UK Advertising Board Rules for Apple in Dispute over Thinnest Smartphone

[slrandall]

- Alright. Show me the mathematics. Do you intend to measure its thickness at a certain number of places? With how far between them? What about the rounded part in the lower section of the back? Would you include the height of the buttons on the sides?

You can measure at, for instance, 5 places and calculate an average of those numbers. Then you can measure at 5 different places and get a completely different average. But this will only get you the average of those numbers, not the average thickness.

My point is that "average thickness", at least in this case and for this purpose, is nonsense, because you don't have a certain number of figures to calculate from.

You would measure the vertical height at each point with different altitudes, and multiply it by the fraction of total length that height occurred at. Then sum all the products you get. Thus, you get a weighted average.

If you wanted to be even more precise, you could model the thickness of the phone as a function [obtained through successive approximations] and find the average through integration.

Or you could call a Samsung hardware engineer and just ask.

Again, really not that hard.

 

[TheMacBookPro]

Another Apple win.

Except Apple, in most peoples' eyes, lost the 'Galaxy S infringement' case. All they managed to do was convince the judges that the Gallery app (which, btw, is built into every Android phone, and is not specific to Samsung) infringes on Apple's swiping patents.

Their main case (the Galaxy S looks exactly the same as the iPhone) was thrown out.

Just fyi.

Samsung needs to change out their legal team.

See above... they evidently do not.

Or . . . stop messing with others' IP.

The UK advertising board says that Apple has the right to claim that they have the thinnest smartphone. How does that have anything to do with Samsung 'messing' with Apple's IP?

Read up on what IP means, then post.

Either way, neither the iPhone 4 nor the GSII are the thinnest smartphone in the world. The NEC MEDIAS N-04C is, at 7.7mm thin (throughout the entire body). Even the waterproof N-06C is thinner than the iP4/GSII, at 7.9mm.

But then again neither are available in the UK so just ignore the above few lines

 

[*LTD*]

Except Apple, in most peoples' eyes, lost the 'Galaxy S infringement' case.

Apple lost, by getting an injunction against Samsung in that country. Quite a result for a "loss." I haven't heard any news that it's been lifted.

How come no one can successfully do this to Apple? I see no injunctions against them. These legal issues have been ongoing for a while now, and Apple gear is selling full-force everywhere. All I see are successful offensive moves by Apple left and right. Like Jobs and Cook said they would do.

 

[kdarling]

Apple lost, by getting an injunction against Samsung in that country. Quite a result for a "loss." I haven't heard any news that it's been lifted.

The Galaxy S ban will take effect on October 13, unless Samsung modifies the gallery app by then, as they've said they will.

 

[*LTD*]

The Galaxy S ban will take effect on October 13, unless Samsung modifies the gallery app by then, as they've said they will.

I'm sure they'll get right on it.

??

 

[Battlefield Fan]

ugh samsung

 

[TheMacBookPro]

Apple lost, by getting an injunction against Samsung in that country. Quite a result for a "loss." I haven't heard any news that it's been lifted.

Injunction takes effect on October 13th, unless they edit the Gallery app so it no longer infringes on the Apple patent (which they've already said they will do).

Apple won, by failing to get a permanent injunction via their main case (ie- the 'Galaxy S looks exactly the same as the iPhone')? Right. Quite a result for a "win".

How come no one can successfully do this to Apple? I see no injunctions against them. These legal issues have been ongoing for a while now, and Apple gear is selling full-force everywhere. All I see are successful offensive moves by Apple left and right. Like Jobs and Cook said they would do.

Maybe because other companies aren't as asshol-ish as Apple? Maybe because other companies don't feel the need to sue other companies to guarantee their success? Take a look through the original 'Apple-vs-Samsung' thread and see how even diehard Apple fans don't agree with Apple suing Samsung over 'identical design'.

 

[xUKHCx]

Did Samsung complain to the ASA about this? The article doesn't say.

Reminds me of a similar case where Apple claimed the PowerMac G5 was the fastest PC in the world, and in that case they lost as it was the fastest in all but one test. That seems a bit petty, by comparison.

There was only 1 complaint. While it doesn't mean it was Samsung it is certainly possible, of course it could've just been some one random.

http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/9/Apple-(UK)-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_161503.aspx

ASA Adjudication on Apple (UK) Ltd
Apple (UK) Ltd
2 Furzeground Way
Stockley Park
Uxbridge
Middlesex
UB11 1BB
Date: 14 September 2011
Media:Internet (on own site)
Sector:Computers and telecommunications
Number of complaints:1
Complaint Ref:A11-161503

Ad
A website ad for the iPhone 4 included the claim "And it's all contained in a beautiful enclosure a mere 9.3 millimetres thin, making iPhone 4 the world's thinnest smartphone".

Issue
The complainant challenged whether this claim was misleading because he believed that the Samsung Galaxy S II phone was thinner.

CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1 3.7
Response
Apple (UK) Ltd (Apple) said that the iPhone4 had a uniform depth of 9.3 mm. They said, by contrast, the Galaxy S II had peaks and valleys to its design; the thickness ranged from 8.71 mm to 9.91 mm. Apple pointed out that the Galaxy S II had prominent bulges at the top of the device, where the cameras lens was, and at the bottom. They acknowledged that the Galaxy S II was thinner at points, but considered that they were still entitled to make their "thinnest" claim.

Apple defended their methodology of basing their thinness claims on the thickest part of the device. They said that consumers would not be interested in the thinnest part of the device, but in its overall measurements, as these would, for example, affect whether the device could fit into a pocket or a purse. They asserted that allowing thinnest claims to be made on the thinnest point of products would have a detrimental effect on consumers who could then purchase items that do not fit the space for which they had intended them.

Assessment
Not upheld

We noted that the iPhone 4 had a uniform depth of 9.3 mm. We noted that the complainant objected that this was misleading because he believed the Samsung Galaxy S II was thinner. Whilst we noted that the Samsung product had thinner points, we considered that Apple's methodology for making the thinnest claim was reasonable. We considered that consumers would be less interested in whether certain points of a product were thin, if bulges in the product made its overall thickness greater. Because the iPhone4's thickest point was thinner than the thickest point of the Samsung Galaxy S II we concluded that the claim "the world's thinnest smartphone" was not misleading.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation) but did not find it in breach.

Action
No further action necessary.

Where 3.1 is

3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.

and 3.7 is

3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.

 

[GBrooks]

Seriously, this long standing bitch fight between these two companies is tiresome and childish.

Please - STOP

Mummy! Samsung said a naughty!!

 

[JTToft]

You would measure the vertical height at each point with different altitudes, and multiply it by the fraction of total length that height occurred at. Then sum all the products you get. Thus, you get a weighted average.

- That would make perfect sense if the front and back of the phone were parallel to each other. They are not, so you can't "measure the vertical height at each point with different altitudes" (since there will be an infinite number of points with different altitudes in the curved areas of the phone), and you can't "multiply it by the fraction of total length that height occurred at" (again, since there will be an infinite number of points you could measure at, and since the total length each height occurred at will be infinitely small).

You could, of course, achieve a fairly good approximation using your method and then decide to measure at, for instance, 5 different points along the curved section, but you wouldn't achieve a correct average thickness, only an approximation.

 

[eawmp1]

It's not the thinness of your tool; it's how you use it.

 

[slrandall]

- That would make perfect sense if the front and back of the phone were parallel to each other. They are not, so you can't "measure the vertical height at each point with different altitudes" (since there will be an infinite number of points with different altitudes in the curved areas of the phone), and you can't "multiply it by the fraction of total length that height occurred at" (again, since there will be an infinite number of points you could measure at, and since the total length each height occurred at will be infinitely small).

You could, of course, achieve a fairly good approximation using your method and then decide to measure at, for instance, 5 different points along the curved section, but you wouldn't achieve a correct average thickness, only an approximation.

Then model the thickness as a two-dimensional function [again, by successive approximations] and use an iterated integral to find the average. It is possible to find the average value of anything that can be modeled mathematically, I promise you.

 

[Trudy]

This isn't that hard. Throw it into a CAD program and have it tell you the average thickness.

But it's still not right. If I set my phone on a table, how high is it going to be? If I put it in my pocket, how much will it bulge out? If I put it in a case, how thick does that case have to be?

These are reasonable thickness questions for a consumer, and all of them are answered by thickest point, not average thickness. I can't see what possible use average thickness would have to the consumer. And the consumer is what this is about, not some academic exercise in dimensions.

 

[kdarling]

I'm sure they'll get right on it. ??

Correct, they'll have a modified gallery app ready before the injunction can go into effect.

Samsung has said Galaxy sales won't even be interrupted.

http://www.osnews.com/story/25098/Apple_Scores_Meaningless_Dutch_Court_Victory_Against_Samsung

 

[Sjhonny]

I agree. This is the same measure used to judge the tallest building in the world.

Not completely true. The type of spire used also plays a very important role. the Petrona towers are considered taller then the willis tower' because the spires on top of the twin towers are considered structural. The highest floor of the Willis tower is located higher. Comparing building heights is all about semantics.

 

[kd5jos]

Straw man

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A5313e Safari/7534.48.3)



The hump is actually at the bottom of the phone, and houses the antenna and a rear-facing speaker (unlike the speaker on the bottom edge of the iPhone 4), which obviously would have made it necessary to make the phone thicker in points. I know I'll get voted down for this, but people constantly blast Samsung for copying Apple and now that they make a design choice that is actually different they're still "doing it wrong". People, honestly.

No. This is a discussion about Samsung making a claim that their phone is the thinnest. The opinion of design style/quality has NOTHING to do with which phone is the thinnest. Either you make the thinnest phone, or you don't. They didn't claim to make the "mostly" thinnest phone, or thinnest over most of the measured length. Samsung said thinnest, and they were found not to be.

 

[JTToft]

Then model the thickness as a two-dimensional function [again, by successive approximations] and use an iterated integral to find the average. It is possible to find the average value of anything that can be modeled mathematically, I promise you.

Hmm. I may be wrong, as neither my mathematical skills nor my technical English skills are good enough to fully comprehend what you are arguing.
At least, I cannot make an intelligent argument to refute your above suggestion, so we may as well consider you to be right about the mathematics.

If you have some time to waste, though, I'd be interested to see the calculation you are proposing.

 

[Porco]

I'm thinking that the millions of bumper-covered iPhones won't fit thru your slot either.

But that's irrelevant, the claim is to do with which phone is thinner, not which phone is thinner when one of the phones has an optional bumper or case.

Look, I'm not the thinnest of people, so I don't think it would be reasonable to claim to be really skinny by measuring how thick my ankle is... maybe it would be nice if that's how the world looked at it!

My point was, a solid object that fits through a tight gap must be considered thinner than a second solid object that does not fit through the same gap. Of course if you encase one of the objects in rubber or plastic it might add to the thickness, but that's not what is in question. If I wrap my ankle in layers of bandages, it doesn't mean my gut is thinner than my ankle!

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; GT-I9100 Build/GINGERBREAD) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

The bump at the bottom does destroy the "thinnest" marketing gumpf.

For me the thickness didn't even come into the equation when considering the SGS II and I don't understand the obsession in slimming down handsets like they are. Such a silly marketing gimmick IMO.

 

[slrandall]

This isn't that hard. Throw it into a CAD program and have it tell you the average thickness.

But it's still not right. If I set my phone on a table, how high is it going to be? If I put it in my pocket, how much will it bulge out? If I put it in a case, how thick does that case have to be?

These are reasonable thickness questions for a consumer, and all of them are answered by thickest point, not average thickness. I can't see what possible use average thickness would have to the consumer. And the consumer is what this is about, not some academic exercise in dimensions.

True. This is the point that I missed on my first read of the article. The only reason I kept going with that discussion was because I was asked.

Hmm. I may be wrong, as neither my mathematical skills nor my technical English skills are good enough to fully comprehend what you are arguing.
At least, I cannot make an intelligent argument to refute your above suggestion, so we may as well consider you to be right about the mathematics.

If you have some time to waste, though, I'd be interested to see the calculation you are proposing.

It's the same calculation as the average value one in one-dimension [(1/(b-a))∫f(x) from a to b], but for a function f(x, y). However, like Trudy said, it can be easily done with a CAD program. Although, this is the method that such programs use.

And this doesn't really matter. The thickest point is what matters; I was wrong to suggest otherwise. It makes a lot more sense if you really just think about what it's going to be like putting it into your pocket.

 

[gnasher729]

No. This is a discussion about Samsung making a claim that their phone is the thinnest. The opinion of design style/quality has NOTHING to do with which phone is the thinnest. Either you make the thinnest phone, or you don't. They didn't claim to make the "mostly" thinnest phone, or thinnest over most of the measured length. Samsung said thinnest, and they were found not to be.

Since this was a complaint about an advertisement, the question is not which phone is the thinnest, but whether Apple's advertisement was misleading. In theory it could happen that Samsung made an advert with the same claim, Apple complained, and Samsung would be allowed to advertise their phone as the thinnest because it is thinner in many places and therefore the ad is not misleading.

 

[TheMacBookPro]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_3; HTC_EVO3D_X515m; en-sg) AppleWebKit/533.16 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0 Safari/533.16)

I'm sure they'll get right on it. ??

Correct, they'll have a modified gallery app ready before the injunction can go into effect.

Samsung has said Galaxy sales won't even be interrupted.

http://www.osnews.com/story/25098/Apple_Scores_Meaningless_Dutch_Court_Victory_Against_Samsung

I wonder where he went.

 

[JTToft]

And this doesn't really matter. The thickest point is what matters; I was wrong to suggest otherwise. It makes a lot more sense if you really just think about what it's going to be like putting it into your pocket.

- Indeed. But even so: thanks for the completely irrelevant discussion!

 

[iRobby]

You measure the height of a car according to roof height, not bonnet height. It is the same with phones, measure to the thickest point.

Right? I mean, this is just silly.



Hah hah... I'm sorry... "bonnet" Anyway, yes, I think that what the companies are arguing when they talk thickness is how easily the device will slip in and out of a pocket. The thickest point - not the thinnest - determines this. !

Thank God this thickness squabble isn't over anatomy

 

[MacinDoc]

True. This is the point that I missed on my first read of the article. The only reason I kept going with that discussion was because I was asked.




It's the same calculation as the average value one in one-dimension [(1/(b-a))∫f(x) from a to b], but for a function f(x, y). However, like Trudy said, it can be easily done with a CAD program. Although, this is the method that such programs use.

And this doesn't really matter. The thickest point is what matters; I was wrong to suggest otherwise. It makes a lot more sense if you really just think about what it's going to be like putting it into your pocket.

Certainly nothing wrong with your mathematics here. The only problem with this methodology is that it can be taken advantage of by simply increasing the height of the phone, making the tapered part a larger proportion of the phone. A phone that was 50 cm high and 1 mm thick for 40 of those cm but 20 mm thick for the other 10 cm would be, on average, thinner than a phone with a uniform thickness of 5 mm (I know the example is extreme and impractical; it is just to illustrate the point, since the same mathematics would apply to any 2 phones you were comparing that were not both the same height, if at least 1 phone was not of uniform thickness). Anyway, hopefully the whole argument will be irrelevant if Apple introduces the rumored redesign of the phone.