PDA

View Full Version : Hey apple fanboys, check this out...


Motley
2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 17:44
Hilarious! I guess you're an "idiot" if you believe Apple's marketing ads.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/12/apple-says-cust.html

MaxxuM
2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 20:48
"fool" and "idiot" are two different words Motley. I read the part where Apple said people shouldn't believe marketing hype as completely truthful. It's like saying you believe all those toys on Saturday morning cartoon hour are actually how they behave in reality. Every company does this sort of advertisements where they make all sorts of claims and guess what, just about every company litigates these types of lawsuits. That said, Wired, like Fox News, loves to hype up their articles to get more readership. This is a non-issue for the most part. How many lawsuits are pending against Microsoft or Wal-Mart? Far more than against Apple! And most of those are non-issues as well. When you are at the top more people want to knock you down.

Billginthekeys
2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 21:10
Seriously, suing over a catchphrase... what has this world come to.

Moppie
2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 21:27
Hilarious! I guess you're an "idiot" if you believe Apple's marketing ads.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/12/apple-says-cust.html



No, your just another consumer.

Marketing is about hype, so is a lot of journalism.
Put them together and you get the above article.

OdiN1701
2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 22:28
They're right - anyone who believes all the lies in their ads is a fool.

I finally saw an Apple ad that I liked the other day.

The new macbook commercial where they are talking about it's more green features - still probably some marketing (like the 25% power of a lightbulb - what lightbulb? I don't think I've seen any 25W power adapters for macs. The least I've seen is a 60W, but anyway).

But at least they are trying to talk about their product instead of spew lies and not even mention what they are trying to sell.

OdiN1701
2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 22:30
Seriously, suing over a catchphrase... what has this world come to.

I disagree, but I'm for truth in advertising.

Calling it a "catchphrase" in order to be able to lie about a product doesn't sit well with me. It's not just Apple that does it either, every company is guilty just about. If you say something is "twice as fast for half the price" then it damned well better be - speed of this type of device is a HUGE selling point and if you can't deliver on something like that you shouldn't be able to say it.

I understand there are phrases and sayings and things about products that aren't meant to be taken 100% literally - that's just advertising. But this is a bit over the line IMO.

Billginthekeys
2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 22:33
But what does "twice as fast, half the price" have to do with people having reception issues? It uses the 3G network, which is twice as fast as the EDGE, and it is half the price the original iphone was, just because some people live in a place where AT&T doesn't have the best coverage doesn't mean they should sue for a TV ad.

p.s. it on apple's site under the iphone ad it says:
"* Comparisons between iPhone 3G (8GB) and first-generation iPhone (8GB) running on EDGE. Actual speeds vary by site conditions."
While I feel this ought to be obvious since cell phone reception on any network/phone is not the same everywhere, the fact that people can't be bothered to spend two seconds to run a google search, but can be bothered to hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit is more disturbing to me than vague advertising. Take redbull for instance, their catchphrase is "it gives you wings." Do you see anyone running of buildings after drinking one and then suing when they don't fly? No, because that would be absurd, a catchphrase is supposed to be just that, catchy and memorable, and while facts should not be falsified directly in it, some creative liberty has to be taken.


The new macbook commercial where they are talking about it's more green features - still probably some marketing (like the 25% power of a lightbulb - what lightbulb? I don't think I've seen any 25W power adapters for macs. The least I've seen is a 60W, but anyway).
According to this PDF it uses 14W powered on with the screen on full brightness.
http://images.apple.com/environment/resources/pdf/MacBook-Environmental-Report.pdf

chrisb321
2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 22:44
But what does "twice as fast, half the price" have to do with people having reception issues? It uses the 3G network, which is twice as fast as the EDGE, and it is half the price the original iphone was, just because some people live in a place where AT&T doesn't mean they get to sue for a TV ad.


The iPhone drops from 3G to EDGE a lot easier than most other 3G phones. I have seen this happen with friends that have the iPhone

MaxxuM
2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 23:08
They're right - anyone who believes all the lies in their ads is a fool.

I finally saw an Apple ad that I liked the other day.

The new macbook commercial where they are talking about it's more green features - still probably some marketing (like the 25% power of a lightbulb - what lightbulb? I don't think I've seen any 25W power adapters for macs. The least I've seen is a 60W, but anyway).

But at least they are trying to talk about their product instead of spew lies and not even mention what they are trying to sell.

What 'lie' exactly are you speaking of? If you are referring to Vista, it is called parody and should not be taken literally - most people know this. However, if there was slander I'm sure MS would not hesitate in correcting Apple in private or in court.

Using Kill-A-Watt I tested all my appliances due to rising electric costs and found my MacBook Pro (early 08 model) to use only 38w during average use and it peaked at 68w when everything was going. You have to remember that just because a power supply can supply 80w does not mean that it will constantly do so. You have to factor in USB devices, AirPort, Ethernet, signal strength, screen brightness, secondary monitor and so on. Each thing will add to the power consumption. The new MBPs are even better at conserving power than mine - but they have the potencial to suck even more power. The average incandesant light bulb is 60w I believe, which my MBP is well under.

If you have any doubts you can go check out why they won the EPEAT Gold status here http://www.epeat.net/.

OdiN1701
3rd of December 2008 (Wed), 10:49
But what does "twice as fast, half the price" have to do with people having reception issues? It uses the 3G network, which is twice as fast as the EDGE, and it is half the price the original iphone was, just because some people live in a place where AT&T doesn't have the best coverage doesn't mean they should sue for a TV ad.

p.s. it on apple's site under the iphone ad it says:
"* Comparisons between iPhone 3G (8GB) and first-generation iPhone (8GB) running on EDGE. Actual speeds vary by site conditions."
While I feel this ought to be obvious since cell phone reception on any network/phone is not the same everywhere, the fact that people can't be bothered to spend two seconds to run a google search, but can be bothered to hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit is more disturbing to me than vague advertising. Take redbull for instance, their catchphrase is "it gives you wings." Do you see anyone running of buildings after drinking one and then suing when they don't fly? No, because that would be absurd, a catchphrase is supposed to be just that, catchy and memorable, and while facts should not be falsified directly in it, some creative liberty has to be taken.


According to this PDF it uses 14W powered on with the screen on full brightness.
http://images.apple.com/environment/resources/pdf/MacBook-Environmental-Report.pdf

Comparing this to red bull is not quite accurate.

If they were meaning speed as in 3G only, well then okay that's fine. If meaning overall speed of the device, that would be different.

14W for the macbook is nice to know - I would prefer an independent test though. Notice that 14W is idle. Start using that CPU and GPU and that will increase. If their 25% power of a lightbulb is only achieved at idle, that doesn't really do anyone any good - that's like saying you can turn it on and let it sit, but you can't use it.

I am probably a bit jaded at marketing because I have dealt with a lot of marketing and PR people from a lot of computer/tech companies over the years - you get worn out on it after a while.

REXTi
4th of December 2008 (Thu), 09:05
^ you make valid points though.

dpastern
11th of December 2008 (Thu), 21:49
Apple has to be one of the most legally aggressive, dirty companies in existence. Microsoft is far better than Apple in this respect. I still hope that Psysoft beats the hell out of Apple - they are morally right. No software EULA should limit what hardware you can use it on. Governments need to step in here and start illegalising EULAs imho, they have gotten out of control.

Dave

Sean
11th of December 2008 (Thu), 22:28
Caveat emptor

Always follow that simple rule when buying stuff from other people.

MaxxuM
12th of December 2008 (Fri), 08:56
Apple has to be one of the most legally aggressive, dirty companies in existence. Microsoft is far better than Apple in this respect. I still hope that Psysoft beats the hell out of Apple - they are morally right. No software EULA should limit what hardware you can use it on. Governments need to step in here and start illegalising EULAs imho, they have gotten out of control.

Dave

Hu? I think the RIAA have everyone beat! Apple doesn't search the net for pirates and then send the cops to arrest them.

Apple is 'required' to defend their patents, licenses and agreements else they can loose them. If they did not defend their patents and licenses lawyers could challenge their right to keep them. Apple is just doing what is in its own best interest by protecting its property. I'm sure you'd do the same. Here is a 'tiny' list of who MS is going after for the same reasons:

MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. AMERICAN BEGONIA CORPORATION ET AL, 1:07-CV-21642
MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. COMPUTERS & LAPTOPS CENTER, INC. ET AL, 1:07-CV-21643
MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. COMPUGLOBE, INC. ET AL, 0:07-CV-60900
MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. KEN’S COMPUTERS INC. ET AL, 5:07-CV-00258
MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. PC TOUCH OF FLORIDA, CORP. ET AL, 1:07-CV-21644
MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. TAKE A BYTE COMPUTERS, INC. ET AL, 0:07-CV-60901
MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. CRUZ ET AL, 8:07-CV-01117
MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. GUNTHER, 3:07-CV-00596
MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. NETFX PRO, INC. ET AL, 3:07-CV-00597

You really don't know much about Microsoft. I've heard that MS has paid out more than 9 billion to date... Here is some reading:

US vs Microsoft (Antitrust) (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm)
XBOX Outages (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/05/microsoft-faces-class-action-lawsuit-due-to-xbox-live-outages/)
Europe Antitrust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_antitrust_case)
RealNetworks vs Microsoft (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39228653,00.htm)
New Mexico Lawsuit (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/aug04/08-03NewMexicoSettlementPR.mspx)
American Antitrust (DC + other states) (http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2003/10/29/198256/microsoft-settles-class-action-lawsuits.htm)

There are hundreds and hundreds of cases, but these are some of the more well known. Apple does not even come close to Microsoft's legal problems. In fact, the biggest problem Apple has is people hacking its OS to work on non-Apple machines and people complaining that iPod's are proprietary. It really gets my goat when people actually believe companies 'have' to provide them with what they 'want'. Many tech corporations sell proprietary packages to businesses/government and we don't hear people saying, "IBM deserves the shaft because of their AIX line of proprietary servers!" Almost all turn-key solutions are proprietary and rightly so. That is the only way to insure quality and if you don't like it then go buy something else.

BeritOlam
12th of December 2008 (Fri), 13:30
This kind of Apple marketing works for me:
http://www.collthings.co.uk/2008/07/apples-of-my-eye.html (NSFW)

bw! bw! bw! bw!

Edit: Also NSFW!

René

dpastern
13th of December 2008 (Sat), 17:35
MaxxuM I'm well aware of Microsoft's sordid history thanks. Those problems are because the US government failed to actually *do* anything about the problem - I'm positive the whole American legal system is corrupt (let's look at SCO vs IBM, SCO vs Novell as an example). Most modern legal systems cast blind eyes to huge corporations and their ilicit actions (Sony's rootkit as an example, HP's illegal spying on their employees/directors).

Apple is a nasty piece of work. The only time I've worked for an American company, and I tell you what, I'd rather go to hell than work for an American company again. Complete a$$holes. I have several workmates who also left who totally agree with me, for the EXACT same reasons.

Did you know that Apple didn't even invent the iPod? Some guy did 20 odd years ago, but couldn't afford to pay the costs associated with patents, oops I mean government briberies and so was *forced* to sell the idea off. Another reason why I have an absolute INTENSE dislike of patents. They are *bad* for the customer, they are *bad* for innovation and they are plain ANTI competitive.

Imagine if Microsoft said that only Windows could be installed on a pre-built system from one of the large manufacturers (Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM) and that it broke the EULA to install Windows on any systems made by small corner store computer stores. Imaging the uproar, and legal uproar that'd bring. Imagine what the DOJ would probably do. Let, Apple is allowed to do *exactly* the very same thing with OS X. Hypocrisy? Yes. Immoral? Yes. Illegal, for me, yes. EULAs should be made illegal imho.

Dave

PS my background is in FSF and GPL'd software.

BeritOlam
14th of December 2008 (Sun), 03:21
MaxxuM I'm well aware of Microsoft's sordid history thanks. Those problems are because the US government failed to actually *do* anything about the problem - I'm positive the whole American legal system is corrupt (let's look at SCO vs IBM, SCO vs Novell as an example). Most modern legal systems cast blind eyes to huge corporations and their ilicit actions (Sony's rootkit as an example, HP's illegal spying on their employees/directors).

Since when did Sony become an American company? Must have missed that one....

Apple is a nasty piece of work. The only time I've worked for an American company, and I tell you what, I'd rather go to hell than work for an American company again. Complete a$$holes. I have several workmates who also left who totally agree with me, for the EXACT same reasons.

Tell us what you really think, Dave. :mad: :mad:

I don't think we're really interested in another Mac vs. PC debate. I definitely think we're NOT interested in a Aussie vs. USA debate -- that's getting a bit far afield from this list.

And besides...we already know what Michael Phelps did to the Thorpedo's records!! ;)

How about those new Nikons?!?!?!!? :cool:

dpastern
14th of December 2008 (Sun), 06:49
I didn't say Sony was an American company. But they do operate in America, and they are subject to US laws. That was my point. I get annoyed when I see a mega corporation like Sony break computer crimes laws and get away with it, with no one from the government even remotely interested in punishing them. But some life cracker does the same bad things and gets 20 years in jail. One law for the rich and powerful, one for everyone else. I'm all for equality. See, I'm a simple bloke, really.

I don't have to like the American government, or American businesses. My perogerative. I don't mind American people, most of the Americans that I know are nice guys or gals.

Phelps is a freak in the pool, good on him. I was barracking for him actually, I *really* wanted to see him get all of those golds. He's a very hard working guy, and thoroughly deserves his success. Thorpes was good, Phelps was better. That's the way sports works (and should work).

Those new Nikons...D300 doesn't do much for me. D3x either (I don't need the mp), but the D700 and D3 are kicka$$. I'm still on the fence about moving to Nikon sometime in 2009, only because of 2 things - loss of money switching, by my estimate at least AU $8k, probably 10k now with the Aussie dollar doing a swan dive, and Nikon's lack of a mpe-65 competitor.

As to Apple, how retarded are the new Macbooks? No FireWire. Retarded. The mongrels just want you to spend another grand to get a MacBook Pro. No thanks. I'll settle for a 2nd hand prior generation macbook and stick it in Apple's face. I don't need the new fancy nvidia chipsets, if I want to game I'll do it on my PC ;-) I don't care much for the fancy smancy aluminium body either. Of course, maybe Apple is trying to tell us that the previous macbooks etc were all poorly built. Call me a cynicist.

I'll tell you a little story about a guy in Sydney, Australia. He had a company named Apple, was a little restaurant. He did OK, made some money. Had absolutely nothing to do with computers. What did Apple do? They sued the a$$ of him for using the word "apple". He couldn't afford expensive legal action, so rolled over and changed his business name. Nice isn't it? Really nice company. Not. Whichever retart (it's my favourite word of the moment) allowd them to register that as a trademark should be shot (the same goes for Windows). It's a common English dictionary word, and should not be allowed, in fact, as far as I understand it, common words are not meant to be trademarkable.

Dave