Campaign to get the other misleading iPhone ad "Everyone" banned in the UK

[sibruk]

Following the excellent result yesterday with the iPhone "Every part of the internet" advert being banned in the UK by the Advertising Standards Authority, it prompted me to finally sit down and make the complaint I have been bitching about and intending to make for the last four weeks.

If any of you have seen the iPhone "Everyone" advert (http://www.apple.com/uk/iphone/gallery/ads/everyone/), you cannot fail to recognise that the user experience depicted on the iPhone is absolutely nothing like reality. I wish my iPhone was even half as fast at rendering web pages, receiving email attachments and getting a GPS lock when I'm out and about. I even get excellent 3G speeds (~1.8-2.0 Mbps on O2 where I live at most times) and yet I don't even recognise the way they are portraying the iPhone on 3G in that advert.

So I have made my complaint (the online form is available here (http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/) if you want to do the same) and feel free to pillage my own complaint (below) as much or as little as you like.

The iPhone "Everyone" advert depicts the new iPhone 3G device, running version 2 of the iPhone OS. The voiceover repeatedly states that "people will like" to do lots of different things "really fast".

The advert shows a graphics-heavy website loading in under 1 second on the 3G cellular network. In reality, this page could never load that fast on a WiFi connection, let alone the theoretical maximum data speed of a 3G connection on O2. Next, an email attachment is shown downloading - 338 KB in under 2 seconds. And finally the iPhone's GPS capabilities are shown to locate the iPhone and pull back a map over the 3G network in under 1 second.

The advert is extremely misleading in showing what the iPhone is capable of doing, especially when laid against a repeating voice over of "really fast" and when shown to be on the cellular network.

Not only are the 3G speeds shown entirely impossible to achieve, but the iPhone hardware and operating system itself could not ever perform at these speeds. It takes much longer than a second for the GPS equipment in the iPhone to initialise and lock a position on a map. It takes much longer than two seconds for the iPhone to negotiate with a mail server and download a file - even one as small as 338KB.

The three examples shown in the advert of the iPhone being "really fast" could not ever be possible in the real world with the iPhone hardware and software as it is currently being supplied, which is why these adverts are entirely misleading and fraudulently portraying the iPhone in an unrealistic and overly positive light to consumers.

When the advert was shown:
1st August 2008 at 10:33pm, and at many other times

The advert can be seen at the following URL:
http://www.apple.com/uk/iphone/gallery/ads/everyone/

[arkitect]

Oh boy!
Here comes the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons…

:D:D

[MacCobbler]

Boring. Genuinely, very boring. Surfing via my iPhone and GPS is superb, I've had no problems.

I hate to rain on your parade, but literally nothing will happen as a result of this post and it is most likely the advert will expire before people run out of enough things to do to take note of it.

I might write to MacDonalds; there was an advert on last night which depicted a perfectly 'built' Big Mac. The one I had yesterday looked like it had been put together by a four year old. Darn these crafty advertisers!

[philgilder]

as all the adverts say, 'network performance will vary by location'
3g has a maximum speed of ~7.2mbps on o2 in the uk, so the rendering speeds are theoretically possible (even though no one will ever get that)
and my gps locks on and loads about that quickly, even on EDGE and sometimes GPRS

[alFR]

If you're looking for a cause to champion, why not join an organisation that fights human rights abuses like Amnesty? Alternatively, I hear getting out more is good.

[bojado71]

I bet you are the kind of guy who wears a beanie with a propeller on top.

[sibruk]

I bet you are the kind of guy who wears a beanie with a propeller on top.
What, like Inspector Gadget? I used to dream about being him as a kid!

If you don't agree with making a complaint when something is wrong, I guess you're going to go through life putting up with a lot of crap! Maybe we should play a game of Spot the Shareholder?! Either way, thanks for bumping the thread for me, people. ;)

[kdarling]

There was a video that someone made, demonstrating the speed difference...

Comparing real life to the ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaN1Nz1Dyls)

[sibruk]

There was a video that someone made, demonstrating the speed difference...

Comparing real life to the ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaN1Nz1Dyls)

Great link, kdarling - now THAT is precisely what I'm talking about!

philgilder, I would love to see a YouTube movie of the iPhone interface speeds you purportedly get. And, just for the record, O2's 3G theoretical maximum speed in the UK at the moment is 3.6Mbps (although never seen of course) not 7.2Mbps as Vodafone are currently marketing (despite it only being available in five London postcodes and at a handful of airports).

[Small White Car]

If you don't agree with making a complaint when something is wrong, I guess you're going to go through life putting up with a lot of crap! Maybe we should play a game of Spot the Shareholder?! Either way, thanks for bumping the thread for me, people. ;)

It seems to me that countless hours of work are put into banning ads in the UK every year.

How about we start a campaign to educate you all to not believe what you see on TV?

It would probably be easier to accomplish. And the great part is we'd only have to do it ONCE! Think of the time savings in years to come as you won't have to do this again and again and again.

Plus, you can all feel smarter for having learned something new, and isn't that always a good feeling?

[sibruk]

It's called "Consumer Protection", SWC... No company should be able to make false claims about their products. Including Apple! No, I'd rather keep our industry watchdog, if you don't mind.

[Small White Car]

It's called "Consumer Protection", SWC... No company should be able to make false claims about their products. Including Apple! No, I'd rather keep our industry watchdog, if you don't mind.

Ok, I just like to save time whenever possible, is all. I enjoy finding more efficient ways to do things.

But I guess that's just me.

[jonnyb]

I don't agree with the OP on this particular point but I'm intrigued by how many Americans seem OK with the idea that being lied to is routine and OK and it's the responsibility of the viewer/reader/listener to tell which are the lies and which is the truth (I'm talking specifically about products here not news/politics)

Given that a huge proportion of US TV advertising is for drugs, I therefore assume you'd all be OK with the manufacturers being allowed to make outlandish claims for their products? Who needs a body like the Food and Drug Administration when everyone can be left to their own interpretations of drug manufacturers' claims, right?

[StoneColdSober]

No offense, but I can think of at least a hundred things I would rather have my government working on fixing rather than worrying about whether or not a commercial is truly representative of what it is advertising. And since my government is spending my tax dollars....

I can see the need for consumer protection but it's not like the iPhone is advertising false capabilities. Be real and as a previous poster said, don't believe everything you see on TV. I hope I don't ruin your day by informing you that Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and the Incredible Hulk are fictional and that just because they may be used in a commercial does not mean they are real and does not mean they are really endorsing the product.

I personally think that Apple should start advertising that the iPhone 3G can increase gas mileage (theoretically possible if someone were to use gps maps and live traffic updates to avoid traffic jams) and that it can increase someone's income (again, theoretically possible as some of the features could increase a business person's productivity) and the list goes on.

I should go work for Apple's marketing department. Oh, wait, these ads might get pulled or never run in the UK if some people had their way.

Or maybe I am completely off base and some people in the UK need this kind of "consumer protection." Clearly incidents such as this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/7257555.stm) and this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491073/Lorry-driver-sleep-cab-nights-sat-nav-blunder-left-wedged-country-lane.html) and many other similar events in the UK demonstrate that there are a number of people who need to be protected from advertisements about the capabilities of products.

For those in the UK who don't need this kind of protection, please don't feel offended, I really am not trying to generalize.

Given that a huge proportion of US TV advertising is for drugs, I therefore assume you'd all be OK with the manufacturers being allowed to make outlandish claims for their products? Who needs a body like the Food and Drug Administration when everyone can be left to their own interpretations of drug manufacturers' claims, right?

This is comparing apples (pun intended) and oranges. Drugs, food, medical services, these are different. If I buy an iPhone it isn't like I may die or have a truly nasty adverse reaction because my phone doesn't act just the way they say it does on TV.

[jonnyb]

Or maybe I am completely off base and some people in the UK need this kind of "consumer protection." Clearly incidents such as this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/7257555.stm) and this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491073/Lorry-driver-sleep-cab-nights-sat-nav-blunder-left-wedged-country-lane.html) and many other similar events in the UK demonstrate that there are a number of people who need to be protected from advertisements about the capabilities of products.

For those in the UK who don't need this kind of protection, please don't feel offended, I really am not trying to generalize.

The second of your two examples is a guy from the Czech Republic. ;) but I take your point.

However, there are clear responsibilities that corporations have to their consumers to be truthful and honest in their dealings with their customers. Corporations are in business to make money and they ought not to be allowed to do so by misleading their customers.

Most companies self-regulate but some do not and that's where a separate body has to regulate - see reference above to drug regulatory bodies such as the US's FDA. There has to be an independent voice that stops corporations from taking advantage of their customers' trust, surely?

[Small White Car]

Given that a huge proportion of US TV advertising is for drugs, I therefore assume you'd all be OK with the manufacturers being allowed to make outlandish claims for their products? Who needs a body like the Food and Drug Administration when everyone can be left to their own interpretations of drug manufacturers' claims, right?

Ah, but see, we care about important things in ads, rather than every little stupid thing.

So, drug ads, regulated.
Children's ads, regulated (because they're too young to understand).


Things that are not important?
Having a particular beer does not make hot babes like you.
Fast food is not actually good.
Your SUV will never be driven in the woods.
An iPhone doesn't work that fast.
You're not really buying car insurance from a lizard.

These things are NOT important. If there's someone out there that wants to believe these things, I say we let them. The government should protect us where it matters, yes, but if I want to believe that Taco Bell food looks good, why should they get in the way of that?

Are ads like this one banned in the UK too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3g_37Kb3cY

Because that's very unrealistic. HP computers don't work like that. I find them very cool, but I guess if you're going to take everything literally they could be a problem. I dunno, I just don't think it really matters.

[paj]

No offense, but I can think of at least a hundred things I would rather have my government working on fixing rather than worrying about whether or not a commercial is truly representative of what it is advertising. And since my government is spending my tax dollars....Do people ever research before posting. :rolleyes:

The ASA is not part of the government, nor is it funded by tax payers money. It's funded by the advertisers!
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/about/short_guide/

[StoneColdSober]

The second of your two examples is a guy from the Czech Republic. ;) but I take your point.

However, there are clear responsibilities that corporations have to their consumers to be truthful and honest in their dealings with their customers. Corporations are in business to make money and they ought not to be allowed to do so by misleading their customers.

Most companies self-regulate but some do not and that's where a separate body has to regulate - see reference above to drug regulatory bodies such as the US's FDA. There has to be an independent voice that stops corporations from taking advantage of their customers' trust, surely?

He may have been from the Czech Republic but it happened in the UK.

My point is that there is a difference between false advertising and what Apple is doing here. Unfortunately in marketing there is a very large gray area but I don't think any of Apple's ads have strayed very far into said gray area. Sure, they cut some time off of how quickly an app may load or how quickly you can browse the internet, I don't see anything wrong with that. I am fine with exaggeration. It is what marketing is about.

[philgilder]

philgilder, I would love to see a YouTube movie of the iPhone interface speeds you purportedly get. And, just for the record, O2's 3G theoretical maximum speed in the UK at the moment is 3.6Mbps (although never seen of course) not 7.2Mbps as Vodafone are currently marketing (despite it only being available in five London postcodes and at a handful of airports).
i never said i get them, just that they are the theoretical maximum speeds of 3g (and i couldn't remember what o2s speed limit was) with perfect network conditions, so therefore the renderings could be possible if you were able to get perfect network conditions, although this is (virtually) impossible
why not complain about vodafones advertising as well then?

[jonnyb]

I was just about to post the same thing - the ASA is funded by the advertisers themselves with a fractional proportion of their spend. So, now you know it's not the Government wasting our taxpayers' pounds do you see it in a different light?

[Trajectory]

What a complete waste of time.

[Small White Car]

My point is that there is a difference between false advertising and what Apple is doing here. Unfortunately in marketing there is a very large gray area but I don't think any of Apple's ads have strayed very far into said gray area. Sure, they cut some time off of how quickly an app may load or how quickly you can browse the internet, I don't see anything wrong with that. I am fine with exaggeration. It is what marketing is about.

This is important.

No one here is saying they should be allowed to advertise things the phone can't do. If they say "gets 4 days of battery life" then yes, I'd want that ad banned. That's an actual lie.

But showing things happening a little bit faster than reality? That's not a lie, that's one of these gray-zones. I find it acceptable, though.

If I could only watch things in real-time on TV it would get very dull indeed.

[arkitect]

No offense, but I can think of at least a hundred things I would rather have my government working on fixing rather than worrying about whether or not a commercial is truly representative of what it is advertising. And since my government is spending my tax dollars....
Our government has bugger-all to do with this…
Do people ever research before posting. :rolleyes:

The ASA is not part of the government, nor is it funded by tax payers money. It's funded by the advertisers!
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/about/short_guide/

Thanks for posting that…
I was just about to do it myself.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the independent self-regulatory organisation (SRO) of the advertising industry in the United Kingdom. The ASA is a non-statutory organisation and so cannot interpret or enforce legislation. However, its code of advertising practice broadly reflects legislation in many instances. The ASA is not funded by the British Government, but by a levy on the advertising industry.

[eplchamps0304]

it's a false claim and the ad should have been Yankee. You don't get all parts of the Internet on the iPhone (apple could have made this happen), even though you get the best mobile browsing experience hands down. Bottom line is it's not the complete Internet. They shouldn't be allowed to lie, as no other company should. Period.

[jonnyb]

He may have been from the Czech Republic but it happened in the UK.
.

That's why I said 'I take your point'.

I also said I didn't agree with the OP's point about this particular case but I do think that a regulatory body that protects consumers, of whatever commodity, from lies can only be a good thing - and especially if it's funded by the advertisers themselves!

[StoneColdSober]

Do people ever research before posting. :rolleyes:

The ASA is not part of the government, nor is it funded by tax payers money. It's funded by the advertisers!
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/about/short_guide/

Okay, fine it isn't run by the government. I can still think of a lot better ways to spend the £7,355,000 that the ASA received in levies last year.

I am not saying there isn't a place for such an organization, just that there time might be better spent than on complaints such as what you have expressed.

[Small White Car]

it's a false claim and the ad should have been Yankee. You don't get all parts of the Internet on the iPhone (apple could have made this happen), even though you get the best mobile browsing experience hands down. Bottom line is it's not the complete Internet. They shouldn't be allowed to lie, as no other company should. Period.

Wrong ad.

This thread is about the one where they show stuff like websites and google maps faster than they can load in real-time.

The "whole internet" thing is different. The question here is: Should ads only be allowed to show things in real time?

[jonnyb]

This is important.

No one here is saying they should be allowed to advertise things the phone can't do. If they say "gets 4 days of battery life" then yes, I'd want that ad banned. That's an actual lie.


But who's going to ban it for you if you don't have someone you can complain to? In your country apart from drugs and kids' products there is no such body.

Are you therefore saying that you think maybe a advertising standards body, funded by advertisers, that stops lies is a good thing? ;)

[Macjames]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5C1 Safari/525.20)

I admit I'd rather see it load unnaturaly fast than have to sit watching it load real time. Adverts bug me enough as it is! It's better than watching price comparison website or compensation adverts

[Pandora01]

The question here is: Should ads only be allowed to show things in real time?

If one of the selling points is that the product in the ad performs such-and-such function in such-and-such time (and the amount of time it takes is purported to be demonstrated right there in the ad), then... yes.

That said, I think the disclaimer in the ad stating that performance will vary might provide enough of a loophole for Apple to slip through in this case. It's the same type of "results will vary" disclaimer that allows so-called miracle weight-loss products to be advertised on TV.

[TMagic]

I agree with the OP. A big part of the marketing of the iPhone 3G is the greater speed, and yet the speed that they show in the adverts touting this greater speed is simply not achievable. It is false advertising.

[jacksam101]

What a complete waste of time.

I totally agree

There are many, many more things worth complaining about.

[Small White Car]

Are you therefore saying that you think maybe a advertising standards body, funded by advertisers, that stops lies is a good thing? ;)

I already pointed out 2 general areas (and 1 other specific example) where I think regulation is entirely appropriate and welcomed.

So what's with the winkey face? Of couse I think it's a good thing.

[StoneColdSober]

But who's going to ban it for you if you don't have someone you can complain to? In your country apart from drugs and kids' products there is no such body.

Are you therefore saying that you think maybe a advertising standards body, funded by advertisers, that stops lies is a good thing? ;)

You want my honest opinion (because you aren't going to like it)? If you do then read on.

I think that I am tired of having the government and watchdog organizations babysit everything everyone does and I am tired of a legal system that awards huge sums of money to idiots because they are too stupid to realize that the coffee they ordered would be served hot and then when they spill it on themselves and get scalded they decide that it's someone else's fault.

Over regulation has resulted in huge increases to the cost of doing business and as a result huge increases in costs to the consumers. It is out of control and I'm sorry, but it is complaints such as these that really are pointless (and I am specifically referring to the OP's complaint) and only further worsens the problem.

I think that consumers have an obligation to educate themselves about the products they are buying and they should make informed decisions. If they are too lazy to do that and believe everything they see, hear and read in what are clearly advertisements, too bad, so sad. People should learn to protect themselves and stop relying on others to protect them. If that would happen then the world would be better off.

\rant

Sorry you asked?

[Small White Car]

I am tired of a legal system that awards huge sums of money to idiots because they are too stupid to realize that the coffee they ordered would be served hot and then when they spill it on themselves and get scalded they decide that it's someone else's fault.


Way off topic, but I'M tired of people bringing this up as an example of a bad lawsuit.

The fact is, this woman spent over a week in the hospital getting skin grafts. McDonalds was, at that time, serving coffee at 180-190 degrees when most other places were serving coffee at a maximum of 140 degrees.

McDonalds knew it was too hot to drink, but argued that they did it so drive-through customers would have hot coffee when they got home. But McDonald's own research showed that most people drank the coffee in the car.

So, in short, McDonalds was serving coffee they knew was too hot to drink, to people they knew were going to drink it right away.

They deserved that lawsuit. The week-long skin grafts are almost beside the point.

[jonnyb]

You want my honest opinion (because you aren't going to like it)? If you do then read on.

I think that I am tired of having the government and watchdog organizations babysit everything everyone does and I am tired of a legal system that awards huge sums of money to idiots because they are too stupid to realize that the coffee they ordered would be served hot and then when they spill it on themselves and get scalded they decide that it's someone else's fault.

Over regulation has resulted in huge increases to the cost of doing business and as a result huge increases in costs to the consumers. It is out of control and I'm sorry, but it is complaints such as these that really are pointless (and I am specifically referring to the OP's complaint) and only further worsens the problem.

I think that consumers have an obligation to educate themselves about the products they are buying and they should make informed decisions. If they are too lazy to do that and believe everything they see, hear and read in what are clearly advertisements, too bad, so sad. People should learn to protect themselves and stop relying on others to protect them. If that would happen then the world would be better off.

\rant

Sorry you asked?

Well that last question was for Small White Car since he seemed to advocate the banning of lies in advertising without being sure about who would do the banning.

But to answer your point: To a degree I agree with you. I also hate the litigious spiral that US seems to have entangled itself in. Of course people should realise coffee is hot but it seems it's so easy to sue frivolously (and be handsomely rewarded for it) in the US that it has become a hobby for some. edit: this point still stands even if the MacDonalds example is a poor one

But some people don't have the same resources for research as others. My Dad who's 65, who lives alone, watches TV and reads newspapers - he doesn't really use the internet.

So if he saw an ad on TV he should reasonably expect that the ad is being truthful because, apart from maybe talking to some friends, that's his only way of knowing whether the product is any good. Why isn't it reasonable for him to expect that the truth is being told to him by someone who wants him to spend his money with them? If it's not reasonable then there's a need for an independent body to police this.

The ASA is there to protect those people who choose to trust people to tell the truth. It's a backwards world that dictates that people should be cynical enough to expect to be lied to all the time.

[maxrobertson]

You're really dumb aren't you?

It may be slightly misleading, but there are many explanations, such as: They used the 3G in an area with better coverage or speeds than you have, they used websites that were faster, they didn't have enough time in a 30-second ad to show the nitty gritty, OR, maybe just maybe, it's an advertisement and they all fudge a little. Is it ethical? No, but you're not going to change anything by attacking Apple of all companies. Why doesn't anyone ever sue HP for their ads? They make using their PCs look a lot easier than they are.

[jonnyb]

I already pointed out 2 general areas (and 1 other specific example) where I think regulation is entirely appropriate and welcomed.

So what's with the winkey face? Of couse I think it's a good thing.

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that regulation outside those first two areas you mention would be a waste of time. Still, the US lacks a body that would ban an outright lie in an iPhone ad doesn't it, which you say would be a desirable thing. So maybe the US could do with such a body.

The winky was just to denote a good humoured exchange in a thread which seems to be getting rather dour and serious.

[senorFunkyPants]

The ASA does a great job in policing adverts...there is an expectation that adverts in the UK will be completely truthful, and if you don't stop the little lies, then bigger ones are sure to follow. Apple showing the iphone operating at speeds that are unobtainable by the vast majority of users is disingenuous at the very least.

[Small White Car]

The winky was just to denote a good humoured exchange in a thread which seems to be getting rather dour and serious.

Friendliness!?

Bah!







:p

[StoneColdSober]

SWC, you are obviously not a coffee aficionado and I know the details and still disagree with the decision and your analysis. But we shall have to agree to disagree.

My point in bringing this up is that society has become inundated with warning labels, disclaimers and such. Do we really need to be told that the new car commercial showing someone drifting at high speed and weaving around boulders or something in the road is "a professional driver on a closed course?"

[sibruk]

If I gave a rat's ass about HP, then I would complain about that too. :D

The point is: I do actually care about Apple's products (in terms of QA) and the company's continued profile. Which is why I'm complaining. People are probably watching those adverts thinking "wow, I want that iPhone because it's fast". That's the message they are sending out. Apple are clearly having problems identifying when they've crossed the lie line.

If I go into my favourite coffee shop and they make me a bad coffee, I will tell them that it isn't good enough and to re-make it for me - because I love my coffee shop and I don't want to have to find another one! Plus I'm pretty sure I won't find a better coffee shop, so I want mine to continue to be perfect!

[Small White Car]

My point in bringing this up is that society has become inundated with warning labels, disclaimers and such. Do we really need to be told that the new car commercial showing someone drifting at high speed and weaving around boulders or something in the road is "a professional driver on a closed course?"

No argument with any of this.

This is actually the problem, though. I agree that we don't need this level of oversight, but I do agree we need some. So it becomes a big task to determine where to draw the line.

I disagree with the extent that the UK clamps down on the stuff, but in a way I can see the appeal of just saying "Screw the line, we'll just draw it WAY over here!"

I wouldn't do that, but I can see the appeal. It's certainly simpler.

SWC, you are obviously not a coffee aficionado

Guilty as charged.

[StoneColdSober]

Which is why I'm complaining. People are probably watching those adverts thinking "wow, I want that iPhone because it's fast". That's the message they are sending out.!

Sorry, but I think that message is an accurate message. The iPhone 3G is fast. It is faster than any other 3G or EDGE device I have owned (and I have owned plenty). Sure the iPhone has some problems and some users are experiencing issues with their 3G service but just because there appears be some exaggeration as to how fast the iPhone 3G is doesn't make it false advertising.

[sibruk]

You're really dumb aren't you?
No, but thanks for your considered response.

It may be slightly misleading, but there are many explanations, such as: They used the 3G in an area with better coverage or speeds than you have, they used websites that were faster...
I already stated in my original post that I have perfect 3G coverage and excellent speeds, and yet the real world experience of using an iPhone is nothing like what they show in the ad.
I admit I'd rather see it load unnaturaly fast than have to sit watching it load real time...
I get what you're saying, a two minute ad to show you the same thing wouldn't have quite the same punch, would it? However, the presentation they show is supposedly shown "as is" - ie. you can flick between these tasks THIS quickly! It's false advertising. They could have done cut-aways, showing multiple hands turning as they show each feature, something to show that more time was elapsing, but no, they actually portray this as the way an iPhone can be used.

[wreckshop]

I personally think that Apple should start advertising that the iPhone 3G can increase gas mileage (theoretically possible if someone were to use gps maps and live traffic updates to avoid traffic jams) and that it can increase someone's income (again, theoretically possible as some of the features could increase a business person's productivity) and the list goes on.

I should go work for Apple's marketing department. Oh, wait, these ads might get pulled or never run in the UK if some people had their way.


Nothing personal, but with the ideas you have for ads, you wouldn't even have to worry about having them pulled. You wouldn't even get hired by the marketing dept. Relying on Apple's gps maps is a surefire way to increase your gas mileage.

[StoneColdSober]

Nothing personal, but with the ideas you have for ads, you wouldn't even have to worry about having them pulled. You wouldn't even get hired by the marketing dept. Relying on Apple's gps maps is a surefire way to increase your gas mileage.

It's called hyperbole and humor and I said "theoretically possible." My point was that there are a lot of claims that can be made about the iPhone, any of which may have theoretical merit. These claims are far more outlandish than what Apple is showing as far as the speed of the iPhone.

[lakaiordie]

this is stupid.


and just because you think you have 'perfect coverage' or reception, doesnt mean you're cell provider isnt capping the speed on their 3g network.

[MacCobbler]

It seems to me that countless hours of work are put into banning ads in the UK every year.

How about we start a campaign to educate you all to not believe what you see on TV?

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, over here in Blighty, we're a nation of moaners. We love nothing more than a good moan.

There is quite a simple fact we all seem to be skipping over here. Apple claim the 3g iPhone is twice as fast as the original one, but that the speed can vary in different locations. They've covered theirselves completely there. They have done nothing wrong and have not insinuated something that isn't true. Apple will have a very good legal team who will scan every millisecond of their ad before it goes to market.

The only people making the mistake here are the people who are mis-interpreting the advert.

We can bump this thread all day long, but it is simply revealing that the vast majority of people couldn't give a witch's tit about the ad.

[Trajectory]

By these standards every car ad should also be pulled. I never get the mileage advertised, it's always different.

[dlcrow]

it's a false claim and the ad should have been Yankee. You don't get all parts of the Internet on the iPhone (apple could have made this happen), even though you get the best mobile browsing experience hands down. Bottom line is it's not the complete Internet. They shouldn't be allowed to lie, as no other company should. Period.

internet != world wide web