Print 87 comment(s) - last by chick0n.. on Sep 3 at 12:51 AM

  (Source: Reuters)

The iPhone ads are now banned in the UK for being "deceptive".  (Source: Apple)
Microsoft, Verizon, and other Apple critics have found a supporter in the Britain's regulators

Apple has been a pain in the side of carriers such as Verizon and others vested in the cell phone industry, such as rival Microsoft.  They have attacked the iPhone, but have been unable to dent its strong sales.  Now the iPhone's detractors may have found some relief in the form of an unlikely ally -- the Britain's regulatory boards.

The U.K. has banned the current set of iPhone ads from appearing on TV in the country.  It says its Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the independent regulatory agency in charge of regulating television, received two complaints that Apple's claims in the ads that its phone could access all of the internet were misleading due to its lack of Java or Flash support, essential to accessing much of the internet.

The ASA sided with the consumer and concluded that the ad was inaccurate.  It proceeded to contact Apple about the perhaps deceptive nature of the ads.

Apple complained back that it was unreasonable to expect it to ensure compatibility with every third party plug-in or technology on the internet.  Both Flash and Java are proprietary technologies.  However, the fact remains that they are two of the most broadly used standards on the internet.

The ASA was unmoved by Apple's complaints and pointed out that Apple specifically chose to state in the ad that "You'll never know which part of the internet you'll need... all parts of the internet are on the iPhone"  which would seem to imply support for all major standards.

In its conclusion, the watchdog agency states, "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."

Thus, it found Apple in violation of CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.2.2 (Implications).  It banned all further broadcast of the commercial, unless Apple alters it to qualify its statements.

Apple has built a name for largely by its witty self-congratulatory ads, such as its "I'm a Mac..." ads, touting its OS X.  Microsoft has long complained these ads are fallacious.  Microsoft is launching a $300M USD campaign, to counter them, featuring Jerry Seinfeld.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The hype is misleading as well
By kickwormjoe on 8/27/2008 11:17:52 AM , Rating: 4
The other day I read in the news that in Poland actors were paid to stand in line for the iPhone.

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By weskurtz0081 on 8/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: The hype is misleading as well
By kickwormjoe on 8/27/2008 11:45:36 AM , Rating: 1
I knew I missed a comma somewhere...

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By matt0401 on 8/29/2008 12:29:35 AM , Rating: 1
Actually his sentence is grammatically correct. He didn't need a comma in between "Poland" and "actors".

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By Cobra Commander on 8/27/08, Rating: 0
By kickwormjoe on 8/27/2008 12:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
Google "poland iphone actors"

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By JustTom on 8/27/2008 12:13:17 PM , Rating: 4
RE: The hype is misleading as well
By SiN on 8/27/2008 11:52:47 AM , Rating: 2
Your right, the mobile network selling the iPhone in Poland did in fact pay actors to wait in line for the iPhone launch.

They were trying to stir up some sort of iPhone craze.

Dont know why you got voted down though. fanboys maybe!?!?

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By SiN on 8/27/2008 11:55:47 AM , Rating: 5
In other apple related news Phystar (the mac clone company) has filed a counter sue seeking damages and claiming apple uses a monopoly on their OS by only allowing the instalation of their product on apple hardware.

Im glad their ploy is being scrutinized in the courts. its about time.

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By Hare on 8/27/2008 12:23:46 PM , Rating: 3
Apple is not the only one doing guerrilla marketing. Just to give you one example, Sony-Ericsson hired actors to play tourists who asked other people to take pictures of them with a new SE camera phone.

PR/Marketing hoaxes happen every day.

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By anotherdude on 8/27/2008 12:45:47 PM , Rating: 4
Apple should be above this kind of ploy, unless they want people to start thinking the cool is manufactured, which ain't too cool at all. "poof", there goes the reality distortion field

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By Oregonian2 on 8/27/2008 2:01:22 PM , Rating: 3
Apple should be above this kind of ploy, unless they want people to start thinking the cool is manufactured, which ain't too cool at all. "poof", there goes the reality distortion field

LOL! Of course "cool is manufactured". Totally. 100% Does anyone already not know that?

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By someguy123 on 8/27/2008 3:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
yeah seriously...."cool" is and always has been defined by corporations, and people will always eat it up. remember what was cool to wear 10 years ago? man it looks pretty hilarious right now don't it?

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By anotherdude on 8/27/2008 4:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
Cool may or may not be manufactured but once it becomes too transparent you're dead. Paying people to line up for your cool is the kind of thing that makes your loyal iflock start to feel embarrassed.

By Oregonian2 on 8/27/2008 5:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe not. Using the Poland example, I think the iflock will think highly of Apple for trying to show the people of Poland the proper way to act and to draw their attention to the high quality of product that Apple has had made in China. Basically the iflock will feel sorrow for those of Poland for not understanding the product purchase opportunity they are being offered and appreciate Apple showing proper behavior.

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By phazers on 8/28/2008 7:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
Paying people to line up for your cool is the kind of thing that makes your loyal iflock start to feel embarrassed.

And another is a pic of your iGod, El Jobso, grabbing his iNutz in every DT story about Apple :)

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By Ravendon on 8/27/2008 12:59:26 PM , Rating: 3
Which has nothing to do with Apple, of course.

Orange, the company selling iPhones in Poland hired actors. Not Apple.

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By Hare on 8/27/2008 2:26:12 PM , Rating: 3
Once again the angry mob downrated a person telling the truth. It was definately the carrier Orange, not Apple who hired the actors!

"As part of a marketing campaign ahead of the iPhone's Friday launch in Poland, the country's largest mobile operator Orange (FTE.PA: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) is paying dozens of actors to stand in queues."

- Reuters

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By Parhel on 8/27/2008 2:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
I blame the bananas.

By FITCamaro on 8/27/2008 4:54:55 PM , Rating: 2

By Shadowself on 8/27/2008 3:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
Nice comment. Too bad it is *completely* false. It got started by someone claiming to quote someone working for O2, but no other data to back it up (like actually talking to one of the "actors"). O2 has now officially come out to debunk this.

RE: The hype is misleading as well
By Lord 666 on 8/27/2008 3:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
The line started because the Polish people wanted to see a phone you plug into your eye.

Disclaimer: Lord 666 is of Polish decent and can make funny jokes like this

By AmishElvis on 8/28/2008 8:15:41 AM , Rating: 2
Ha! What happened when an actual customer showed up? Did they get ushered past the actors? Or did they have to stand in line while each actor in front of them pretended to buy a phone?

By SpaceRanger on 8/27/2008 11:19:30 AM , Rating: 5
There are Youtube videos out there demonstrating the "speed" at which you can perform tasks on the iPhone. The commercials show the phone flashing through applications very quickly, when in reality it takes much longer to perform such tasks. It might be a nice device, just not as nice as it's demonstrated on the commercials...

By WayneG on 8/27/2008 11:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree, I look upon the iPhone and I desperately want it to be as good as it is often advertised but to be honest I don't like a lot of Apple products because of the lack of customisability which is such a shame given that they make actually quite good products (in general...). It would be nice if it was a lot more tuner friendly as it were.

By FITCamaro on 8/27/2008 12:11:55 PM , Rating: 3
Which is why I believe they have in very tiny print "Simulated images". But yes there's no excuse for blatantly showing off false performance of the phone. Amongst the other lies their iPhone and other ads have.

By Aloonatic on 8/27/2008 2:15:10 PM , Rating: 3
I have to agree about the speed issue, and I was frankly amazed that these adds ran for as long as they did.

The adds, even before the iPhone 3G was released, showed facebook pages loading almost instantly, which was just crazy.

It was only a matter of time before they got pulled. I almost complained myself but I am saving those complaint letters for my retirement. You have to have something to look forward to, right?

I am even more amazed that it is the "all the internet" claim that has got them banned.

By PointlesS on 8/27/2008 3:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
usually when I think simulated images I'm thinking it's enhanced for color or readability...not that the actual performance is someone who's never seen an iphone in action I thought it looked pretty impressive until I saw the youtube videos

By jimbojimbo on 8/27/2008 2:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
You are dead on. It's as if they had hand models move their hands at 1/4 the speed, filmed the whole thing, and then sped it all up. No hangs at all? Yeah, right.

By someguy123 on 8/27/2008 3:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
what do you expect? if they can get away with the "MAC vs PC" ads the iphone ads look pretty spot on in comparison.

By FITCamaro on 8/27/2008 4:56:59 PM , Rating: 3
Those damn things get more annoying each day. The pizza one is the most retarded one yet. But I guess when you can't sell your product unless you lie about it you kind of have to.

By walk2k on 8/27/2008 3:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
Wait... it doesn't support Java OR Flash??

What the hell good is a web browser that doesn't support either of those two? That is just simply a broken browser.

By Aloonatic on 8/27/2008 4:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's a really fast browser.

Imagine not having to wait for the java or Flash elements to load?

By Tamale on 8/28/2008 10:20:05 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, except that it's still not that fast.

By rs3 on 8/27/2008 4:05:31 PM , Rating: 4
I don't approve of censorship. But at the same time, I don't approve of Apple's shady (and often downright monopolistic) business practices (or of Apple in general, for that matter). I suppose I disapprove of Apple enough that I can ignore the fact that they are basically being censored.

Go censorship?!?

RE: Torn
By Parhel on 8/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Torn
By rs3 on 8/27/2008 5:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed it is. Apple can claim that it's products make the sun rise and set, if it wants. It's the consumer's job to educate themselves before making a purchase based upon the manufacturer's claims, by seeking information from independent third-parties. Any consumer who fails to do that, and blindly buys into the manufacturer's hype, deserves to get ripped off.

RE: Torn
By kelmon on 8/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Torn
By rs3 on 8/28/2008 3:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all for people knowing more but to expect that they know all about everything they are buying because it is OK for the manufacturers to misrepresent the products/services is clearly bonkers.

I never said they should know "all about" anything. I said they should know more than just what the manufacturer says. And yes, anyone who doesn't bother to do that still deserves to get ripped off. And it clearly must be okay for manufacturers to misrepresent their products/services because they pretty much all do it, at least to some degree.

There's nothing wrong with censorship if what is being censored is outright lies.

Bullshit. Freedom of speech is to be protected, and that includes the freedom to assert untruths, unfounded ideas, and unproven theories. Otherwise who determines what counts as an "outright lie"? Is someone asserting an outright lie if they say that there is no god? Or if they assert that Jesus Christ is the son of god? Or if they say that global warming does/doesn't exist? Or that members of race X are inferior to race Y? Guess we should just censor them all to be safe.

Things people say may be offensive, inaccurate, unproven, unfounded, or blatantly false, but they still should have the right to be saying them, and that right must be protected, even when what they are saying is completely wrong, off-base, and even shameful.

RE: Torn
By Parhel on 8/28/2008 4:57:37 PM , Rating: 3
False advertising is prohibited for good reason, and falls entirely outside the protections granted by freedom of speech. Equating this with censorship is way off base. No matter what you say, forgery is indeed illegal no matter whether theft was involved, and those laws would also fall under your unrealistic definition of censorship.

BTW, I'm almost positive someone here is using duplicate accounts. I got down-rated from a 3 to a 0 in the matter of a few minutes.

RE: Torn
By althaz on 8/29/2008 1:11:08 AM , Rating: 2
So it would be ok for me to market an empty piece of plastic as if it were a phone, web browser, etc for $199? Maybe I'll only sell it to people willing to sign an NDA? Then I can sue anybody who tells people my product is in fact an empty piece of plastic.

Your comment is just plain ridiculous.

RE: Torn
By rs3 on 8/27/2008 5:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
And for the fraudulent checks thing, you don't get sent to jail for communicating an untruth, you get sent to jail for trying to steal money from your bank and/or goods/services from the people you give the bad checks to. The government isn't censoring your writing (you can still write the bad checks, and even show them off to people if you want, so long as you don't try to actually use them), or your ability to communicate an untruthful depiction of your wealth (as I said, you're still perfectly free to write the checks so long as you don't try to actually use them, and you're also perfectly free to exaggerate your wealth in other ways, too).

It's the act of trying to use the bad check that makes it criminal (because it basically amounts to a tangible attempt at theft), not the writing of the check, or the message communicated by it.

RE: Torn
By BZDTemp on 8/28/2008 3:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
How can Apple be monopolistic when they do not have a monopoly?

I think you need to look in a dictionary as a monopoly requires one to have control over a market. And censorship. Not so - it is about them not getting to lie about their products.

Consumer protection is powerful in the EU and for example when buying standard products over the internet you get a two week full refund right and that is even if you open the package and check out the product - postage is of course included. Another example - warranty covers shipping costs if you traded online and even if you move half way around the world.

RE: Torn
By nycromes on 8/28/2008 4:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
Having a monopoly and acting in a monopolistic manner are two very different things. A company can actually have a legal monopoly as long as they don't act monopolistic (at least here in the US). The issue really is that these same behaviors are considered competitive behavior when there are competitors, as soon as one company starts to muscle out other companies it becomes illegal.

As for censorship. Let me say this, I am generally against censorship. But there are cases that warrant censorship and this is one of them. All or nothing views of issues are almost always a bad thing. It limits your ability to reconsider your position even in light of new data. Though I would say probalby 90-95% of censorship is a bad thing, that 5% is truly for the protection of people (even if they should be watching out for themselves). If you don't hold businesses accountable for their claims, then who knows what data you could trust out there. These laws exist for a reason and should be enforced when they mislead the general person in public.

By psychobriggsy on 8/27/2008 11:37:06 AM , Rating: 1
"You'll never know which part of the internet you'll need... all parts of the internet are on the iPhone"

Awesome, a usenet reader is included? Hell, maybe even a Gopher client. A MUD client too... and a SSH client!

Maybe they meant the WWW part of the internet. That uses HTML, CSS and JS. See, they could have put "* internet meaning websites and email, excluding flash and Java" at the bottom and got away with it.

However good the iPhone's browser is, it doesn't mean they can claim it does more. Claiming it does it better would have been vague enough however.

By kelmon on 8/27/2008 12:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
I've had this discussion already with someone else who tried defending Apple by suggesting that the World Wide Web is only really HTML and that everything else is an add-on so the advertisement is OK. What the ASA is doing, quite sensibly, is looking at the content of the advert from the perspective of a consumer watching it. What does Joe Consumer think the "Internet" is? You, I and probably everyone else here at DailyTech knows what the Internet is, by the dictionary definition, but the general public see the Internet and World Wide Web as being synonymous. The World Wide Web might only just need HTML but that doesn't mean anything to Joe Consumer who is used to surfing sites that are full of Flash content. All they know is that if they buy an iPhone they can't go to their favourite online video sharing site unless it's YouTube.

Basically, customers are unlikely to feel deceived by the lack of a Gopher client. They will, however, feel deceived if they can't use every site online like they can with their desktop browser.

By Master Kenobi on 8/27/2008 1:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
The * and tiny print isn't widely accepted in europe the way it is in the USA.

By Oregonian2 on 8/27/2008 2:02:43 PM , Rating: 1
Ads must be grim and boring in Europe if they have to be fully truthful (unlike here).

By plinkplonk on 8/27/2008 2:30:02 PM , Rating: 3
i dont mind grim and boring advertising since i dont expect to be entertained by adverts

By Oregonian2 on 8/27/2008 5:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
Are you European ? Whereas I find most adverts entertaining with their ... uh ... optimization of claimed benefits (and pretty much always have) my expectations are different.

By Oregonian2 on 8/27/2008 5:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - The U.S. is now in a presidential political race starting seriously this week. Their massive adverts can be extremely amusing in their vaguely truthful statements, often with made up stuff about opponents (taking things completely out of context is downright frequent -- resulting in assertions that are effectively complete fibs). It's just the norm.

By leexgx on 8/27/2008 11:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
if i lived in the US and watched tv you require an TVio so to watch the programs lots of ads even so the ads may be funny thay get boring when you see them every 10 mins, not that that matters any way as i high speed download (not p2p or sell) all my tv programs any way

By Aloonatic on 8/27/2008 4:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
There have been quite a few adds sneaking in over here (UK) where the disclaimers are white text, written on a very light background with a very light grey shadowing making them just about readable.

Things don't seem to be as bad as in the states though. I must admit, I do find the adds actually quite amusing. Especially medications adverts.

I actually saw one which was advertising a medication which listed a several benefits such as "fast acting" and "easy to swallow" which were fair enough and no one could argue with the happy little tick that went in each box next to them as the voice-over moved onto the next benefit.

Then there was the grand finally, the final benefit which differentiated it from the competition.

"Super Mega Pill" *tick*


We just don't get that over here.

Apple's Business Model
By bplewis24 on 8/27/2008 11:31:05 AM , Rating: 5
Apple ads...misleading??? Nah, say it ain't so!

Who woulda thunk there were standards in marketing? We should try that in the U.S. too :)


RE: Apple's Business Model
By kelmon on 8/27/2008 12:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, there's the rub. The UK had its own versions of the "Mac vs. PC" ads which ran along the same lines as the US ones. These ads were subject to the same regulations as the offending advert for the iPhone and yet no issues were found. I believe complaints were received by the ASA but none were upheld.

RE: Apple's Business Model
By anotherdude on 8/27/2008 12:52:25 PM , Rating: 3
There is a fine line between what is merely misleading and outright deceptive. The Mac vs. PC ads are brilliant models of how to be misleading without telling pure lies. Is Vista 'glitchy'? Well yes, to a degree. Define 'glitchy'. And did they say it was glitchy or that people thought it was glitchy? Lepoard has been reported to be glitchy and that's a fact, and so was XP, at first, well darn, it still is, and Linux? Sheesh

RE: Apple's Business Model
By smilingcrow on 8/27/2008 3:03:43 PM , Rating: 2
Apple has a terrible reputation when it comes to spreading BS in its advertising campaigns.
I remember Apple stating that MACs were faster than PCs, then they switch to the PC platform and tell us they are even faster now. Go figure. I used to find it annoying and then Fake Steve Jobs made it all worthwhile.

It’s a relief that Steve Jobs’ cancel cells didn’t grow as fast as he imagined his computers run or he’d have been dead three times faster than other cancer patients. God bless his cotton socks.

RE: Apple's Business Model
By MamiyaOtaru on 8/27/2008 10:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
"Steve Jobs' cancel cells

I think you're turning Japanese

By dl2008 on 8/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: OMG!!!
By Parhel on 8/27/2008 3:02:27 PM , Rating: 3
I'm American and they would have fooled me. I also have worked in IT for nearly 10 years, have my degree in Computer Information Systems and several certifications. If I saw the advertisement that specifically said "all of the Internet," I would definitely assume that would include support for such basics as Java and Flash. It's not like we're talking about some obscure file format that the iPhone doesn't support here. I imagine that a less technical consumer would be deceived just as easily.

RE: OMG!!!
By kelmon on 8/28/2008 2:46:30 AM , Rating: 3
Strangely, I don't recall having seen diet pills advertised on the television, which rather suggests that the rules work quite well. The point is that the advert's content is incorrect as it will be interpreted by the average consumer. Where's the lack of common sense in banning that advert?

RE: OMG!!!
By chick0n on 9/3/2008 12:51:11 AM , Rating: 1
I dont know what TV have u been watching but I see those diet pills crap like every week or so on ABC

Apple is always full of crap, but there are so many full of crap people out there, thats probably the reason why Apple still survives.

By Bender 123 on 8/27/2008 12:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
I cant decide which picture is creepier...

Steve Jobs as seen above...
Steve Ballmer going madman...
That Bill Gates one with the come hither look amongst the 80's PCs...

These pics are the stuff of geeky nightmares.

RE: Picture...
By BBeltrami on 8/27/2008 2:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
No doubt. Ballmer's sweaty monkey-boy dance has seared an indelible image in my minds eye. I've never been the same.


RE: Picture...
By 7Enigma on 8/28/2008 7:21:48 AM , Rating: 2
Hands-down the 80's pic of Gates, that really creeps me out.

Where is Java used, exactly?
By aos007 on 8/28/2008 1:38:25 AM , Rating: 2
As a Java developer myself, I wonder where exactly is Java used on browser side these days? Flash yes, and for that alone Apple ad is misleading, but Java? Does anyone have any example of a popular website using Java in the browser? The only place I've even seen it was Analog devices webpage where you could play with values of components in a circut and see changes in its operation, all with nice graphs and images (and that too disappeared after their redesign a few months ago). Hardly a mainstream use.

RE: Where is Java used, exactly?
By afkrotch on 8/28/2008 3:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone have any example of a popular website using Java in the browser?

Probably majority of your most popular websites don't use Java, but to blatantly claim that your phone can access the internet as a whole is stupid.

Also, as it's a smartphone, I'd assume many users would connect to their own intranet sites. I know where I work, we have many intranet websites that use Java. Course the iphone would have zero hope of accessing them, unless they create a smartcard reader for it.

RE: Where is Java used, exactly?
By Tamale on 8/28/2008 10:22:26 AM , Rating: 2

Follow the source link...
By wuZheng on 8/27/2008 11:45:10 AM , Rating: 2
...and read the comments for the article, you'll see some pretty.... "interesting" smidgens of logical thought being posted there ;)

But yea, I don't really care so much about the iPhone not being able to do flash, I'd much rather have the Canadian mobile industry stop charging or at least expose the "System Access Fee" in advertising...

RE: Follow the source link...
By aos007 on 8/28/2008 1:31:45 AM , Rating: 2
They HAVE been exposed. If you look at any ad or web page, it always claims "system access fee is a non-governmental fee, blah blah". I think most consumers know by now that it's not a government fee by now. In fact there are several carriers advertising their plans without SAF and making a huge deal out of it.

Canadians know what SAF is and hate it. It is rather strange that carriers don't just give up and fold the fee into the plans already. They can even use the occasion as the main feature of a new ad campaign ("Finally, the day has come! No more system access fees!" or something like that). I guess they are all scared of posting higher nominal prices and appearing non-competitive.

By kayronjm on 8/29/2008 7:20:38 PM , Rating: 1
This is hilarious. I love it when Apple gets kicked in the balls, it starts to bitch about it being unfair and then it gets kicked in the balls again. Go UK!! hahahaha
Very true about not supporting Flash or Java though, that's embarrassing for such a complex device!!

I dislike Apple and the i-Phone but.....
By pauldovi on 8/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: I dislike Apple and the i-Phone but.....
By 306maxi on 8/27/2008 12:57:59 PM , Rating: 3
I don't see how this is relevant. Perhaps in a much wider sense but it doesn't really apply to this story. Apple made some very misleading ads and they're getting pinged for it.

RE: I dislike Apple and the i-Phone but.....
By Trencher on 8/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: I dislike Apple and the i-Phone but.....
By foolsgambit11 on 8/27/2008 2:23:21 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, Milton Friedman holds the exclusive channel to truth. Just because a platitude sounds nice doesn't mean it's true. How about the counter-platitude, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." - Ben Franklin.

Comprende? The British government is preventing a slew of lawsuits and disgruntled consumers. The American system, rather than preventing the 'illness', waits until it's full blown and then administers a monetary cure.

I'd think the companies would adore this system - if the ad passes muster with the ASA, it's got to limit their liability.

Of course, the real point here is that the ads were run, and then complaints were filed, alleging false advertisement. The government evaluated the complaints, and decided they were justified. So they ordered the ads off the air. If you do a little research, you'll discover that the United States has the same process, regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC just tends to give more leeway to the advertiser than the ASA did in this case.

Or, if you want to satisfy your 'Europeans are stupid' assumption - since the FTC uses a 'reasonable person' standard in determining if deception has occurred, and since 'Europeans are stupid', the reasonable person in Britain is much easier deceived, so the false advertising criteria are much easier to meet.

RE: I dislike Apple and the i-Phone but.....
By Reclaimer77 on 8/27/08, Rating: -1
By wvh on 8/27/2008 8:00:21 PM , Rating: 5
If it doesn't support Flash or Java, it doesn't. You don't need a zillion people to prove something false. Truth is not democratic. Ads are not banned because of the number of complaints, but because they contain statements that from an average consumer's point of view are simply untrue.

The EU has strict (and increasingly stricter) laws governing statements made in commercials. I, for one, am happy about this.

A ban on a commercial with dishonest claims doesn't directly lead up untold amounts of profit. It must be trivial for Apple to change some shots of the commercial – either by making it shorter or by adding some other footage – with minimal expense.

By leexgx on 8/27/2008 11:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
it is miss leading tho (not see the ad my self) not every one is very bright when it comes to buying things, US & UK alike, but any one buying one of these would most likey know it only supports HTML only (maybe some crapy quicktime streaming that no one uses)

but wording is norm what gets most ads pulled in the UK

By kelmon on 8/28/2008 3:04:16 AM , Rating: 3
Who is this idiot?

Look, this isn't rocket science. The ASA received complaints that prompted them to do an investigation. The investigation showed that the advertisement was false as it would be understood by the average consumer. For this reason the advertisement was banned.

It doesn't matter if you are a multi-billion dollar company or a jobbing plumber - if you advertise then the content of your adverts must be factually correct.

I fail to see how this can possibly be interpreted as "anti consumerism / capitalism". The agency publishes clear advertising guidelines, is independent of the government, and if you disagree with a decision (be you the advertiser or the plaintiff) then you can appeal to an independent review. The whole thing is there to product the customer from companies that display outright lies in their adverts. Without this you might as well not bother with adverts at all...

By 306maxi on 8/27/2008 3:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
I did say it was true or not, I simply said it's of little relevance to this story.

It's like saying "Don't pee into the wind" perfectly good point but not really all that relevant tbh....

I do think that people/companies should be able to take this sort of thing to court and have misleading advertising removed. I think people SHOULD be protected to a certain extent by the government.

By kelmon on 8/28/2008 3:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
So, what you are basically saying is that it's OK for companies to lie about the products and services that they sell and that the customer should be expected to validate the details of everything that they buy? I can see how we'd be all much better off under that system. I'd write more on this subject but I need to go an check that the carrot I was going to buy really did come from the local farm rather than Guatemala...

I honestly can't believe that anyone is defending the principle that you can tell outright lies and get away with it.

By Icelight on 8/27/2008 1:12:17 PM , Rating: 1
What in the heck does this have to do with the article?!

By psychobriggsy on 8/27/2008 1:25:42 PM , Rating: 1
The Advertising Standards Agency isn't a UK government agency, regardless of what DailyTech writes.

By msheredy on 8/27/08, Rating: -1
By Aloonatic on 8/27/2008 4:08:59 PM , Rating: 1
And your comment is yet another reason why I am glad that you are American.

We have more than enough morons over here, the last thing we need is you as well.

By MamiyaOtaru on 8/27/2008 10:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
And I'm pretty glad the smugness is mostly contained over there. Except for Apple D:

By Aloonatic on 8/28/2008 1:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
What smugness?

"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki