PDA

View Full Version : PowerMac G5 'Fastest Computer' TV Advert Banned in UK


MacBytes
Nov 10, 2003, 10:28 AM
Category: News and Press Releases
Link: PowerMac G5 'Fastest Computer' TV Advert Banned in UK (http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2160562)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by arn

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 10, 2003, 10:45 AM
I think we know that this statement from apple is smoke and mirrors, the dual G5 is faster in some stuff and not as fast in others,now if they had a dual 2.5 g5 right now then this statement would be true,the single G5s are not as fast a P4 3 gig so apple still has some work to do if it wants to beat its chest.

DreaminDirector
Nov 10, 2003, 10:49 AM
what a stupid reason for banning the commercial....

drinking Bud doesn't make beautiful women jump into a pool and tear each others clothes off.....


or does it......

Phazer80s
Nov 10, 2003, 10:50 AM
Frankly, I'm glad someone called Apple out on this.

QCassidy352
Nov 10, 2003, 10:52 AM
This seems silly to me. I guess that living in America, I just accept that any claim I hear in a commercial advertisement needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

spaced
Nov 10, 2003, 10:52 AM
Oh well...

The article does mention "Computer giant Apple..." so that is nice!

gernb
Nov 10, 2003, 10:52 AM
wow...that's funny...and SO British i think

i acually laughed out loud when i read the bit about the G5 being only "Generally as fast as its competitors."

there's a whole monty python sketch developing in my mind now about why the commercial has to be banned.

rotorblade
Nov 10, 2003, 10:53 AM
Sounds to me like Apple is just going to have to deliver faster computers in the near future so there's no question in anyones mind. :-)

barbaloot
Nov 10, 2003, 10:55 AM
ok that's just funny

Bernd
Nov 10, 2003, 10:56 AM
I think that the Brits are little to strict in what they allow in their add claims . This is like energizer claiming the best battery position vs duracel. It depends on how you test. I thought Apples tests showed enough data to permit the claim to be made.
I think the PC weanies complained:mad:

Blackcat
Nov 10, 2003, 10:56 AM
Can I just say as UK person, the ITC stink? Ads are not statements of fact they are marketing tools.

I may get them to ban M&M ads on the grounds I've never seen one speak!

ITC Website (http://www.itc.org.uk/)

toontra
Nov 10, 2003, 10:59 AM
As a longtime Apple user lusting after a G5, I'm glad about us Brits calling Apple on this one.
Advertisers get away with too much in my view - if you make a claim then you have to be able to clearly substantiate it or should withdraw.
TV is full of enough c**p already without Apple and their advertisers adding to it!

IndyGopher
Nov 10, 2003, 11:05 AM
I think an interesting response from Apple, such as simply not selling G5's to anyone in the UK, would be a good test of the computer-buying public's feelings towards rulings like this.

m.r.m.
Nov 10, 2003, 11:07 AM
what difference does it make? apple will shoot another ad for the uk (and possibly the rest of the world). so, maybe we´ll get to see another cool ad soon. that guy being blasted through the house has gotten a bit old now, hasn´t it? ;)

~Shard~
Nov 10, 2003, 11:11 AM
Although I think this is a bit silly and over the top, I am glad that people are calling Apple on this one. To put it simply, the G5 is NOT the world's fastest personal computer. Is it still an amazing and super-fast machine? Yes, of course it is. But the latest P4s/Xeons, along with those amazing AMD Opterons, seem to edge the G5s out. And I say good for them. I think lots of Mac fanatics seem to think that Apple has to be the absolute best at everything and no matter what, Macs are always superior in every way to PCs - I think this is naive. I love Macs just as much as the next guy, but I realize that facts are facts.

Competition is good, and since there are faster systems out there than the current G5s, Apple will just have to step up to the plate and update the G5s (hopefully @ MWSF in January) to refelct this. After all, these G5s are now 6 months old, which is an eternity in the computer universe. ;)

Just my $0.02...

DanUk2003
Nov 10, 2003, 11:13 AM
Here's the link to the actual judgement:

http://www.itc.org.uk/itc_publications/complaints_reports/advertising_complaints/show_complaint.asp?ad_complaint_id=930

zzcoop
Nov 10, 2003, 11:14 AM
So... BMW's "Ultimate Driving Machine" ads aren't shown there either? I certainly hope not!

Idiots.

j33pd0g
Nov 10, 2003, 11:15 AM
I've been to the UK, and have seen their smiles. I really think that they need to pool their efforts in a more productive way, and worry about other things.

alset
Nov 10, 2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by IndyGopher
I think an interesting response from Apple, such as simply not selling G5's to anyone in the UK, would be a good test of the computer-buying public's feelings towards rulings like this.

Which would be great for revenues and market penetration....

Dan

timbloom
Nov 10, 2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by m.r.m.
that guy being blasted through the house has gotten a bit old now, hasn´t it? ;)

I'd have to add it is an annoying commercial after seeing it on every other commercial break. Good placement of the ads, but they need a good ad to put there. This one just doesn't get the point across.

Apple just needs to advertise OS X. That is the whole selling point! Having a computer that can run it as good as a g5 is great, but advertising OS X would be throwing an ad at anyone that may be a future customer. pro or consumer.

shadowfax
Nov 10, 2003, 11:18 AM
this strikes me as the kind of anti-competition that sails far beyond socialism and communism (note: i'm not insulting these political views) into abject childishness.

they'd better roundly PROVE that it's false advertising before they pull crap like this. as it is, they sound like babyish PC junkies with a sore ego. humph!

the_mole1314
Nov 10, 2003, 11:21 AM
The commerical is what, 3-4 months old? I mean, this was based on 3 month old results, NOT the latest processors, and not on the new AMDs and Pentium Processors. I can agree with the statements, IF THIS WAS JUNE. It's not, it's November.

cubist
Nov 10, 2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by ~Shard~
Although I think this is a bit silly and over the top, I am glad that people are calling Apple on this one. To put it simply, the G5 is NOT the world's fastest personal computer. ...

Rubbish. If you don't let Apple claim that, nobody can claim it. Let's suppose some rich guy has a personal Cray. That's his personal computer.

If the Brits check all ads this carefully, no ads will be permitted at all. They're being selective - this is PC trolls at work.

mymemory
Nov 10, 2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by zzcoop
So... BMW's "Ultimate Driving Machine" ads aren't shown there either? I certainly hope not!

If you take a BMW in some part of my city, it may be your Ultimate Driving Machine experience before you get kidnaped and stolen. No the same thing with other brands of cars.

artistry
Nov 10, 2003, 11:24 AM
In the UK, and in the EU, there are strict rules about claims made in ads. A claim like "The G5 leaves others behind" would be acceptable but "the fastest PC on the planet" would not, because the former is sales talk, the latter is a claim. You can't disprove the former, you can disprove the latter. And you just open yourself up to be disproved. Rightly so.

People believe advertising, and should not be misled. Apple were stupid for making the claim in the way they did, when it would have been cheaper and less controversial to say something far more general.
Cheaper, because this judgement will be reported in all the IT magazines and all Apple's attempts to sell into the business market have just been undone. Very, very stupid.

theranch
Nov 10, 2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Phazer80s
Frankly, I'm glad someone called Apple out on this.
Totally agree...I'm getting tired of the false claims when it comes to speed. Did anyone read the latest Macworld mag article? The one regarding the G5 vs PC.

Just run with the ease of use and security of Macs. Drop the "fastest" pitch until it is actually true.

Catt
Nov 10, 2003, 11:30 AM
Its false advertising plain and simple.
The rules in the UK are fair.

Its a huge marketing tool to say you make the fastest computer in the world (consumer computer that is), especially as a lot of people are very naive and assume that fastest = best. And when this is isn't true its fair enough that advert is banned. Apple doesn't need to make such statements it can sell the G5 on the back of its other assets (e.g. 64bit) and the usage of Mac OS X.

This is one reason why Carlsberg (I think it was Carlsberg) had their advertising slogan as "Probably the best Lager in the world" - which in many ways is a better line than simply stating it is the best lager in the world.

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 10, 2003, 11:31 AM
I have seen a lot of tests where the dual G5 does not come out on top therefore what they did in England was simply say to Apple stop telling lies, good im still waiting for apple to catch up to the Intel/Amd world.

~Shard~
Nov 10, 2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by cubist
Rubbish. If you don't let Apple claim that, nobody can claim it. Let's suppose some rich guy has a personal Cray. That's his personal computer.

If the Brits check all ads this carefully, no ads will be permitted at all. They're being selective - this is PC trolls at work.

I guess what I meant was that I do think this banning of the Apple ad is over the top and a bit much (as I said in my post), but in general, I'm glad that people don't just assume the G5s are the fastest personal computers - it makes for good compeition which will only make Apple better, as it does with every company.

Also, I have never seen a Pentium/Dell/whatever ad (someone correct me if they've seen otherwise) stating that "PC X" is THE world's fastest personal computer system. I could eb wrong though...

Also, Crays are classified as supercomputers by definition, no matter what someone would be using them for. ;)

I do agree with the BMW comment - the "ultimate driving machine" is a somewhat similar claim. And plus, "ultimate" means last, or final, which is not true anyways, unless BMW isn't planning on making any more vehicles ever. ;)

ColdZero
Nov 10, 2003, 11:40 AM
By definition, the G4 until a few years ago was also a Supercomputer. I guess the results should not have been compared against regular desktops at the time.

PC companies don't say that because it is always changing. They don't compare speeds, they are all using the same processors, chipsets, video cards. Instead, they compare the features they add, the deals they are offering and the extras they include. Which is what I think Apple should do.

I don't know about everybody else, but I take the phrase "ultimate driving experiance" differently than "worlds fastest personal computer"

Ultimate driving experiance is a subjective thing, it may be for you, it may not be for somebody else.

I take the statement of "worlds fastest" to be a fact, not an opinion.

I'm glad somebody called Apple on this.

Trimix
Nov 10, 2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Blackcat
Can I just say as UK person, the ITC stink? Ads are not statements of fact they are marketing tools.

I may get them to ban M&M ads on the grounds I've never seen one speak!

ITC Website (http://www.itc.org.uk/)

over here they do :D
just eat the blue ones and you will see for yourself

ZildjianKX
Nov 10, 2003, 11:42 AM
I think it will teach Apple to be a little wiser to think before they speak... their claims are bunk.

johnnyjibbs
Nov 10, 2003, 11:44 AM
They may just run the ad with a different end slogan, e.g. "Blown away - don't underestimate the power of the new Power Mac G5" or something like that.

But yeah they need to bring back the good ads based on the simplicity of Macs and Mac OS. Advertising just their hardware is one thing, but people over here still just go "that's nice, but it's just a Mac - not compatible"

zzcoop
Nov 10, 2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by ColdZero
I don't know about everybody else, but I take the phrase "ultimate driving experiance" differently than "worlds fastest personal computer"

Ultimate driving experiance is a subjective thing, it may be for you, it may not be for somebody else.

I take the statement of "worlds fastest" to be a fact, not an opinion.

So you'd be okay with something like "The Ultimate Computing Machine"?

e-coli
Nov 10, 2003, 11:45 AM
Oooh...the SMACKDOWN!!!

Apple is now feeling the heat for sticking with Moto for so long. Between the Illustrator CS for Dummies quote, Adobe's recommendation that users buy PC's, and RES magazine's statement that Intel machines "trounce" Macs, things are looking ugly.

It's not so bad, though. They deserve it for putting out such crappy, overpriced machines for so long.

Everyone remembers the "Pentium toasting" G4. :rolleyes:

Did anyone read the latest Macworld mag article? The one regarding the G5 vs PC.


What did it conclude?

1macker1
Nov 10, 2003, 11:47 AM
I think it's great that they called Apple on this. It's just not a true ad.

Trimix
Nov 10, 2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by artistry
In the UK, and in the EU, there are strict rules about claims made in ads. A claim like "The G5 leaves others behind" would be acceptable but "the fastest PC on the planet" would not, because the former is sales talk, the latter is a claim. You can't disprove the former, you can disprove the latter. And you just open yourself up to be disproved. Rightly so.

People believe advertising, and should not be misled. Apple were stupid for making the claim in the way they did, when it would have been cheaper and less controversial to say something far more general.
Cheaper, because this judgement will be reported in all the IT magazines and all Apple's attempts to sell into the business market have just been undone. Very, very stupid.

is that like the WORLD series of baseball, or the rugby WORLD championship ?
apart from only few teams playing in these and leaving out the majority of all earthlings, have never seen a team from alpha centauri, which in my mind would qualify as 'world' too
please don't flame me:D

macMaestro
Nov 10, 2003, 11:50 AM
Apple PowerMac G5


Complaint from: 8 viewers

Hmm... 8 viewers. Anybody know any PC makers that make claims like this on UK TV? We only need 8 people to get it taken off the air. :D

Trimix
Nov 10, 2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by zzcoop
So you'd be okay with something like "The Ultimate Computing Machine"?
only if it is made by the vorsprung durch technik people:D

i love this thread, it is the perfect time-waster

Trimix
Nov 10, 2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by macMaestro
Hmm... 8 viewers. Anybody know any PC makers that make claims like this on UK TV? We only need 8 people to get it taken off the air. :D

hm, those 8 - dell employees ???

zzcoop
Nov 10, 2003, 11:54 AM
How can you people make jokes at a time like this? The UK has banned the G5 ad! It's all over!! The PC makers have won!! THIS IS THE END FOR APPLE!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

[crashes through office window]

Glial
Nov 10, 2003, 11:56 AM
If they added "built by Apple" to the end of the world's fastest thing....would that fly?

It would then be 100% accurate and correct. No?

JW Pepper
Nov 10, 2003, 12:03 PM
Well there is little to chritise in this judgment. If you make a claim it must be true, plain and simple. The simple fact is that the G5 is faster at some thing and slower than other.

British advertising rules are strict and bizzar at the same time. A few years ago Hiniken had to withdraw an advert claiming that their bier reached parts others didn't (Prove it!). Stupidly, we are not allowed to make product comparisons, so for instance the Pepsi challange is not allowed. We are also not allowed to use sex unless it is related to the product.

billyboy
Nov 10, 2003, 12:04 PM
Stick a G5 rendering Photoshop onto the front of a suped up BMW and drive that through a house straight into the fastest PC on the market.

"Probably the ultimate experience with the fastest Mac in the world."

macrumors12345
Nov 10, 2003, 12:04 PM
This is kind of absurd. I fully agree that the claim that the G5 is the "fastest personal computer" is a dubious statement - it wins in some benchmarks and loses in others, so depending on what you use it for, it may or may not necessarily be the "fastest personal computer" for your needs.

However, unless ads in the UK are *totally* different than ads in the US, this Apple ad is no different than 90% of the other ads out there. Are all of Ford's automobile's "quality" cars? No, especially not the ones whose tires burst and roll over and kill you. Will buying Kodak necessarily allow you to "share your life"? Not if nobody's interested in your pictures. Is a GMC truck "more than I am used to?" Not unless they mean more than I'm used to paying! Will using Microsoft software allow me to "realize my potential"? Haha, only if they mean my potential to get really frustrated and stressed out. The list goes on and on and on...obviously none of these claims is any more or less true than Apple's "fastest PC" claim, so it is ridiculous to ban the Apple ad while still allowing the others to run.

But, I would support banning the Apple ad if they ban all those others too. That would clearly be fair, and I think it would actually be a net improvement for society, since all of these ads are so ridiculous anyway.

macrumors12345
Nov 10, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by ColdZero

I don't know about everybody else, but I take the phrase "ultimate driving experiance" differently than "worlds fastest personal computer"

Ultimate driving experiance is a subjective thing, it may be for you, it may not be for somebody else.

I take the statement of "worlds fastest" to be a fact, not an opinion.

I'm glad somebody called Apple on this.

You can only take "ultimate driving experience" as subjective by misreading the English language. The defintion of the word ultimate is: "Of the greatest possible size or significance; maximum." So if you can potentially have a driving experience that is better than the one that you might have in a BMW, then the statement is clearly false. Since it goes without saying that you can, the statement is false, period.

Again, I have no problem with them calling Apple on it as long as they call BMW and every other major corporation on their equally false advertisements.

iJed
Nov 10, 2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I have seen a lot of tests where the dual G5 does not come out on top therefore what they did in England was simply say to Apple stop telling lies, good im still waiting for apple to catch up to the Intel/Amd world.

This should effect all of the UK not just England.

zzcoop
Nov 10, 2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by macrumors12345
You can only take "ultimate driving experience" as subjective by misreading the English language. The defintion of the word ultimate is: "Of the greatest possible size or significance; maximum." So if you can potentially have a driving experience that is better than the one that you might have in a BMW, then the statement is clearly false. Since it goes without saying that you can, the statement is false, period.

Again, I have no problem with them calling Apple on it as long as they call BMW and every other major corporation on their equally false advertisements.

What he said.

And y'know what? I've been giving this a lot of thought and there's one other glaring hole in Apple's so-called "claim"... that G5 couldn't possibly have blown that guy clear through the house like that!

This ad should've NEVER been aired! Damn you, Apple!

macrumors12345
Nov 10, 2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by ~Shard~

Also, I have never seen a Pentium/Dell/whatever ad (someone correct me if they've seen otherwise) stating that "PC X" is THE world's fastest personal computer system. I could eb wrong though...

So does that mean you believed Intel a few years ago when they assured you that buying a Pentium with MMX technology would "put the fun" back into your computer? ;-)

As for Dell, I can think of two cases of egregious false advertisement just off the top of my head:

(1) They claim that Dell is better because they do not use "proprietary" technology (e.g. UNIX). The definition of proprietary is "owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent." Since almost all of Dell's computers ship with Microsoft Windows, which is clearly owned by the Microsoft Corporation, this is a blatantly false and deceptive advertisement. Maybe if 100% of their machines shipped with Linux, then they could think about running the ad.

(2) As my friend who has the misfortune of owning a Dell recently pointed out, their current ads showing their "tech support" people are highly deceptive. Those ads CLEARLY show the tech support people being located in the United States, but my friend can testify from his own personal experience that in fact every Dell tech support person he has spoken to has been located in India, and most of them don't even speak very coherent English. =)

Deestar
Nov 10, 2003, 12:18 PM
I Just checked the UK Apple store. if you compare the PowerMac G5 Store sections in the US and UK then you will notice that they have now put a aster-ix declaimer on the UK one (see top left of the page).

US Apple Store(G5) (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71701/wo/1e5Fx4zplkML2p1WDPy1g2dgP5U/0.0.7.1.0.5.21.1.2.1.2.0.0.1.0)

UK Apple Store(G5) (http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/ukstore.woa/954/wo/aCjHl1XSz9UmnovWx3/0.0.7.1.0.5.21.1.2.1.2.0.0.1.0)

xtekdiver
Nov 10, 2003, 12:19 PM
Fastest at getting anything done! I mean, after you download 40mb of patches and hotfixes, get the latest firmware, patch the patches, you still have to deal with the damn thing crashing and bluescreening. Overall, I think Apple should just restate it as the "Fastest personal computer at getting things done!" Stupid Brits! At least the French arn't whining about it; but then they probably think they have the best Army in the world. ;)

mainstreetmark
Nov 10, 2003, 12:22 PM
I think the problem here is that Apple presented the statement as a fact, rather than something that was obviously exaggerated. Here's a list of crappy commercial tactics, mostly by car companies:

- The one where a truck is hauling around an old DC-3 in an airplane boneyard, and the thing takes flight
- The one where the wife meets her husband at the north pole where his submarine breaks through the ice.
- Similarly the one where the polar icebreaker ship can't cut the ice trail, so they lower some SUV onto the ice and it toes the ship through the ice.
- The recent intel commercial implying that you can get wireless internet access at Everest's base camp.
- Oh, the other SUV commercial where it showed the car climbing up Everest.

A more realistic commercial would be showing one stopping at a gas station every day.

notmatt
Nov 10, 2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by DreaminDirector
what a stupid reason for banning the commercial....

drinking Bud doesn't make beautiful women jump into a pool and tear each others clothes off.....


The misunderstanding I'm seeing here from the Americans is that there's no difference between a quantitative claim ("the fastest") and a qualitative claim ("the prettiest"). The first one is required to be factually correct in advertising, the second one only plausible (outright lies are still frowned upon, though).

For example: saying Energiser batteries "last and last and last..." is fine, 'cause they do last. Saying they "last the longest" is also fine, but only if they actually do last the longest. If not, you can't say it.

Personally, I don't see where the problem is. You may not like that Apple's ad was pulled in particular, but the principle is sound.

Just to appease the people who think this is some anti-mac conspiracy: if I recall correctly, Dell got a similar slap on the wrist a couple of years ago for incorrectly reporting CRT monitor sizes (you're required to report the viewable screen size, not only the tube size).

AngryAngel
Nov 10, 2003, 12:36 PM
This ruling has no effect on TV advertising, as Apple had stopped running the ads and the only ones running are for iPod.

Apple shouldn't have made such a claim, because as well as breaking regulations, it has made the G5 venerable to a lot more criticism than would otherwise have been focussed on its performance.

They should have pushed the fact that it gives 64-bit memory space to 32-bit applications, and has a 1GHz bus, and pushed the fact that unlike most high-end intel machines at this price, Apple offers dual processors.

In the UK the advertiser has to prove their claims, the system doesn't rely on the regulator having to disprove them.

~Shard~
Nov 10, 2003, 12:38 PM
I agree with the bulk of the people posting here - this comes down to a qualitative vs. quantitative issue. Or, if you prefer, subjective vs. objective.

Originally posted by macrumors12345
So does that mean you believed Intel a few years ago when they assured you that buying a Pentium with MMX technology would "put the fun" back into your computer? ;-)



This is exactly what I mean - "putting the fun" back in your computer is subjective - it does not refer to a literal, cold hard fact. Otherwise I'd expect Craig Barrett to personally come to my house, open up my machine and do, well, I don't even know what....
;)

An objective statement like "World's fastest computer" is completely different. It's like the Energizer reference above - saying they "last and last" is different than saying"they last the longest".

Ah, I love having silly debates like this regarding little details - makes for an interesting day!:)

SeaFox
Nov 10, 2003, 12:40 PM
Are they going to ban any PC ads that claim Windows is a stable, secure operating system?

Brent Turbo
Nov 10, 2003, 12:40 PM
notmatt is absolutely right.

I'm glad the Apple as was pulled, and I think Apple should drop that claim entirely IN ALL COUNTRIES! There is simply no data anywhere that suggests that the G5 is the fastest, EXCEPT the data on Apple's web site.

Not only this, but I'm about ready for the FCC to crack down on diet ads that say "LOSE up to TEN POUNDS!!!" They should be required to give a range of weights that a test group experienced. Like, "Lose anywhere from 1 to 10 pounds," or, "Participants in a study both lost and gained weight." That's fair advertising, in a quantitative sense.

silvergunuk
Nov 10, 2003, 12:41 PM
in reply to

I've been to the UK, and have seen their smiles. I really think that they need to pool their efforts in a more productive way, and worry about other things


Well its not a good idea to advertise itunes music store offer with mcdonalds as we all think americans are as fat as it is. 1 song for every slim fast can sounds like a much more healthier option. Anyway it seems americans can advertise total ********* and get away with it..then again you all think george bushs claims of weapons of mass destruction were true

coolsoldier
Nov 10, 2003, 12:41 PM
It seems to me that the UK advertising rules are ridiculous and generally are not uniformly enforceable. That said, based on my understanding of the british law, Apple's claim was false simply because they didn't cite the tests that indicated that their computer was faster. Apple does have data to back up their claim -- however dubious it may be. If they said it was "The fastest personal computer in our test", It doesn't seem to be a problem.

At least that's my understanding of the law -- I'm not british and I'm not very into law, so I might be wrong.

edesignuk
Nov 10, 2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by IndyGopher
I think an interesting response from Apple, such as simply not selling G5's to anyone in the UK, would be a good test of the computer-buying public's feelings towards rulings like this.
Worst...idea...EAVR!! :rolleyes:

macrumors12345
Nov 10, 2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by ~Shard~
This is exactly what I mean - "putting the fun" back in your computer is subjective - it does not refer to a literal, cold hard fact. Otherwise I'd expect Craig Barrett to personally come to my house, open up my machine and do, well, I don't even know what....


Yes, that is why it had the ";-)" after it. ;-)

An objective statement like "World's fastest computer" is completely different. It's like the Energizer reference above - saying they "last and last" is different than saying"they last the longest".

Yup, but almost all the other statements I brought up are objective statements that can easily be tested (e.g., certainly the Dell "not proprietary" one is clearly false). So, again, I agree, they should ban all of these ads on the same grounds as the Apple ad.

rundevilrun
Nov 10, 2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by SeaFox
Are they going to ban any PC ads that claim Windows is a stable, secure operating system?

I would suggest they ban any ad that claims any Microsoft software is reliable. :D

macFanDave
Nov 10, 2003, 12:51 PM
The G5 claim to be the "fastest PC on the planet" may be controversial, but it is not completely false. The truth is that at some tasks, the Dual G5 is the fastest. The world of benchmarks is murky, to say the least, and whether figures for Macs or Wintel boxes have been manipulated by various "optimizations" is usually not known, so their reliability is suspect. However, I have seen some anti-Mac-biased testers have to concede defeat on certain tasks.

Here in America, we get to hear the claim and decide for ourselves whether it is true or not. We don't have some government bureaucracy deciding whether commercial claims have enough truth to be presented to the unsuspecting public. Of course, we rely on a lot of media outlets for hard data, but many of us understand the bias behind many of the tests and weigh the data accordingly. (And in both countries, we've been forced to look anew into what "truth" means to our governments and media outlets with respect to that mess in Iraq.)

And, besides, where's the real harm in the claim anyway? Someone who really needs the power of the world's fastest PC should know enough to examine the CPU-intensive tasks they do and look at benchmarks concerning them. If you are a computer novice and are purchasing a G5 or its Wintel rivals, well you've just got too much money and not enough brains.

It is the government's job to ensure that health and safety claims are accurate. I'm sure that the UK is as full of snake-oil salemen selling useless herbal "medicines" as we are, but our governments do nothing about those. Instead of people using effective medicines. they allow their conditions to get worse by consuming worthless junk. Here's a case where government intervention is indicated. Whether a G5 rips an AAC 10% faster than a Wintel box, but renders a MPEG-4 3% slower is hardly justification for a government ban of an advertising claim.

iGav
Nov 10, 2003, 12:57 PM
weird though... just before I was about to read this thread I immediately thought of BMW's "Ultimate Driving Machine" tagline.... 'Ultimate' driving machine my ar$e....

oh well... back to all those uselessly cheapo Debts Direct ad's that seem to fill our screens every ad-break.... :rolleyes:

sethypoo
Nov 10, 2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Bernd
I think that the Brits are little to strict in what they allow in their add claims . This is like energizer claiming the best battery position vs duracel. It depends on how you test. I thought Apples tests showed enough data to permit the claim to be made.
I think the PC weanies complained:mad:

Not necessarily!

The 2.0 GHz G5 is **not** the world's fastest computer.

It **does** have the potential for being the world's fastest, once Apple and every other software developer gets around to developing 64 bit programs, and a true 64 bit operating system.

A 2.0 GHz G5 is about 15% slower than a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4. It's just simple math: right now Apple only has the potential to be the fastest.

Bravo to whoever called Apple on this one.

mainstreetmark
Nov 10, 2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by macFanDave
Whether a G5 rips an AAC 10% faster than a Wintel box, but renders a MPEG-4 3% slower is hardly justification for a government ban of an advertising claim.

Likewise, it's hardly justification for Apple to make the claim in the first place. "World's Fastest" means something different than "World's Mostly Fastest"

And, in response to the "Americans = Fat" claim above: Did you know we can get deep fried Twinkies at our carnivals?

macrumors12345
Nov 10, 2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by ~Shard~

Also, I have never seen a Pentium/Dell/whatever ad (someone correct me if they've seen otherwise) stating that "PC X" is THE world's fastest personal computer system. I could eb wrong though...


Yeah, it turns out you are. =)

This is a direct quote from Intel's website:

"IntelŽ desktop components give you maximum power, performance and reliability."

In case you were not certain, the definition of maximum is "the greatest possible quantity or degree." Considering that both the G5 and the Athlon-64 FX are faster than the fastest Pentium 4's and Xeons in a number of benchmarks (though not all benchmarks, of course), this claim is clearly just as specious as Apple's. Although the "maximum power" one might be true...certainly Apple/IBM cannot compete with Intel when it comes to power/thermal dissipation (though AMD can, so Intel might not even have the most "powerful" desktop processor, where of course by powerful we mean using the most power...).

artistry
Nov 10, 2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by JW Pepper
British advertising rules are strict and bizzar at the same time. ... Stupidly, we are not allowed to make product comparisons, so for instance the Pepsi challange is not allowed. We are also not allowed to use sex unless it is related to the product.

Actually you can use sex - see those shampoo ads around at the moment. Advertising works by attaching a meaning from real life to an inanimate object. For a good discussion on this see "Decoding Advertisements" by Judith Williamson, or the last chapter of "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger.
Also, product comparisons are now allowed so long as the comparison is made by a third party (e.g. Which Magazine)

Floop
Nov 10, 2003, 01:01 PM
They have a series of adverts (commercials) for a beer named Carlsberg here in the UK.

It has been running for years, ever since Carlsberg stated that theirs was the best lager in the world.

They now call it 'probably the best lager in the world'.

They have done numerous spin-offs from this, such as "Carlsberg don't make banks... but if they did, they'd probably be the best banks in the world..."

Apple should redo the commercials with the word 'probably' in front of them...

:-)

Floop

ZildjianKX
Nov 10, 2003, 01:01 PM
They should really changed "The G5 is the fastest" to the "Dual G5"... that is blatent misadvertising even in the US.

sethypoo
Nov 10, 2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by macFanDave
However, I have seen some anti-Mac-biased testers have to concede defeat on certain tasks.



I'd be interested in hearing who these testers were.

I have gone through many, many benchmarks, and the G5 is only faster in a few respects, not all that many.

Don't get me wrong, Apple and IBM are leaps and bounds ahead of microsoft and intel. But as far as processor speed, they are ahead in only a few aspects, many of which the average user will not notice. Or even the professional user.

A 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 with 2 GB's of RAM is **faster** than a dual 2.0 GHz G5 with 2GB of RAM! Get it through your heads, it's just the way it is.

This, of course, will change when Apple whips out the dual 3.0 GHz G5. :D

whooleytoo
Nov 10, 2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by IndyGopher
I think an interesting response from Apple, such as simply not selling G5's to anyone in the UK, would be a good test of the computer-buying public's feelings towards rulings like this.

I think an interesting response from Apple would be a new advert: "It has come to our attention, that some people in the UK (We know where you live!) objected to our advert stating the G5 was the world's fastest personal computer. Rather than throw a hissy fit, we decided to build a better computer. Introducing.. the 3GHz G5. "The World's Fastest Personal Computer (really!)"

:D

Mike.

artistry
Nov 10, 2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by macrumors12345
This is a direct quote from Intel's website:

"IntelŽ desktop components give you maximum power, performance and reliability."

In case you were not certain, the definition of maximum is "the greatest possible quantity or degree."

That's sales talk. If they said "gives you more power than any other computer" then you would have a complaint. Maximum could mean "by that computer's standards" or "as required for most popular games" - it does not imply a comparison with other computers out there in the same way Apple's claim does.

Toreador93
Nov 10, 2003, 01:06 PM
About the BMW statement:

Until the Infinity G35 came out this year, BMW's have been top in car reviews/comparison tests for many years. Read reviews from Car & Driver, Road & Track, www.Edmunds.com, and you'll see BMW is their top choice in their specific segment; in handling, quality, and performance.
Many reviews of competing cars will include things like "BMW quality" or "can compete with BMW" - meaning that BMW is the benchmark, as probably all critics will say.

The G5, on the other hand, does not excel at everything in comparison to it's competition.

artistry
Nov 10, 2003, 01:06 PM
It's all academic anyway - the iPod ad has started playing in the UK and that's a far better way of getting mindshare.

mrsebastian
Nov 10, 2003, 01:06 PM
under those guidelines, wouldn't they have to pull every fast food commercial as well. when's the last time you went to mcdonald's, got a big mac, and it actually looked/tasted as good as in the commercial? gimmie a break!

artistry
Nov 10, 2003, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Floop
It has been running for years, ever since Carlsberg stated that theirs was the best lager in the world.

They now call it 'probably the best lager in the world'.

Carlsberg never claimed to be the best larger in the world - the "probably" line (which was dropped a while back, but people still recall it today) was a toungue in cheek dig at advertising. It started in the 70s I think, and isn't only a UK thing.

singletrack
Nov 10, 2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by coolsoldier
It seems to me that the UK advertising rules are ridiculous and generally are not uniformly enforceable. That said, based on my understanding of the british law, Apple's claim was false simply because they didn't cite the tests that indicated that their computer was faster. Apple does have data to back up their claim -- however dubious it may be. If they said it was "The fastest personal computer in our test", It doesn't seem to be a problem.

At least that's my understanding of the law -- I'm not british and I'm not very into law, so I might be wrong.


Correct. For instance, the Centrino advert showing a climber connecting to the net and downloading video from his family at Everest base camp has a disclaimer on the screen saying that connections are subject to availability. Somehow I doubt there's a wireless connection on Everest myself.

All Apple had to do was to stick a disclaimer on saying 'in Independent tests, June 2003'.

I have to say, banning it just because 8 people complained is pretty silly of the ITC and I've yet to see an independently run test prove it's not the fastest under strict testing guidelines.

~Shard~
Nov 10, 2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by artistry
That's sales talk. If they said "gives you more power than any other computer" then you would have a complaint. Maximum could mean "by that computer's standards" or "as required for most popular games" - it does not imply a comparison with other computers out there in the same way Apple's claim does.

I agree with artistry. I still see this as being more subjective.

And yes, MacRumors12345, I realized you had the ;) after your post, and was not trying to imply that I thought you were serious about that comment - I just made reference to it as an example. My apologies for any confusion.

artistry
Nov 10, 2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by mrsebastian
under those guidelines, wouldn't they have to pull every fast food commercial as well. when's the last time you went to mcdonald's, got a big mac, and it actually looked/tasted as good as in the commercial? gimmie a break!

Hence the "serving suggestion" tag you get on all illustrations of food. I bought one of those frozen ready meals the other day and I always wondered how they got them looking so good on the package when they always just flop out of the container - shepherds pie ends up with the potato on the bottom...
The best ones are where you think you're getting aplateful and then you see there is a mazzive fork in the picture and you realise in fact you're getting a massive saucer full.

greenstork
Nov 10, 2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by silvergunuk
in reply to

I've been to the UK, and have seen their smiles. I really think that they need to pool their efforts in a more productive way, and worry about other things


Well its not a good idea to advertise itunes music store offer with mcdonalds as we all think americans are as fat as it is. 1 song for every slim fast can sounds like a much more healthier option. Anyway it seems americans can advertise total ********* and get away with it..then again you all think george bushs claims of weapons of mass destruction were true

Short of getting into a political discussion, let me just say this. In trying to portray yourself as enlightened compared to Americans, you have managed to stereotype an entire country, like we all act and think the same. This is both uninformed and arrogant.

billyboy
Nov 10, 2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by artistry
Hence the "serving suggestion" tag you get on all illustrations of food. I bought one of those frozen ready meals the other day and I always wondered how they got them looking so good on the package when they always just flop out of the container - shepherds pie ends up with the potato on the bottom...
The best ones are where you think you're getting aplateful and then you see there is a mazzive fork in the picture and you realise in fact you're getting a massive saucer full.

I know a photographer who had a contract taking shots to promote various dishes served in a chain of restaurants. They actually made models of the food rather than photographing "imperfect food" straight out the kitchen.

Also when you see ads for paint and you have some housewife touching up her super smooth paint finish. To achieve that effect they take the door off its hinges and suspend it on a special rack face down before painting it. That way it is impossible for any dust to land on it.

Id love to know how many milliseconds that toilet they "NO nailed" to a tree was up before it fell off and smashed. If any ad should have been banned that was it, especially as its impossible to hang a hat and coat on a blob of glue.

artistry
Nov 10, 2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by macFanDave
Here in America, we get to hear the claim and decide for ourselves whether it is true or not. We don't have some government bureaucracy deciding whether commercial claims have enough truth to be presented to the unsuspecting public. Of course, we rely on a lot of media outlets for hard data, but many of us understand the bias behind many of the tests and weigh the data accordingly. (And in both countries, we've been forced to look anew into what "truth" means to our governments and media outlets with respect to that mess in Iraq.)

Oh dear oh dear. The ad was not banned by the government but by a body whose code is vountarily agreed to by advertisers. It is not supported by legislation.
And when you say "many of us" I'm afraid you're wrong - the vast majority of people do not possess the cultural capital you enjoy and are happy to take claims at face value.
But are you really saying that companies should not be forced to tell the truth? Then I'm glad I am not where you are.

The freedom of speech is nothing without the freedom not to have to listen.

singletrack
Nov 10, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Toreador93
About the BMW statement:

Until the Infinity G35 came out this year, BMW's have been top in car reviews/comparison tests for many years. Read reviews from Car & Driver, Road & Track, www.Edmunds.com, and you'll see BMW is their top choice in their specific segment; in handling, quality, and performance.
Many reviews of competing cars will include things like "BMW quality" or "can compete with BMW" - meaning that BMW is the benchmark, as probably all critics will say.

The G5, on the other hand, does not excel at everything in comparison to it's competition.

Might be true in the USA but in Europe, plenty of people would disagree. eg. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/prog16/survey.shtml for 43,000 opinions

artistry
Nov 10, 2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by billyboy
I know a photographer who had a contract taking shots to promote various dishes served in a chain of restaurants. They actually made models of the food rather than photographing "imperfect food" straight out the kitchen.

I know - I once was art directing a photo shoot and in the same studio they were spraying the food to make it look fresh. It had been there for hours (photography isn't as quick as people think!)

It would be funny to do a range of spoofs showing food the way it turns out in real life - not so much "serving suggestion" as "serving fact".
Mmm.. might do it...

billyboy
Nov 10, 2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by artistry
I know - I once was art directing a photo shoot and in the same studio they were spraying the food to make it look fresh. It had been there for hours (photography isn't as quick as people think!)

It would be funny to do a range of spoofs showing food the way it turns out in real life - not so much "serving suggestion" as "serving fact".
Mmm.. might do it...

what about the food after it has been eaten.:o

Do they still have those national lampoon ads slipped into mainstream ads? I remember seeing an ad with a family munching on Colon Blow, and thinking what a strange name for a cereal, maybe colon means something different in the States. (In Spain Christopher Columbus is known as Cristof Colon!)

singletrack
Nov 10, 2003, 01:32 PM
As an aside,

Junk food advertising - McDonalds, KFC etc is currently in the spotlight in the UK because of the health implications for promoting unhealthy food, especially to children.

For the first time in 100 years, the life expectancy in the UK has gone down and it's blamed on obesity and poor diet.

A chocolate bar company in the UK ran a promotion earlier this year where kids were encouraged to eat more chocolate in order to gain sports equipment for their schools. It made them very unpopular. If Apple gave away iTunes songs with a BigMac, they'd currently be aligning themselves with the devil in the UK as far as a lot of parents are concerned, not that they could as we've no iTMS in the UK anyway.

iGav
Nov 10, 2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Toreador93
About the BMW statement:

Until the Infinity G35 came out this year, BMW's have been top in car reviews/comparison tests for many years. Read reviews from Car & Driver, Road & Track, www.Edmunds.com, and you'll see BMW is their top choice in their specific segment; in handling, quality, and performance.
Many reviews of competing cars will include things like "BMW quality" or "can compete with BMW" - meaning that BMW is the benchmark, as probably all critics will say.

The G5, on the other hand, does not excel at everything in comparison to it's competition.

But BMW say "The Ultimate Driving Machine" which is a total lie... because they are not, no where near! they should say "The Ultimate Driving Machine in the Small Executive Car Class" etc etc....

A Radical is a contender for the "Ultimate Driving Machine" judging by it's fastest production lap of the Ring, or the Ferrari Enzo, or the Subaru Impreza Spec C.... all could claim to be the "Ultimate Driving Machine".... in their respective class of course... ;)

This is PC winjers.... I bet Merc owners don't dial up everytime that Beemer ad is on.... heheheh!

LethalWolfe
Nov 10, 2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Brent Turbo
notmatt is absolutely right.

I'm glad the Apple as was pulled, and I think Apple should drop that claim entirely IN ALL COUNTRIES! There is simply no data anywhere that suggests that the G5 is the fastest, EXCEPT the data on Apple's web site.

Not only this, but I'm about ready for the FCC to crack down on diet ads that say "LOSE up to TEN POUNDS!!!" They should be required to give a range of weights that a test group experienced. Like, "Lose anywhere from 1 to 10 pounds," or, "Participants in a study both lost and gained weight." That's fair advertising, in a quantitative sense.


There have been plenty of non-Apple benchmarks showing the G5 to be faster than other computers at a given task. The term "fastest" depends on the situation. I could honestly say a Ford F150 can go 0-60 faster than an F1 racecar. Of course the test would be off-road and in the mud. ;) Maybe Apple should have included in fine print "in certian situations" or something. But I thought visual of some guy being blown thru his house and into a tree already setup the humor/tongue-in-cheekiness of the ad.

And how is "lose between one and 10 pounds" different than "lose up to 10 pounds"? And all of the diet ads I can recall had the announce saying that results mary and most showed average weight loss on screen if it differed greatly from their best case senario resluts.


I guess I favor a more hands off approach. I think it's silly that people took the time, energy and money to determine that Apple's ad was too misleading. If something is an out right lie that's one thing. But advertisers and marketing departments should be allowed to do their jobs, IMO. If people take everything they see and hear at face value that's their own fault.


Lethal

allpar
Nov 10, 2003, 01:36 PM
I agree with the laws on false advertising. Without them, companies could claim ANYTHING - Expeditions getting 30 mpg, Windows being able to run Mac apps, drugs restoring hair growth - and HOW exactly would we know what was true and what was fiction? It would be like political ads are now... I know the simplistic answer is to believe nothing, but if people followed that advice, advertising dollars would dry up quickly!

Bravo to Britain for enforcing a key law and not letting Apple get away with what we all know to be a dubious claim.

singletrack
Nov 10, 2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by artistry
I know - I once was art directing a photo shoot and in the same studio they were spraying the food to make it look fresh. It had been there for hours (photography isn't as quick as people think!)

Usually with horrible stuff like WD40 to make it look shiny too.

billyboy
Nov 10, 2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by singletrack
As an aside,

For the first time in 100 years, the life expectancy in the UK has gone down and it's blamed on obesity and poor diet.

A chocolate bar company in the UK ran a promotion earlier this year where kids were encouraged to eat more chocolate in order to gain sports equipment for their schools. It made them very unpopular. If Apple gave away iTunes songs with a BigMac, they'd currently be aligning themselves with the devil in the UK as far as a lot of parents are concerned, not that they could as we've no iTMS in the UK anyway.

Do you really think if the government told you were told you were going to die young you´d worry about that one extra burger if the iTunes promo came on the scene? And anyway, music makes people happy which is good for health.;)

Genie
Nov 10, 2003, 01:40 PM
It's certainly the fastest computer available for $2600 or so.

ZildjianKX
Nov 10, 2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by billyboy
what about the food after it has been eaten.:o

Do they still have those national lampoon ads slipped into mainstream ads? I remember seeing an ad with a family munching on Colon Blow, and thinking what a strange name for a cereal, maybe colon means something different in the States. (In Spain Christopher Columbus is known as Cristof Colon!)

Colon as in reference to your anus... meaning the cereal would make your butt "blow"... as in diarrhea.

Qunchuy
Nov 10, 2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by singletrack
...If Apple gave away iTunes songs with a BigMac, they'd currently be aligning themselves with the devil in the UK as far as a lot of parents are concerned...

Sorry, but wouldn't it be McDonald's giving the tunes away?

macFanDave
Nov 10, 2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by sethypoo
I have gone through many, many benchmarks, and the G5 is only faster in a few respects, not all that many.

That's all Apple needs to state that it's claim is not false.

What almost everybody discussing this issue is neglecting is that the verdict regarding Apple's claim does is not limited simply to true or false. There is a huge gray area between absolute truth (The G5 excels in EVERY test) and absolute falsehood (Wintel boxes win in EVERY test). Frankly, as long as Apple's claim is not absolutely false, they should have the FREEDOM to pitch its claim to the British public and let them decide the veracity of it.

In my benchmarks, the Dual G5 is 100% faster than the ultimate Wintel box using iMovie, iPhoto and iDVD.

In a case where the software exists on both platforms, if found that my Dual 2.0GHz G5 at home rips AAC files easily more than twice as fast my dual 2.2GHz Pentium Dell at work using iTunes. Of course, PC bigots will whine "Guess who wrote the software?" but the loyalties and biases of other software providers make me suspicious when I hear them being bandied about as valid tests.

I particularly worry about Adobe who has had a deteriorating relationship with Apple and is becoming more cozy with Microshaft, a criminal enterprise.

illumin8
Nov 10, 2003, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by IndyGopher
I think an interesting response from Apple, such as simply not selling G5's to anyone in the UK, would be a good test of the computer-buying public's feelings towards rulings like this.
No, it would be immature at best. It would be like an unhappy 5 year old kid who, after being picked on by the other kids, decides to take his toys and go home.

I'm frankly glad that Apple got called on it. The G5 may have put them in the same league with Intel and others, but they are by no means the fastest and most powerful. Computer manufacturers leapfrog each other all the time. I fully expect IBM's chips and Intel's chips to continue to do this for the forseeable future. All you Apple apologists just make me sick sometimes. No matter what happens, Apple can do no evil, right?

Well, guess what, I'm a happy Apple customer too. I love my 15" AlBook and my 30GB iPod, but I try not to drink too much of the magic kool aid, if you know what I mean.

pdickins
Nov 10, 2003, 02:12 PM
macrumors regular


Registered: May 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL



I think the problem here is that Apple presented the statement as a fact, rather than something that was obviously exaggerated. Here's a list of crappy commercial tactics, mostly by car companies:

- The one where a truck is hauling around an old DC-3 in an airplane boneyard, and the thing takes flight
- The one where the wife meets her husband at the north pole where his submarine breaks through the ice.
- Similarly the one where the polar icebreaker ship can't cut the ice trail, so they lower some SUV onto the ice and it toes the ship through the ice.
- The recent intel commercial implying that you can get wireless internet access at Everest's base camp.
- Oh, the other SUV commercial where it showed the car climbing up Everest.

A more realistic commercial would be showing one stopping at a gas station every day

Having read the news of the ITC ban I went to the ITC website to see if there was anywhere you could register your opinion about their reports - there isn't.

I find it incredibly annoying that a few (8) windows trolls can get away with this without any comeback. As far as I'm concerned Apple have every right to make their claim - it was certainly true when the advert was first conceived and I've yet to see convincing benchmarks suggesting otherwise - all of the recent Opteron benchmarks were ludicrously biased against the G5.

Which gets me back to my point - all year the presence of Intel centrino adds, suggesting they invented wireless networking this year (a full 4 years after it appeared on Apple laptops) has wound me up. The final straw is the stupid Everest base camp advert implying you could get reception half way up Mount Everest. In response I've decided to complain to the ITC about misleading Intel centrino adverts. If anyone fancies joining in, we should only need 7 more to get them banned, just go to: http://www.itc.org.uk/how_can_we_help/complain/ad_complaint_form.asp

illumin8
Nov 10, 2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by zzcoop
So... BMW's "Ultimate Driving Machine" ads aren't shown there either? I certainly hope not!
BMW never said "The world's fastest and most powerful car." Apple should take a cue from BMW on this one. They could say something like "the World's Ultimate Personal Computer" and that would be fine, because it's a more subjective argument. Everyone has a different opinion of what "Ultimate" means. It isn't something that's easily quantifiable like "faster" or "more powerful".

AidenShaw
Nov 10, 2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by AngryAngel
They should have pushed the fact that it gives 64-bit memory space to 32-bit applications

But it does not!

The system has more memory than can be directly addressed with 32-bits, but it does not allow an individual application (process) to directly see more than 32-bits of space. (*)

It can run more than 1 32-bit application at the same time, so that in aggregate applications are using more than 32-bits of memory, but each app is limited.

And, by the way, for many years Pentium and Xeon chips have been able to use up to 64 GiB of RAM. Each application is limited to the 32-bit limit of 4 GiB (*), but several 4 GiB jobs can run simultaneously.

So, until Mac OS X "Wildcat" is introduced with 64-bit addressing, you'll need to run Windows or Linux on Itanium or Opteron if you want applications to see a larger true 64-bit address space.


(*) "directly" means without rewriting the program to remap memory segments to access over 4 GiB of VM.

Qunchuy
Nov 10, 2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by billyboy
Do they still have those national lampoon ads slipped into mainstream ads? I remember seeing an ad with a family munching on Colon Blow,...

That would be Saturday Night Live, not National Lampoon. They customarily put a "fake" commercial right after the guest host's introductory monologue, before the first "real" commercial. Along with Colon Blow, they've featured Quarry (cereal made from rocks -- chock full of minerals!) and little chocolate Donuts. Clear gravy and chocolate chip cookie dough "sports drink" were memorable too. My favorite is Leevi's Three-legged Jeans, with an amazingly professional production and a catchy theme song ("Three at last! Three at last!"), with the tag line at the end being "Hey, it's not any dumber than acid-washed."

Blackstealth
Nov 10, 2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by iGAV
But BMW say "The Ultimate Driving Machine" which is a total lie... because they are not, no where near! they should say "The Ultimate Driving Machine in the Small Executive Car Class" etc etc....


BMW get away with anything for their UK advertising. They ran ads quoting the new Z4 to be the worlds fastest soft top (i.e. speed the roof retracts) - Bzzzt, wrong! Honda S2000 is faster. They've never slapped BMW with a cease and desist for their 'The Ultimate Driving Machine" byline no matter how many complaints they receive. I think a quick check on their parking lot would confirm what most of the ITCs senior staff drive...

I'll stand by my view that the kind of person that drives a BMW is a jumped-up so-and-so who thinks they own the entirity of the road and are above the law (The number of times I've clocked BMW drivers doing 105Mph+ on the motorway is staggereing).

But that's just me, a disgruntled Saab driver that gets easily annoyed by BMW owners boasting about their superior german engineering (say again?), superior performance (40-70Mph - where it matters - I own the road), and superior stupidity (I'll let them have that one).

illumin8
Nov 10, 2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by mainstreetmark
I think the problem here is that Apple presented the statement as a fact, rather than something that was obviously exaggerated. Here's a list of crappy commercial tactics, mostly by car companies:

- The one where a truck is hauling around an old DC-3 in an airplane boneyard, and the thing takes flight
- The one where the wife meets her husband at the north pole where his submarine breaks through the ice.
- Similarly the one where the polar icebreaker ship can't cut the ice trail, so they lower some SUV onto the ice and it toes the ship through the ice.
- The recent intel commercial implying that you can get wireless internet access at Everest's base camp.
- Oh, the other SUV commercial where it showed the car climbing up Everest.

A more realistic commercial would be showing one stopping at a gas station every day.
Hahha... those are all great examples of ads that should be banned in my opinion... Except for the wireless internet one. There actually is wireless internet at the Everest base camp. They also have Starbucks and a number of stores to shop at. Remember, a lot of wealthy people go on vacation there.

ArcaneDevice
Nov 10, 2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by macrumors12345
This is kind of absurd. I fully agree that the claim that the G5 is the "fastest personal computer" is a dubious statement - it wins in some benchmarks and loses in others, so depending on what you use it for, it may or may not necessarily be the "fastest personal computer" for your needs.

However, unless ads in the UK are *totally* different than ads in the US, this Apple ad is no different than 90% of the other ads out there. Are all of Ford's automobile's "quality" cars?

Yes, in many cases ads are totally different in the UK. This ruling is no more stupid than those car ads which show a car screaming across the flight deck of an aircraft carrier and the one with the truck on the mountain road being chased by a UFO but they still have to proclaim "professional driver, closed course" at the bottom. Just in case you bought it thinking you could drive on an aircraft carrier or it came with a UFO.

As redundant as it is that line protects the manufacturer in the same way that the ITC in the UK protects the consumer.

Presenting unsubstantiated claims as fact is a breach of guidelines and so too is comparing two competing products in the same ad. Showing a competitor in a derogatory light is not allowed. So you won't see the jazzed up Pepsi delivery truck and the Coke truck ad in the UK. So similarily Ford can claim they have quality cars because it's a subjective statement, however they could not claim it was better than another specific brand. They could also not say the "fastest car in the world" if the test results were created by pushing it down a steep hill with a rocket.

Personally I thought it was a stupid thing to say to begin with, not only does it date the ad VERY quickly but it is misleading. Who cares if it has a fast FPU but still loads certain web pages slower than a Windows machine? I guarantee that someone has seen the Apple ad and thought "wow, Apple make the fastest computer in the world, it must do everything much faster than any other machine, I'll buy that." Which isn't really fair to the parents or students who aren't tech savvy and buy it for themselves or their kids.

If Microsoft placed an ad in the UK advertising XP as "the best operating system in the world" and it was removed for the same reason would you still think the decision was stupid?

Viv
Nov 10, 2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Blackcat
Can I just say as UK person, the ITC stink? Ads are not statements of fact they are marketing tools.

I may get them to ban M&M ads on the grounds I've never seen one speak!

ITC Website (http://www.itc.org.uk/)

Depends what you are smoking old mate

Hemingray
Nov 10, 2003, 02:46 PM
I think that's incredibly stupid. But on the other hand, I am kind of getting tired of Apple's cookie-cutter taglines: "World's [insert adjective] [insert product description]." It's setting the bar a bit too high, methinks, and setting them up for problems.

swajames
Nov 10, 2003, 02:48 PM
You know, this seems to boil down to rules that say "if you can't prove it, you can't say it" which doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. No-one is specifically picking on Apple here, just the use of non-provable superlatives. Other advertizers have had their ads pulled for the same reason. Bottom line is machines as good as the G5's can sell themselves without hyperbole. Notwithstanding whether or not the G5 is indeed the "fastest" I still want one. By the way, I wonder what they would make of the claim that iTunes is "the best windows app ever"? Probably is, but how do you prove it???

ArcaneDevice
Nov 10, 2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Blackstealth
BMW get away with anything for their UK advertising. They ran ads quoting the new Z4 to be the worlds fastest soft top (i.e. speed the roof retracts) - Bzzzt, wrong! Honda S2000 is faster. They've never slapped BMW with a cease and desist for their 'The Ultimate Driving Machine" byline no matter how many complaints they receive. I think a quick check on their parking lot would confirm what most of the ITCs senior staff drive...

Isn't that becasue the Z4 is fully automatic and the S2000 requires you to manually unlatch the roof? So technically it is the fastest in it's class because it's the fastest fully automatic roof. Plus it opens AND closes in under 10 seconds whereas the S2000 simply retracts in 5-6 seconds.

That said I've never met a BMW driver who wasn't a w**ker. Especially drivers of 3 series and my ex employer in his 7 series.

gwuMACaddict
Nov 10, 2003, 02:57 PM
i do like that honda s2000... snazzy little car. and the new bmw's for this year look a little silly. anyone seen the new 6? hideous.

anyway...

it's crazy to pull an ad because it stretches the truth to make a product look great. thats what an ad is SUPPOSED to do. jeeez... i want it to rain skittles, i want talking m&m's, i want nfl football players to come to my house and feed me campbell's soup, i want to fly around and listen to 'ray of light' by madonna whenever i start windows- but its not gonna happen. its advertising. the itc needs to take itself a little less seriously

Donner
Nov 10, 2003, 02:58 PM
How come everytime something negative happens to Apple, some people in this forum always turn it into a Microsoft/Dell vs. Apple problem? Even though a lot of us think so, everything that goes wrong in the world is not the fault of Microsoft, Dell, or all PC users, etc. Apple is more than capable of screwing up from time to time on their own.

guenesis
Nov 10, 2003, 03:25 PM
"And, in response to the 'Americans = Fat' claim above: Did you know we can get deep fried Twinkies at our carnivals?"

WWHSS? (What would Homer Simpson Say):

"Mmmmmmmm...Deep fried Twinkies"

:)

zim
Nov 10, 2003, 03:28 PM
Did the ITC really put the viewers first? Should there be a IWC (Independent Web Commission)? they could request that the ITC removes the saying, "putting viewers first" form their site. Some of us may like living in la la land where the truth is actually the "truth" ;) Hopefully, most of us also know that commercials are nothing more then marketing trickery.

SeaFox
Nov 10, 2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by mrsebastian
under those guidelines, wouldn't they have to pull every fast food commercial as well. when's the last time you went to mcdonald's, got a big mac, and it actually looked/tasted as good as in the commercial? gimmie a break!

Taco Bell would go out of business. They'd have to give everyone three times as much food to look like thier menu boards.

iPC
Nov 10, 2003, 03:46 PM
Between this, the 'hell has frozen over' tagline that got yanked, hte new iTMS/iPod ads that don't show the product clearly... I hope SJ is looking at other ad companies. Apple can sell the idea of being better, but they can't seem to sell the product itself. What is going on?

page3
Nov 10, 2003, 03:47 PM
Some of those in the UK might remember when Apple had to retract their advert stating that their new computer was the first 32-bit Desktop computer - which of course was the Acorn Archimedes. :cool:

Will they never learn?

MattG
Nov 10, 2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by DreaminDirector
what a stupid reason for banning the commercial....

drinking Bud doesn't make beautiful women jump into a pool and tear each others clothes off.....

It doesn't???

:mad:

Fukui
Nov 10, 2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by `Shard`
Although I think this is a bit silly and over the top, I am glad that people are calling Apple on this one. To put it simply, the G5 is NOT the world's fastest personal computer. Is it still an amazing and super-fast machine? Yes, of course it is. But the latest P4s/Xeons, along with those amazing AMD Opterons, seem to edge the G5s out.
;)
Just my $0.02...
I agree with this, but still, if one could get this banned then they should also ban those stupid "Dell Product Designer" commercials because, um, there really aren't any dell designers, a lexmark painted grey, a viewsonic painted black, logitech mice painted black, re-branded motherboards etc...those designers don't even live in the U.S their all in Taiwan...

Oh, well, commercials are all propaganda anyways, XP didn't let me fly all over the place...I'm gonna sue!! :D

Tuttle
Nov 10, 2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by sethypoo
A 2.0 GHz G5 is about 15% slower than a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4. It's just simple math: right now Apple only has the potential to be the fastest.


Bzzt. Thanks for playing sport.

The ONLY things a ~3gig Pentium 4 is faster at than a dual 2gig G5 are:

1) SPEC tests with Intel's SPEC compiler
2) Microsoft Word searchs

redAPPLE
Nov 10, 2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by notmatt


Just to appease the people who think this is some anti-mac conspiracy: if I recall correctly, Dell got a similar slap on the wrist a couple of years ago for incorrectly reporting CRT monitor sizes (you're required to report the viewable screen size, not only the tube size).

so how many viewers called that time? :D

this is just rediculous. companies advertise a lot of things. surely some exagerate. i think only stupid* people would believe (and buy) everything all at once.

it is advertising, people. advertisements should! make people imagine things. they make people buy stuff.

besides, Apple did not tell a "lie". they just didn't say the whole truth.

*meaning in this sense, not shopping around for better products etc.

rvernout
Nov 10, 2003, 04:38 PM
From the website of the European Advertising Standards Alliance

SELF-REGULATION - A STATEMENT OF COMMON PRINCIPLES AND OPERATING STANDARDS OF BEST PRACTICE

Advertising self-regulation is the response of the advertising industry to the challenge of dealing with issues affecting commercial communications through co-operation rather than detailed legislation. Through advertising self-regulation, the industry demonstrates its ability to regulate itself responsibly, by actively promoting the highest ethical standards in commercial communications and safeguarding consumers’ interests. National self-regulatory bodies (SROs), actively supported by the constituent parts of the industry, are responsible for administrating their respective self-regulatory systems and applying national codes of advertising practice –based on those of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) – in such a way that advertisements which fail to meet those standards are quickly corrected or removed.

agdickinson
Nov 10, 2003, 05:20 PM
Off Topic sort of ... apologies

Oh dear, I almost started putting in a complaint to ITC :rolleyes: something to do :rolleyes:

Then I found this:

http://www.worldpaper.com/2003/oct04/wireless1.html

Which proves there is wireless access albeit not very permanent Access (Base camp moves at 10 feet == 3 metres a day, it's on a glacier :) )

If only apple had put in a nice disclaimer ie. in Tests or something more jazie...

A. :O)

fatfish
Nov 10, 2003, 05:41 PM
Lets face it we can all pull holes in Apples claim on this one and the advertisers should have seen it coming.

In my opinion the G5 remains the fastest, because the tests that show it not being so are in the majority, unfair. Why shouldn't all the tests use software that's optimised for 64 bit computing, why shouldn't the G5 be allowed 8 Gb of RAM in these tests.

This notion that the tests should be conducted on a level playing field are nonsense. Its rather like racing two cars one with 4 valves and one with 16 and a turbo and the later not being able to use it's turbo and only 4 of it's valves. Sure to have a fair race this would be fine, but when deciding which is the faster it's plain nonsense.

However, back to the point, the ad has been pulled, not because it is untrue, but because certain tests have put the claim in doubt.

The ITC's rules require the advertisers to prove the claims they make and not the ITC to prove them false.

Apple's advertisers have made a big mistake here and somebodies head should roll. But then, if the ad was not actually made for anything other than the US market, I would point the finger at the guy who decided to run it in the UK.

My Advice (FWIW) Apple-get yourself a UK advertising agency for your UK campaigns, even putting legal issues aside, they would target your market much better.

AidenShaw
Nov 10, 2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by fatfish
Why shouldn't all the tests use software that's optimised for 64 bit computing, why shouldn't the G5 be allowed 8 Gb of RAM in these tests.

There are no 64-bit applications for the Mac OS X - it's a 32-bit operating system.

There are 64-bit applications for Windows on Itanium, however. Not your average desktop apps, but things like Oracle, SAP, SQLserver, PeopleSoft, Siebel, SAS, ANSYS, NASTRAN, IMSL, Unigraphics, ProMechanica, ....

Go ahead and put 8 GiB in the G5 - 32-bit Xeon workstations support 8 and 12 GiB today.... (Of course, anything more than 4 GiB won't help a 32-bit app!)

macrumors12345
Nov 10, 2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
BMW never said "The world's fastest and most powerful car." Apple should take a cue from BMW on this one. They could say something like "the World's Ultimate Personal Computer" and that would be fine, because it's a more subjective argument. Everyone has a different opinion of what "Ultimate" means. It isn't something that's easily quantifiable like "faster" or "more powerful".

Please, "faster" is no more or less subjective than "ultimate." With the word "ultimate", the question is ultimate in what respect? Certainly not in terms of mileage, for BMW! Likewise, with the word "faster", the question is faster at what? The G5 is faster at Photoshop, but not at Microsoft Word.

Apple should just launch a G5 into low Earth orbit. Then it will be unquestionably be the world's fastest personal computer (assuming you consider our atmosphere to be part of our world). That is an objective measure of speed. Happy now? =) (well, actually, given special relativity it's *not* an objective measure of speed, so really there is just no sense at all in which "faster" is an objective measure...)

Sabenth
Nov 10, 2003, 06:15 PM
LMFAO ....


Ban an add because of how many complaints jeez... I thought it was bad that the yband gta3 and vice city in australia for a few weeks to take out a few seconds of film jeezz wizzz..

I am sorry but the worlds going mad ..

Dual g5 is fast fast fast..
Regualr PC IS FAST FAST FAST

/me is british by the way ....


and iam embarased at this but i understand were the itc has come from we do have stronger advertising rules than anyone else to my know how..

MetaMan
Nov 10, 2003, 06:24 PM
What seems to be missing from this discussion is a single word at the heart of the issue: metaphor.

The expression "the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer" contains two living, breathing metaphors: fastest and powerful . It is the nature and charm and power of metaphors that they are deceptive, and that no enumeration of facts (time to complete certain tasks, or whatever) can prove them. (There is, after all, the fact/metaphor gap to consider.)

No, "fastest" is not a quantitative claim when applied to stationary objects. Neither is "powerful", "higher", or "stronger" when applied to computers. No, Apple did not present their metaphors as fact; no, such obvious evaluative metaphors are never "objective statements".

Not since a jury ruled against Papa John's for its slogan "better ingredients, better pizza", have so many people been duped by metaphor in advertising. Please, people, get over it! If you think that the G5 really is the fastest personal computer, you are deceived by language. If you think that it really isn't the fastest, you, too, are deceived by language. Use metaphors, by all means, but don't believe them!

And please: if you live in the U.K., call off the metaphor police!

Gyroscope
Nov 10, 2003, 06:38 PM
Although I totally agree that consumers should be protected from misleading advertising, can't get rid of the feeling that this one has strong anti Apple sentiment to it. On the other hand, it is just only advertising (economic propaganda), where every business tries to present their product(s) in best light possible. It has been like that since dawn of modern trade.

Huh eh, who can really figure out those limeys. :D

fatfish
Nov 10, 2003, 07:22 PM
There are no 64-bit applications for the Mac OS X - it's a 32-bit operating system.


True. But that's not what I said.
The G5 is built with 64-bit capability, there are no 64 bit apps but there are apps that are optimised to use some of this spare capability (not very effectively I admit, but still better than the non optimised versions).

Go ahead and put 8 GiB in the G5 - 32-bit Xeon workstations support 8 and 12 GiB today.... (Of course, anything more than 4 GiB won't help a 32-bit app!)

Now I admit to not being certain here but isn't it the processor that accesses the memory not the app and I understand a G5 64 bit processor can access up to 4 TB of memory in theory.

Anyway I think you missed the point that I understand the tests presented to the ITC used only 2Gb of memory.

Don't get me wrong I agree apple were foolish to make the claim the way they did. The jury is well and truly hung on this claim, although it is my opinion that apple were entirely justified in using the SPEC benchmarks, others may disagree, and this is why the ad has been pulled.

Rather superfluous anyway, because it's all based around software which is rather restrictive and I believe the situation becomes a whole lot clearer when the potential of the G5 is measured against the potential of other current computers, and I suspect that this reflects peoples perception of the claim rather than the performance from one piece of software to another.

Genie
Nov 10, 2003, 07:32 PM
Don't you think they should say fastest for the price? (around $2600 stripped down).

MrMacMan
Nov 10, 2003, 07:36 PM
Come on apple this is simple.

Change 'Fastest Computer' to 'Faster then the rest'

And your good to go...

:p

aha seriously, all they need to do is change 'Fastest' to 'Exceedingly Fast'

your done.

End of a very lame ban on advertisement.

What about all those Viargra ads?

Or some other false advert?

Huh?

ryaxnb
Nov 10, 2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by iPC
Between this, the 'hell has frozen over' tagline that got yanked, hte new iTMS/iPod ads that don't show the product clearly... I hope SJ is looking at other ad companies. Apple can sell the idea of being better, but they can't seem to sell the product itself. What is going on? They killed hell froze over?

phasornc
Nov 10, 2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by zzcoop
So... BMW's "Ultimate Driving Machine" ads aren't shown there either? I certainly hope not!

Well I guess Apple would be allowed to saw that it is the "Ultimate Computing Machine". "Ultimate" is a fuzzy unverifiable term, "fastest" apparently crosses the line of being to concrete and verifiable.

As an attorney with years of IP experience, here are some suggestions to Apple that are legal AND potentially more descriptive of why we love Macs:

-Best Damn Computer
-Penultimate Computing Experience
-The Only Computer That Puts You in the Pilot's Seat
-Remember SoBig . . . Mac Users Don't

voicegy
Nov 10, 2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by zzcoop
And y'know what? I've been giving this a lot of thought and there's one other glaring hole in Apple's so-called "claim"... that G5 couldn't possibly have blown that guy clear through the house like that!

Silly rabbit...of course it did. All the fans turned on.;)

rjwill246
Nov 10, 2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by MetaMan
What seems to be missing from this discussion is a single word at the heart of the issue: metaphor.



Your whole discussion may have been the ONLY thing said so far, that even remotely is true (my own comments excepted :-)
Well, bloody, done!

AidenShaw
Nov 10, 2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by fatfish
The G5 is built with 64-bit capability, there are no 64 bit apps but there are apps that are optimised to use some of this spare capability (not very effectively I admit, but still better than the non optimised versions).

This is not correct.

"Optimized for G5" means that the 32-bit compiler is optimizing the 32-bit instruction stream to take advantage of the internal architecture of the PPC970. If the compiler knows that the chip has two floating point units, for example, it can decide to do more FP operations in parallel.

None of this has anything to do with the PPC970's 64-bit addressing capability. The PPC970 is a fast chip at 32-bits - no denying that. It's just a "64-bit myth" (like the "MHz myth") to claim that it's fast because of its latent 64-bit addressing.

While it's true that a few esoteric applications that make extensive use of 64-bit integers do benefit from the PPC970's 64-bit architecture, one would be hard-pressed to form a believable ad campaign on that. If you're running Photoshop, do you care if RC5 is 10% faster because of native 64-bit integers?



Go ahead and put 8 GiB in the G5 - 32-bit Xeon workstations support 8 and 12 GiB today.... (Of course, anything more than 4 GiB won't help a 32-bit app!)

Now I admit to not being certain here but isn't it the processor that accesses the memory not the app and I understand a G5 64 bit processor can access up to 4 TB of memory in theory.[/B]

True, but the application asks the processor to use the memory. If the application only sees 4 GiB due to the 32-bit limit, it cannot ask the processor to access more.

Of course, you can have two 4 GiB processes running at the same time asking the processor to separately access their respective 4 GiB of RAM.

So, supporting more than 32-bits of RAM is good - but Intel 32-bit CPUs have supported 64 GiB (36-bits) for many years. Many servers have exploited this capability, but few desktops. (BTW, the G4 also supports 64 GiB of RAM - but no Apple system implemented this.)

As far as the theoretical limit - the realistic truth is that any particular implementation only needs to support what is practical at the time. Since 4 TiB would be 4096 DIMMs at 1 GiB each - that's hardly practical today - but with 256 GiB DIMMs it might make sense.

I run a Xeon (32-bit) system today with 32 GiB of RAM. (IBM x440, 8 CPU) It's a good match - 4 GiB per CPU. A good system (albeit quite expensive) that can handle lots of jobs.


Anyway I think you missed the point that I understand the tests presented to the ITC used only 2Gb of memory.

I didn't miss it.

If your application needs 512 MiB of memory, it will run the same on a 1 GiB system and on an 8 GiB system.

Extra unused memory does not make a system faster.

ph_555_shag
Nov 11, 2003, 12:43 AM
i agree with the general sentiment that it was fair to ban the add.

on a side note,
the dumbest banning that i've noticed was the Mazda one where the little seat-belt man on the dashboard gets thrown from one side of the seat-belt to another, one (yes ONE) person complained that it showed dangerous driving, and it was banned....if you've seen it you'll know that it wasn't a particularly dangerous commercial :D

Genie
Nov 11, 2003, 12:51 AM
banning is dumb

tazo
Nov 11, 2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by voicegy
Silly rabbit...of course it did. All the fans turned on.;)

oh my dear god ;)

shadowfax
Nov 11, 2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Genie
banning is dumb you're really making friends with genie now, eh tazo?

Genie
Nov 11, 2003, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
you're really making friends with genie now, eh tazo?

HOw can you tell?:)

shadowfax
Nov 11, 2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Genie
HOw can you tell?:) let's just say the man has a penchant for getting himself banned ;)

Genie
Nov 11, 2003, 01:27 AM
banned from MR?

tazo
Nov 11, 2003, 01:31 AM
Among other locales

edenwaith
Nov 11, 2003, 01:45 AM
Too bad Apple didn't have some partial nudity in that ad...then maybe there would be some real grounds for banning it. I think it was some Kensington ads in Macworld magazine which brought up a small roar because of it ads featuring not-overly-clothed people (one ad had a man, another had a woman).

"Yes, I might consider full frontal nudity..."

sinclairZX81
Nov 11, 2003, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Bernd
I think that the Brits are little to strict in what they allow in their add claims . This is like energizer claiming the best battery position vs duracel. It depends on how you test. I thought Apples tests showed enough data to permit the claim to be made.
I think the PC weanies complained:mad:

except you can't do that in an ad in the UK. no direct comparison of products is allowed.

Genie
Nov 11, 2003, 03:16 AM
how unamerican

Sabenth
Nov 11, 2003, 03:27 AM
whats with adds betting banned today in Australia its an ice cream add its not a tv add ists just a billboard add of a woman in an icecream i ask ya ok so she has no cloths on but you cant see anything whats with people ..


The g5 add is great by the way..


underworld now playing iTunes live.... reverse that

Genie
Nov 11, 2003, 03:34 AM
people can get so uptight!

Belly-laughs
Nov 11, 2003, 04:36 AM
It´s a crap ad! My personal oppinion, of course. Now Apple has the opportunity to come up with something better!

kid132
Nov 11, 2003, 05:06 AM
But we've seen the tests... A Dell using a dual 3.06 zeon vs a Dual 2GB G5... The Dell didn't stand a chance... The problem is PC users, talk before they actually see anything for themselves...

There was a program on a few months back and someone from PC World said 'Macs can't network' How dumb...

TMay
Nov 11, 2003, 07:35 AM
There's a lot of BS being thrown around about the 64 bit capabilities of OSX.

Yes, you can recompile a 32 bit application to use the 64 bit addressing of the G5 (this puts in on par with Xeon) up to the current 8GB physical limit.

Yes, you can recode and recompile to take advantage of 64 bit math/addressing for an application (it becomes G5 specific), but this doesn't preclude a 32 bit application running simultaneously . This is the same issue that Athlon64/Opteron have to deal with. Itanium/Itanium2, on the other hand, must emulate 32bit applications, and Athlon64/Opteron takes its lunch money (assuming you could afford an Itanium).

Yes, it is probable that applications that will benefit from 64 bit math will be faster than previous 32 bit applications, but nowhere near twice as fast. Engineering and scientific applications would see benefit from this immediately (vectorworks saw a huge jump in performance when tuned for the G5
http://www.nemetschek.net/news/G5.html). Probably games as well.

Yes, 64 bit UNIX applications can be tuned and recompiled to run under X11.

Anyway, the point of this is to put this whole advertising thing in perspective, and to note that there are still substantial performance gains to be made via compiler improvements not to mention speed bumps down the road.

AidenShaw
Nov 11, 2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by TMay
Yes, you can recompile a 32 bit application to use the 64 bit addressing of the G5 (this puts in on par with Xeon) up to the current 8GB physical limit.

I agree that it puts it on par with the Xeon - since the Xeon is 32-bit! But, you don't need to recompile to use the RAM. If that were true, you'd need all new applications for an 8 GiB G5. This is obviously not the case.

Note that it is one thing for the operating system to manage more than 4 GiB (Windows/Linux have done this for years, now OS X can), and a completely different thing for a single process (application) to acquire more than 4 GiB. Even the old Intel 286 operating systems supported more than 64 KiB of RAM with 16-bit addressing.

It's all about virtual memory -- giving applications 32-bit virtual spaces inside a larger physical space.

OS X is 32-bit, it does not give an application any 64-bit addressing capability. The application is limited to 4 GiB, even if it is running on an 8 GiB system (or on a 64 GiB system, like a Xeon).


Yes, you can recode and recompile to take advantage of 64 bit math/addressing for an application (it becomes G5 specific)

Math yes, addressing no.

If you're a programmer, do the following in a C++ program on your G5:

printf ("This is a %d-bit computer.\n", 8*sizeof(void *));

It will say "This is a 32-bit computer." - and it is not lying.

To have 64-bit addressing means that pointers have to be 64-bits.

Optimizing for the PPC970 means using 64-bit integer arithmetic, and adopting a code scheduler that takes advantage of the internal architecture of the PPC970 (such as using both floating point units at the same time - something that a G4 scheduler wouldn't try). It does not mean giving the program more than 32-bit addressing.


Yes, 64 bit UNIX applications can be tuned and recompiled to run under X11.

My 64-bit UNIX program has the line:

ptr = (int *) malloc (4*1024*1024*1024+4);

This will not run on OS X, it will run on my Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Tru-64, Windows 64-bit and Linux 64-bit systems (assuming that I have gobs of RAM, of course).

Most of your "64-bit UNIX apps" will in fact be written to handle both 32-bit and 64-bit systems. If a program avoids making assumptions about the size of a pointer, it can be portable and compile on both 32-bit and 64-bit operating systems.

rjstanford
Nov 11, 2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by AidenShaw
My 64-bit UNIX program has the line:

ptr = (int *) malloc (4*1024*1024*1024+4);Erm, in that case you should make sure that your prototype for malloc() is getting included properly, and remove the cast (since malloc() should be returning a (void *), which will convert nicely and silently into that (int *)...

Not that we're getting off-topic or anything.

-Richard

AidenShaw
Nov 11, 2003, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by rjstanford
Erm, in that case you should make sure that your prototype for malloc() is getting included properly, and remove the cast (since malloc() should be returning a (void *), which will convert nicely and silently into that (int *)...

I did say "line", not "program" - assume that the proper definitions are present or included. ;)

I always compile with warnings cranked up - sometimes those "silent conversions" are exactly the cause of the bug that you're chasing! I prefer to do a little extra typing (pun intended) to tell the compiler exactly what I want to happen.

iPC
Nov 11, 2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by ryaxnb
They killed hell froze over?
http://www.apple.com/itunes/

Yes it was pulled, by Apple, I think do to some people protesting the use of the word "hell" or some such thing... stupid Christians. I was not bothered by it myself, I just thought it was stupid of Apple to be so derogatory towards Microsoft (Office v.X anyone?)....

rjstanford
Nov 11, 2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by AidenShaw
I did say "line", not "program" - assume that the proper definitions are present or included. ;)

I always compile with warnings cranked up - sometimes those "silent conversions" are exactly the cause of the bug that you're chasing! I prefer to do a little extra typing (pun intended) to tell the compiler exactly what I want to happen. Its kinda funny - the last major program that I had to port from 32-bit to 64-bit (on AIX incidentally) had a stack of bugs in it due to the prototype for malloc() not being included (which, naturally, defaults the return type to int). Normally, the compiler would have warned on those, but some helpfull soul had, as in your example above, put in the hard casts -- which causes the compiler to be completely silent about the problem. Pain in the tail to figure out too, since the casts surpressed all warning messages. Of course, once I found it it was a simple matter of removing the casts then untangling the include mess to make sure that the prototypes were being correctly defined...

But using specific casts is one thing that, for me anyway, causes more problems than it corrects (at least, when you're not actually performing an explicit type conversion like a byte[] to an int).

-Richard

kid132
Nov 11, 2003, 09:52 AM
But this is all too deep... All users care about is how fast their applications and documents load and run and if the G5 loads and runs faster than any other Personal Computer then maybe they have a good claim. Everything else is computer talk which doesn't mean anything user...

We also know that the P4 couldn't be used in the tests because it couldn't be duelled like the zeon. There was no point.

I would like to belive that I'm impartial in these debates having both Macs and windows PC's at home but why make a claim on something that if you're wrong you could get see yourself in serious trouble...

Apple also said on their site at the time 'we are the fastest so far'. We'll see what happens with software using AMD...
Infact I'd like to see that...

TMay
Nov 11, 2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by AidenShaw
I agree that it puts it on par with the Xeon - since the Xeon is 32-bit! But, you don't need to recompile to use the RAM. If that were true, you'd need all new applications for an 8 GiB G5. This is obviously not the case.

Note that it is one thing for the operating system to manage more than 4 GiB (Windows/Linux have done this for years, now OS X can), and a completely different thing for a single process (application) to acquire more than 4 GiB. Even the old Intel 286 operating systems supported more than 64 KiB of RAM with 16-bit addressing.

It's all about virtual memory -- giving applications 32-bit virtual spaces inside a larger physical space.

OS X is 32-bit, it does not give an application any 64-bit addressing capability. The application is limited to 4 GiB, even if it is running on an 8 GiB system (or on a 64 GiB system, like a Xeon).




Math yes, addressing no.

If you're a programmer, do the following in a C++ program on your G5:

printf ("This is a %d-bit computer.\n", 8*sizeof(void *));

It will say "This is a 32-bit computer." - and it is not lying.

To have 64-bit addressing means that pointers have to be 64-bits.

Optimizing for the PPC970 means using 64-bit integer arithmetic, and adopting a code scheduler that takes advantage of the internal architecture of the PPC970 (such as using both floating point units at the same time - something that a G4 scheduler wouldn't try). It does not mean giving the program more than 32-bit addressing.




My 64-bit UNIX program has the line:

ptr = (int *) malloc (4*1024*1024*1024+4);

This will not run on OS X, it will run on my Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Tru-64, Windows 64-bit and Linux 64-bit systems (assuming that I have gobs of RAM, of course).

Most of your "64-bit UNIX apps" will in fact be written to handle both 32-bit and 64-bit systems. If a program avoids making assumptions about the size of a pointer, it can be portable and compile on both 32-bit and 64-bit operating systems.

I stand corrected on the 4 GB address space.

dbritto
Nov 11, 2003, 11:19 AM
I don't know about anybody else but if that is the way that WinTel users want to go then that's the way it is.....

I have just been to the ITC website an logged a compaint about the latest Centreno adverts, selling a laptop / processor on wireless networking features but not mentioning anyting about needing to be within range of a wireless base station.... (Base camp on Everest, give me a break....)

johnnyjibbs
Nov 11, 2003, 01:11 PM
The G5 ad was banned due to 8 complaints.

Today, Burger King's "big bite" advert, which apparently shows a woman waking up with bite marks on her back (apparently inflicted by her hungry partner), was given immunity from an advertising ban, despite the ITC receiving 83 complaints about the advert. This is not on the grounds of how true it is, but from a domestic violence point of view.

I have not seen the ad, or saying that it necessarily should be banned, but it illustrates a point: the number of complaints to the ITC is irrelevant (unless they are just being unfair to Apple).

Yes, Apple's advert may not necessarily be true now, and its claim is more objective than most (e.g. 'quality car' is quite subjective), but I would have expected a lot more complaints to have been filed before calling for a ban. Plenty of other ads make similar objective claims that are not necessarily true.

Some small print would have made this ad ok, as someone already mentioned.

johnnyjibbs
Nov 11, 2003, 01:18 PM
The original N64 ad (interestingly, a '64-bit' computer) was based around the same claim as the G5:

"Nintendo 64. The fastest, most powerful console on Earth".

Ok, so its processor was 94MHz as opposed to the PlayStation's 33MHz, and it had 4MB RAM (later expandable to 8MB) instead of 2MB.

Yet on polygon count, it could arguably handle less than the original PlayStation (out at the time, and main rival), even though it did boast full scene anti-aliasing, z-buffering, tri-linear mipmapping and a whole lot of other features that the PSX didn't. (Don't get me wrong - I love my N64, way better than PlayStation IMO :D)

Didn't see any complaints about that one, nor any small print to back up the claims.

ArcaneDevice
Nov 11, 2003, 02:58 PM
Anyway from what I can see this ad has not been banned. It can be shown again when the statement about "fastest in world..." has been changed. Otherwise that's like saying the new Meg Ryan movie was banned in the US... until they edited a bit out for US audiences.

Maybe the Macrumors news snippet should be banned for being misleading! ;)

I'd rather see the banned Jennifer Love Hewitt or Kylie Minogue ads on US TV, somehow I don't think that's going to happen though even though they've been shown elsewhere in the world.

ArcaneDevice
Nov 11, 2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by guenesis
"And, in response to the 'Americans = Fat' claim above: Did you know we can get deep fried Twinkies at our carnivals?"

WWHSS? (What would Homer Simpson Say):

"Mmmmmmmm...Deep fried Twinkies"

:)

wasn't the whole "deep fried candy bar" thing invented by a guy in a Yorkshire UK chip shop? Mars bars started that off.

Genie
Nov 11, 2003, 03:18 PM
I think of personal computer as under $3k- and I don't think there's another under $3k computer that can touch the Dual 2 G5 - you think?

raterentius
Nov 11, 2003, 05:11 PM
In early 2001, I wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK to complain about an advertisement in a British newspaper. In this advertisement, PC World claimed that the Advent 6410 was the "World's Fastest Laptop". My argument was that this claim would be hard to substantiate and that the PowerBook G4 was almost certainly faster. Following the usual paragraph thanking me for my complaint, the text of the response ran as follows:

"We have raised your objection to the claim "World's Fastest Laptop" with PC World and they have assured us that they took every step to ensure the claim was accurate by consulting with their competitors before publishing the claim. We [not clear who "we" are] have also discovered that the Powerbook G4 by Apple Macintosh has a "speed" of 500 MHz, half the 1 GHz advertised for the Advent machine [my emphasis].

Because of this we have decided that there is no need for further action by the ASA on this matter and have no objection to the claim in this instance."

For information, the ASA reference was:
A01-01224/MRP and the letter was dated 23 February 2001.

The ASA clearly felt that it was acceptable for PC World to make a claim without any independent evidence being provided to support it. In addition, the staff in the office at ASA decided that their expertise was sufficient to determine that the Powerbook G4 could not match the Advent because of the speed of its processor. I would suggest to Apple that they make the same claim as in their TV ads but in the newspapers. There should be no problem with the ASA....

MetaMan
Nov 11, 2003, 05:55 PM
I would suggest to Apple that they make the same claim as in their TV ads but in the newspapers. There should be no problem with the ASA....

Nah. Just stick an FM tuner in those G5s (maximum "speed", 108 MHz) and claim that its three times faster than the competition.

This is hilarious. The ASA is a lost puppy in the wilderness of metaphor.

AidenShaw
Nov 12, 2003, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by rjstanford
Its kinda funny - the last major program that I had to port from 32-bit to 64-bit (on AIX incidentally) had a stack of bugs in it due to the prototype for malloc() not being included (which, naturally, defaults the return type to int).

I understand that, but when I try:


#include "stdio.h"

void main ()
{
int *ptr;

ptr = (int *) malloc (1024*1024*1024+4);

printf ("Value of ptr is %x\n", ptr);
}

I get:

Compiling...
foo.c
V:\vc++\temp\foo.c(7) : warning C4013: 'malloc' undefined; assuming extern returning int
Linking...

foo.exe - 0 error(s), 1 warning(s)


In other words, the missing prototype itself generates a warning that would have alerted me to the mistake.

BTW, to go even further off-topic, doesn't AIX have a variant of "lint" that checks for 64-bit "unclean" code? I've used such tools on other ports to find errors like:

ptr = (int) malloc (sizeof (mystruct));


Cheers!

rjstanford
Nov 12, 2003, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by AidenShaw
I understand that, but when I try:

#include "stdio.h"
...Aha! Yes, that would give you the error. That's because malloc()s prototype is defined in stdlib.h, not stdio.h. Fix the include, and everything will work perfectly. No errors, no warnings, and you're protected. Check the definition of malloc(), and you should see the correct prototype listed.

And yes, lint is available on just about everything ... but the code that I was porting was extremely crufty and since our customers had source and had made customizations, there was a strong effort to minimize the lines of code changed on the base product, so no real clean-ups could take place. Lint would overachieve to the point of uselessness in most cases (often crashing out of dispair).

-Richard

whooleytoo
Nov 12, 2003, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by AidenShaw

If you're a programmer, do the following in a C++ program on your G5:

printf ("This is a %d-bit computer.\n", 8*sizeof(void *));

It will say "This is a 32-bit computer." - and it is not lying.


Actually, it is!

Your code should read:
printf ("This is a %d-bit OS.\n",8*sizeof(void*));

Mike.
(a.k.a. Mr. Pedant)

rjstanford
Nov 12, 2003, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by whooleytoo
Actually, it is!

Your code should read:
printf ("This is a %d-bit OS.\n",8*sizeof(void*));

Mike.
(a.k.a. Mr. Pedant) Well, if we're going to be pedantic about it, it should read:

printf ("This is a %d-bit object.\n",8*sizeof(void*));

since you can still build and run 32-bit code, even on a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit CPU.

-Richard

AidenShaw
Nov 13, 2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by rjstanford
Aha! Yes, that would give you the error. That's because malloc()s prototype is defined in stdlib.h, not stdio.h.

Now I'm confused.

Of course I know where the malloc prototype is defined....

You said that my (int *) cast would cause a problem *if* the malloc prototype were not defined.

Therefore, I compiled a program with exactly that scenario, and showed you that I still see an error - the cast does not hide the missing definition of malloc.

Did I misunderstand your comment about the dangers of explicit, correct casts?

:rolleyes: Thanks to the Pedants !! :cool:

sinclairZX81
Nov 27, 2003, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Genie
how unamerican

yes I must apologise for coming from a country that actually gives a crap about its citizens.

Floop
Nov 28, 2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by sinclairZX81
yes I must apologise for coming from a country that actually gives a crap about its citizens.

WTF? I'm confused ;-)

Sabenth
Nov 29, 2003, 05:30 PM
sinclair is from the uk like me and we are looked after. thats why we dont have false advertising .....