any others.

[mduell]

I really like the "misunderstood" bit.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think just as much as they could be expected to know brooms aren't animate, any reasonable person knows the Internet will not be faster on a mobile phone than it is on a wired-up PC.

Like I said before, you can throw out phrases like "deceptive" and "truth in advertising" till the cows come home, but I don't know anyone who was actually had by this terribly cunning attempt at deception.

While the Internet has been on phones for several years, most people have been ignoring that feature on their phones until recently. Most people have no idea how fast the Internet is supposed to be on a phone, 3G or otherwise. When an ad repeats "really fast" multiple times and demonstrates someone using the Internet in it, people expect "really fast" to be as fast as shown in the ad.

And even if few people are fooled by such a stunt, it is still unethical to say "really fast" over and over again and include a demonstration running at far faster than possible in real life speeds.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

Effing morons from the UK!! I fail to see the problem here.. According to this article, "IPhone Not "Really Fast" Say UK Officials". I don't know what reference they use, but here in Canada I tested at 1.5 Mbps, which qualifies as "really fast" in my opinion. Put that in the perspective that you're talking about a portable device, and you can say it's "amazingly fast". Stupid whiners!

It's doesn't matter how fast the speed is measured in Mbps. It isn't as fast as it *appears* in Apple's ads.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by starman 

Here's the problem. If this gets taken to court and Apple loses, that means that every single technology device shown in a commercial is going to have to be shown to work as it really does.

Oh no! That would be horrible!

[starman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Oh no! That would be horrible!

Yeah, I want a four minute commercial showing things booting up.