Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Advertises OLD iPhone
- Thread starter Facebook
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Uh, lawsuit? Really? 
I Love You, Man had an iPhone 2G in it too. Not all movie props are the result of funding from the company to spot their product.
I Love You, Man had an iPhone 2G in it too. Not all movie props are the result of funding from the company to spot their product.
....AND Apple has nothing to do with it!!! If a movie company/director decides to use an iPhone and goes out and buys it to use as a prop then goody for them. It is not advertising for apple although I am sure they don't mind.
Not everything revolves around apple and the iPhone...my goodness...wake up
Not everything revolves around apple and the iPhone...my goodness...wake up
....AND Apple has nothing to do with it!!! If a movie company/director decides to use an iPhone and goes out and buys it to use as a prop then goody for them. It is not advertising for apple although I am sure they don't mind.
Not everything revolves around apple and the iPhone...my goodness...wake up
It seems like Apple tries to advertise on many TV shows.... like on 24, there are many ACD's and MacBook Pros's. And I'm sure that Apple is advertising there because they are a sponsor of the show.
Why would Apple choose to advertise the old iPhone as opposed to the iPhone 3g in the new movie 17 Again. Maybe this is just a mistake by the director, if it is, I smell a lawsuit.
Also, I believe both Zac Efron and his girlfriend own original iPhones. Maybe it's Zac's phone and he wanted to use it?
Yeah I think when it comes to movies they just let their actors use their own phones as there's no point to wasting money on phone props (see House, The Riches, etc.).
Maybe it is because they want to use the iPhone without showing that it is an iPhone.
What I mean by this is simple. In Two and a Half Men, Charlie uses an iPhone (although half the time he holds it upside down and the ringer is no where close to an iPhone ringer, plus it beeps when he hangs up). Now if you look close you notice the Apple on the back is gone.
I feel that the original iPhone is easier to sand off the Apple logo, rather then the new 3G. Therefore they can use the iPhone, without actually promoting a brand.
This way they look new and hip but get to save some money in their pockets.
What I mean by this is simple. In Two and a Half Men, Charlie uses an iPhone (although half the time he holds it upside down and the ringer is no where close to an iPhone ringer, plus it beeps when he hangs up). Now if you look close you notice the Apple on the back is gone.
I feel that the original iPhone is easier to sand off the Apple logo, rather then the new 3G. Therefore they can use the iPhone, without actually promoting a brand.
This way they look new and hip but get to save some money in their pockets.
Come on...Apple is not ADVERTISING...UNLESS you see real iPhone adds during the commercial periods. IF you watch American Idol then THAT is advertising. They advertise iTunes and post iPhone commercials during the breaks.
Just because an Actor uses an iPhone on ANY show DOES NOT mean apple is advertising. It means that the director believes that that is the appropriate prop because its popular and audiance will relate...its NOT advertising per say.
You are tunnel visioned.
+1 ^^^ I've seen too many iPhones v1 & 3G in so many movies and tv shows that I'm just spinning. I've seen the actor(s) use the iPhone covering up the Apple logo and using the iPhone "UPSIDE DOWN" so does this mean they'll be sued for being dumb enough to use the iPhone upside down (sometimes planned) and covering up the Apple logo? I doubt it......
There's few cases in which a company will restrict the use their product, its like not having to pay anyone for filming in Times Square, given all the ads. Its a public area, and those types are products are expected to be seen.
Its in scenarios when a bad guy (e.g. a terrorist drinks a coke, or uses an iPhone), that a company can object. Note I say "object" not "sue."
Its in scenarios when a bad guy (e.g. a terrorist drinks a coke, or uses an iPhone), that a company can object. Note I say "object" not "sue."
Just a couple of observations:
1) The 3G was released in July 2008. It's entirely possible that the film entered production well before then. In that case, it may be that the 3G wasn't available to use as a prop yet.
2) Sometimes, companies do foot the bill for product placements in movies and television. (Apple did this once with a Macontosh Plus in 1986 for Star Trek IV - and Apple Computer Company is listed in the movie's credits. Apparently the producers originally wanted to use an Amiga, but Commodore wouldn't let them use one for free. Apple did.) But most of the time when an Apple product is used in a movie or television show, it's probably because the producer bought it specifically to use as a prop.
1) The 3G was released in July 2008. It's entirely possible that the film entered production well before then. In that case, it may be that the 3G wasn't available to use as a prop yet.
2) Sometimes, companies do foot the bill for product placements in movies and television. (Apple did this once with a Macontosh Plus in 1986 for Star Trek IV - and Apple Computer Company is listed in the movie's credits. Apparently the producers originally wanted to use an Amiga, but Commodore wouldn't let them use one for free. Apple did.) But most of the time when an Apple product is used in a movie or television show, it's probably because the producer bought it specifically to use as a prop.
lawsuits...I lol'd. guess there better not be ANY old products in the movie...no old cars, electronics, etc
OK I am really confused where this lawsuit thing is coming from
Just because an actor uses an iPhone as it was intended to be used, but he/she is using it as a prop as a phone...how is that a lawsuit offense???
My god, where do they come from...does every damn thing in America have to entail a lawsuit???
If they were tearing the product apart and telling someone about trade secrets and altering the product then MAYBE yeah. But using the iPhone as a Phone on a friggin movie/tv show...LAWSUIT...NOT, no friggin way...it is utterly stupid!!!
It is free product advertising and apple wouldnt do a thing about it. Just like all the Mac Book Apples you see on laptops used in movies/tv shows today. Its not paid Apple Advertising, its props that these movie companies use because it adds to the realism of the media. WAKE UP
Just because an actor uses an iPhone as it was intended to be used, but he/she is using it as a prop as a phone...how is that a lawsuit offense???
My god, where do they come from...does every damn thing in America have to entail a lawsuit???
If they were tearing the product apart and telling someone about trade secrets and altering the product then MAYBE yeah. But using the iPhone as a Phone on a friggin movie/tv show...LAWSUIT...NOT, no friggin way...it is utterly stupid!!!
It is free product advertising and apple wouldnt do a thing about it. Just like all the Mac Book Apples you see on laptops used in movies/tv shows today. Its not paid Apple Advertising, its props that these movie companies use because it adds to the realism of the media. WAKE UP
OK I am really confused where this lawsuit thing is coming from
It's coming from the final sentence of the original post at the top of this thread. I agree, though, it's ridiculous to suppose that a lawsuit could actually come out of this.
For the most part, the use of iPhones in TV and Movies are related to the actors. Unless the production company is getting product placement money for a particular phone (like James Bond using Sony Ericcson Phones, because the series is owned by Sony), then often the actors use their personal phones, one from the prop closet, or one from another staff member. I know that Sean Murray's use of an iPhone in NCIS results from the fact that he stood in line in LA and bought one when the came out. It also happens that it also fits his character, so the producers keep featuring it, often doing impossible things they mimic with Quicktime movies.
Just remember, not all the products shown on TV or in movies are paid endorsements.
TEG
Just remember, not all the products shown on TV or in movies are paid endorsements.
TEG
WOW really? You think all that?
1: Apple (officially) does not get involved in product placement.
2: A lawsuit? Really?
1: Apple (officially) does not get involved in product placement.
2: A lawsuit? Really?
The movie was filmed before the iPhone 3G came out. The film was supposed to be released last August, but was pushed back. Filming took place in early 2008.
Nope, Zac Efron has an iPhone 3g, why would be bring is obsolete iPhone on set.
Dude...its because they are the OWNERS of the friggin phone they use!!! It has NOTHING to do with ADVERTISING or LAWSUITS.
My wife has a classic and I have a 3G. If we both go to a concert and have our pictures taken by Rolling Stones and it ends up on the cover of a magazine is Apple going to SUE me or my wife because I am holding the WRONG phone???
Im done...this stupid lawsuit crap is startin to piss me off and I don't want to go there.
Did it ever cross that tunnel visioned mind of yours that he MAY HAVE UPGRADED when the 3G came out???
Holy crap this thread is funny. OP, you clearly have no idea what would constitute a lawsuit. A lawsuit because an older generation device was used? An actor owning one phone and using another on the set for a movie? Interesting, this should be punishable in a court of law.
OP ... :shakes head:
OP ... :shakes head:
1. His name is Facebook.
2. He clearly believes 17 Again is an at least somewhat respectable film.
3. He believes the original iPhone is obsolete.
I've always wanted to do this, so...
/thread
edit: about the lawsuit, I THINK he assumed the movie was shot after the 3G release, that Apple paid for the 3G to be featured, that the director (who would not be responsible for it anyway) accidentally used a 1st gen instead, and that Apple would therefore sue (the director). I see this kind of thing happen on the regular, people. It's no laughing matter.
2. He clearly believes 17 Again is an at least somewhat respectable film.
3. He believes the original iPhone is obsolete.
I've always wanted to do this, so...
/thread
edit: about the lawsuit, I THINK he assumed the movie was shot after the 3G release, that Apple paid for the 3G to be featured, that the director (who would not be responsible for it anyway) accidentally used a 1st gen instead, and that Apple would therefore sue (the director). I see this kind of thing happen on the regular, people. It's no laughing matter.
- Status