Why stop at just Java and Flash if that's the real Internet? I guess Windows Media, Silverlight, and Real are the real Internet also which the iPhone doesn't support. So if the iPhone had Java and Flash but didn't have WM, Sliverlight, and Real would there still be a problem? They're all 3rd party plugins but it looks like there is some hypocrisy about which of those constitute the real Internet.
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.
iPhone ad rapped as 'misleading'
- Thread starter redgaz26
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
hear! hear!
If a “website” relies soley on flash or java it is not a website to me, it is a flash or java application.
They will be able to access all websites and view them. If a plugin is missing they will see a plugin symbol, just like on any browser where the plugin for that page is missing.
“Normally accessible through a PC” is a little wooly. If I had a PC without flash plugin or java (or these plugins disable) then the iPhone would display exactly what I see.
Even though all the screenshots were actually from the device and all the webpages shown will display on the device exactly as they do in the ad…
Right
So I've understood all the main points of the complaint, I just don't agree with them. The complaint were upheld because the ASA made a mistake.
Apple releases a phone which supports every web standard going (and some standards which aren't officially ratified yet), how much more do they need to do before they can claim the phone provides the whole internet? This is the problem with the ASA's findings, they never tell us.
Not 'unfair' - it's intentionally misleading. It's saying the iPhone can do things that it can not. It's wrong - and Apple need to stop doing it. What happens in the speed advert takes 3 to 4 times longer than that in real life.
So when a car drives through a city street in an ad much faster than is possible in real life is that 'intentionally misleading'. Do you expect Apple to pay 4 times for the ad time? Compression of time is an accepted part of advertising, and viewers are aware of that.
The ASA should also target all ads for MS Internet Explorer, as it doesn't display "real internet" web pages correctly most of the time because of it's screwed-up CSS engine.
The advert clearly says "all parts of the internet" and the iPhone doesn't support "all parts of the internet", so it's clearly misleading. Them's the rules, and if TBWA\Chiat\Day and Apple want to advertise in the UK you've got to abide by them.
I smell troll
1) Your subject is "Apple Shmapple!"
2) You say "Apple! Wake up!"
3) You say "YOU are substandard."
4) This, your VERY FIRST and ONLY POST on macrumors.com, is NEG.
Sounds like you're a huge fan alright.
Back in the day, the trolls used to at least try and cover their tracks. Troll, begone.
King me.
Wait. Let me get this straight. You admit you're a huge apple fan and user but…:
1) Your subject is "Apple Shmapple!"
2) You say "Apple! Wake up!"
3) You say "YOU are substandard."
4) This, your VERY FIRST and ONLY POST on macrumors.com, is NEG.
Sounds like you're a huge fan alright.
Back in the day, the trolls used to at least try and cover their tracks. Troll, begone.
King me.
If the car is capable of driving through the city at high speeds it's not misleading. You could complain that it glorifies or encourages reckless driving, but it's not a misleading advert.
Again a far more valid complaint, although you missed off the messed up javascript engine as well.
From MS Site:
Dramatically improve your online experience from what? IE 6? Certainly not any other browser.
Maybe we should complain.
I'm sure we could find more than the two who complained about the Apple ad.
No because the ad shows the car arriving at its destination without traversing all the points in between. I can either think that the car has found a wormhole in the fabric of the universe or this is a process called 'editing'. Same thing.
So after the UK gets a bashing for being fair and lawful, where has this thread got us?! nowhere...
I think everyone needs to calm it, and accept the fact that whether flash and java are or are not standard parts of the internet, the fact that apple claim that the iPhone can utilise the WHOLE internet is wrong.
As I said before, its a tragic mistaken choice of words by some poor marketing exec, who is now biting his (or her) nails.
Can we just move on please? Someone close this thread ffs!
I think everyone needs to calm it, and accept the fact that whether flash and java are or are not standard parts of the internet, the fact that apple claim that the iPhone can utilise the WHOLE internet is wrong.
As I said before, its a tragic mistaken choice of words by some poor marketing exec, who is now biting his (or her) nails.
Can we just move on please? Someone close this thread ffs!
I addressed this earlier. It's arguable that Flash, Java etc. are not part of the internet, but supplements to the internet. That's why the debate really comes down to whether or not this is true. You seem to think this issue is irrelevant when in reality this is the main question: is java and flash part of the internet or a supplement to the internet. I'm not smart enough to answer that question but I do think it's answerable.
I've posted this before, but i will post it again, and explain the situation.
First read and digest this extract from the ASA report:
"The ASA noted that Java and Flash proprietary software was not enabled on the iPhone and understood that users would therefore be unable to access certain features on some websites or websites that relied solely on Flash or Java.
We noted Apples argument that the ad was about site availability rather than technical detail, but considered that the claims Youll never know which part of the internet youll need and all parts of the internet are on the iPhone implied users would be able to access all websites and see them in their entirety.
We considered that, because the ad had not explained the limitations, viewers were likely to expect to be able to see all the content on a website normally accessible through a PC rather than just having the ability to reach the website.
We concluded that the ad gave a misleading impression of the internet capabilities of the iPhone."
Nobody is questioning whether flash or java are part of the internet, indeed they probably aren't, but the advert was misleading, in the fact that the end user would expect to be able to browse the internet, limitlessly. This also applies to all the other add ons and plug ins which have been mentioned...
First read and digest this extract from the ASA report:
"The ASA noted that Java and Flash proprietary software was not enabled on the iPhone and understood that users would therefore be unable to access certain features on some websites or websites that relied solely on Flash or Java.
We noted Apples argument that the ad was about site availability rather than technical detail, but considered that the claims Youll never know which part of the internet youll need and all parts of the internet are on the iPhone implied users would be able to access all websites and see them in their entirety.
We considered that, because the ad had not explained the limitations, viewers were likely to expect to be able to see all the content on a website normally accessible through a PC rather than just having the ability to reach the website.
We concluded that the ad gave a misleading impression of the internet capabilities of the iPhone."
Nobody is questioning whether flash or java are part of the internet, indeed they probably aren't, but the advert was misleading, in the fact that the end user would expect to be able to browse the internet, limitlessly. This also applies to all the other add ons and plug ins which have been mentioned...
It's the double standard that bugs me. There are thousands of MORE misleading ads on television.
Apple's claim communicates an experience with some accuracy for most people and is false in technical detail. However the claim that ANY DEVICE "contains the entire Internet" is OBVIOUSLY false in technical detail.
Apple's claim communicates an experience with some accuracy for most people and is false in technical detail. However the claim that ANY DEVICE "contains the entire Internet" is OBVIOUSLY false in technical detail.
Hint: They are not. It's a fairly non controversial issue. I am perfectly calm.
As no one has defined what the “all parts of the internet” means (apart from the ASA — who seem to the think it is “content on a website normally accessible through a PC” — I'm not going to bother rebutting this definition as it is laughable) I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that a web browser with support for all major web standards is capable of accessing all parts of the internet.
I have nothing further to say on the matter.
What
are you referring to?
And they are also being held to account by the ASA.
Do you really think Apple has been singled out unfairly?
If the advert had said "All of the internet with the exception of sites requiring Flash are on the iPhone" or "the internet is on the iPhone", admittedly it wouldn't have that marketing snap, but there wouldn't be a problem with it misleading customers.
"Because the iPhone doesn't support Flash or Java, you couldn't really see the internet in its full glory," said Olivia Campbell, a spokesperson for the ASA.
"They made a very general claim that you can see the internet in its entirety, and actually that's not quite true - so we've upheld."
True. If people do not want flash, turn it off. The iphone with flash will open up many doors. People still don't know about live video streaming websites like stickam, ustream and JTV that used flash plugins to view broadcasters. It would be nice watching Leo Laporte on the iPhone.
NO, you invalidated your original premise:
and validated my comment with your reply:
Many (if not most) web pages are not perfectly readable when scaled to fit on a phone sized screen. Many of the fonts are two small (or appear as just dots). To make it readable you have to show only part of the web page and scroll around to read the rest of the page whether you are using an iPhone or any other phone (including WM PDA phones).
hear! hear!
If a website relies soley on flash or java it is not a website to me, it is a flash or java application.
They will be able to access all websites and view them. If a plugin is missing they will see a plugin symbol, just like on any browser where the plugin for that page is missing.
Normally accessible through a PC is a little wooly. If I had a PC without flash plugin or java (or these plugins disable) then the iPhone would display exactly what I see.
Even though all the screenshots were actually from the device and all the webpages shown will display on the device exactly as they do in the ad
Right
So I've understood all the main points of the complaint, I just don't agree with them. The complaint were upheld because the ASA made a mistake.
Apple releases a phone which supports every web standard going (and some standards which aren't officially ratified yet), how much more do they need to do before they can claim the phone provides the whole internet? This is the problem with the ASA's findings, they never tell us.
Best post yet. IMHO
Editing a car journey is not misleading, though.
Perhaps a more apt example would be for cleaning products and their claims. Every advert in the UK for a cleaning product that uses that technique for the passage of time clearly states that time is being speeded up. The same would be true of internet speed and/or performance (see the various upheld complaints against sundry ISPs and their claimed speeds.)
all parts of the internet are on the iPhone implied users would be able to access all websites and see them in their entirety."
I don't think this is a fair expansion of Apple's statement. To illustrate:
All parts of X are on Y --> All parts of X & (A & B) are on Y
I do think it's arguable that you could say that A & B truly are part of X (i.e. the de facto standards of the internet have expanded/evolved to include flash and java or whatever), but the statement above is clearly a false assumption.
I don't think this is a fair expansion of Apple's statement. To illustrate:
All parts of X are on Y --> All parts of X & (A & B) are on Y
I do think it's arguable that you could say that A & B truly are part of X (i.e. the de facto standards of the internet have expanded/evolved to include flash and java or whatever), but the statement above is clearly a false assumption.