Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Sued over 'Misleading' Advertising in Siri Depictions

Um, it says at the end of the commercial that Siri's load times are sped up in the ad.

This will get thrown out immediately. I wouldn't even bother settling. Maybe get him a bumper case for his iPhone.


Screen%20Shot%202012-03-12%20at%202.30.59%20PM.png
 
is the guy trying to convince people that he only bought the iphone 4S because of Siri ? seriously ?


what are his arguments ? "my life depends on Siri" ? "i cannot live without Siri and Apple lied to me" ? 🙄


anyone can see Apple now for stupid reasons 🙄
 
I actually have pretty great luck with Siri whenever I use it. Although the other day it typed "Inc." instead of "ink" in my reminder. I better sue!
 
lol this is great. The masses of MR doing what they do best. Alright, let me grab my pitchfork and torch and try my hand alongside you folks...

"Yeah! What a silly suit! Apple deserves to advertise it doing things it can't! It's beta!"
*shakes pitchfork around wildly*

...yeah I'm not feelin' it guys. Who wants this lightly used pitchfork?
 
soco said:
You're ignoring the point of the suit. It's not a suit over whether or not states the product is in beta. It's a suit over the fact that if you don't go to the website or ask someone if it's in beta, you're led to believe, by the commercials, that it works as advertised. It does not.
Click to expand...

Precisely! That's the whole point. People see those commercials, and (as hard as this may be for some of you to believe) they actually expect Siri to work that way.
 
ABernardoJr said:
That wasn't my main point either, that was just a side note. My point is that the product isn't perfect, obviously, but Apple is expected to advertise that the product isn't perfect? And any company is expected to do the same? I'm pretty sure not every product works "as advertised" but that basis alone is not one sufficient for suing, and that's a problem with many over-litigious people nowadays.
Click to expand...


Honest question. If this headline was about a Microsoft, Samsung, RIM or other product being advertised - would you feel the same?
 
3N16MA said:
If people sued every company because a product is not exactly as depicted in an advertisement then we would have lawsuits all over the place. Oh wait, that already happens.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. I'd give you a list of misleading advertising but it would be too long.
 
Apple Smash!

I hope Apple crushes this Fazio guy...or better yet, the judge throws it out as a frivolous lawsuit. It's a Beta software! If Fazio doesn't know what that means, well, too freakin' bad. He should've done more research or asked more questions prior to purchasing the phone. What a D-bag.
 
Sue Happy Much?

It is BETA there are going to be bugs and glitches. Most people and countries are so sue happy anymore and the bad thing about it is some actually get away with silly lawsuits like this!
 
SimonTheSoundMa said:
I think Apple call it "beta" for a reason. 🙄
Click to expand...

With Siri being the big new feature of the iPhone 4S, I think Apple aught to rename the phone something along the lines of the "iPhones 4S beta". Maybe this year they'll release the actual iPhone 4S with the actual Siri.

Of course, Apple's track record for beta's they release to general consumers is very poor.

Remember iWork.com beta? They decided to send a nice "screw you" email to me yesterday and informed me that they were shutting down the feature that prompted me to upgrade to iWork '09 from '08.
 
In a related news story....

In a related news story, Frank Fazio is suing the manufacturer of Scubbing Bubbles because the bubbles don't really have goofy cartoon eyes and a big smile!
 
AP_piano295 said:
I mean it's pretty hard to argue, watch a Siri commercial try the commands seen in the commercial. Half the time they don't even work.

Of course what company doesn't lie with advertising?
Click to expand...

I've tried them all. And they work for me.

The ads say "some sequences shortened" at the bottom, so obviously it's not going to respond quite as quickly.
 
samcraig said:
Honest question. If this headline was about a Microsoft, Samsung, RIM or other product being advertised - would you feel the same?
Click to expand...

Actually I would. I went so far as to question whether other companies would be held to the standards, because although I like Apple products, I'm not biased when things like this are the case. If all things were equal except it said Microsoft, RIM, etc. instead of Apple, I wouldn't assume that the case was valid just because they're competitors. I would need to know how reliable their hypothetical Siri would be of course, but again this is under the assumption that all things besides the company name were equal. Just because I happen to be defending Apple here it doesn't mean I wouldn't do the same for other companies that are entirely irrelevant in this case.

I'll reiterate that this is just another example of someone being sue-happy trying to make a quick buck.
 
I knew a guy who pretty much paid his way through college by suing people. He was always wearing a neck brace.
 
Peace said:
No it doesn't. I'd give you a list of misleading advertising but it would be too long.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying every company should be off the hook. However there are plenty of ads that point out in the fine print that the picture/video is not 100% accurate of the actual product.
 
Ads should never show a product functioning, unless it functions ALL the time for all people in all situations.

Cars should not be shown to drive down the road, because some people may hit an oil slick not depicted in the ad.

Cleaning products should not be shown to pick up spills, because there are other spills that can’t be picked up.

And clothing should not be shown that fits people, because it won’t fit everyone.

😛

Apple admits the speeds are shortened (ad time kind of requires that for online products). As for the results? Some people get them just as shown. Some don’t. It’s obviously a widely varied experience.

If you think the product is low quality, try it, return it, or sue if they won’t take it back in a reasonable time frame. Suing over the ad itself (in this case) makes little sense except for the laywers!

I agree that the ad isn’t brutally honest. Nor is any technology ad. Nor is any ad for any product. Ads show the good side. I wish that wasn’t so! I wish fast food ads showed flattened, smashed burgers, not burgers that tower as tall as they are wide. I wish dating sites advertised that their marriage rate is lower than the general population. I wish cereal was not shown pouring in slow motion. Hard realism would be fun in ads! But that’s not how it is.
 
soco said:
lol this is great. The masses of MR doing what they do best. Alright, let me grab my pitchfork and torch and try my hand alongside you folks...

"Yeah! What a silly suit! Apple deserves to advertise it doing things it can't! It's beta!"
*shakes pitchfork around wildly*

...yeah I'm not feelin' it guys. Who wants this lightly used pitchfork?
Click to expand...

Every single thing they advertise it does.

I've tried them. Every thing it shows Siri doing, mine does perfectly.
It just showed me what Orion looked like. it just showed me how to play a b-minor fifth. It just started calling me "Rock God."
 
Another "only in America" moment. Imagining for a second that the plaintiff is correct and that Apple has been making exaggerations, why can someone sue for damages based on a television advert?

Look at the UK outcome - person complains to ASA, ASA bans advert from being aired. There should be no damages for anyone because no one was hurt, physically or materially.

An advert is not a contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back