Slashdot Mirror
iPhone Web Claims Draw Governmental Rebuke in UK
Wills writes "Apple has been running an iPhone ad saying 'all parts of the internet are on the iPhone', but it had to be withdrawn after Britain's Advertising Standards Authority ruled that it gave 'a misleading impression of the internet capabilities of the iPhone' because the iPhone cannot access Flash or Java – features that are essential to some websites. This raises an interesting issue of where do you draw the line between essential and non-essential features of websites. What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"
The ad repeatedly says you can get the whole 'internet', not just the web.
Apple, I want gopher dammit!
"the iPhone cannot access Flash or Java - features that are essential to some horribly designed websites."
Fixed.
When I hear the phrase..
'all parts of the internet are on the iPhone',
I tend to think I can access just about anything. I think expecting java or flash to work isn't asking much yet that's not available so I do think saying 'all' is a little misleading.
I think a simple re-wording would get their point across and yet not be invalid.
Knowing nothing about iPhone I have to ask, can it run a newsreader client? p2p client?
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Because it is markedly less clumsy than all other phones out there?
You know, improving state of the art?
GPL Deconstructed
It doesn't really raise that issue as the ad didn't say it gives access to "essential" parts of the internet. It said it gives access to *all* parts of the internet.
The cake is a pie
From the summary: "Apple has been running an iPhone ad saying 'all parts of the internet are on the iPhone'"
followed by: "This raises an interesting issue of where do you draw the line between essential and non-essential features of websites. What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"
What the hell does that have to do with anything ? I didn't RTFA but it sounds like the problem is that they said that ALL parts of the Internet are accessible via the iPhone ... not "all but flash and java" ... which has nothing to do with "essential vs. non-essential", what-so-ever. Sounds like a simple case of false advertising to me.
It's probably false advertising (flash and java are part of the web and they aren't accessible from an iphone). It may or may not be the governments place to step in depending on how they deal with television regulation. Does the FCC handle false advertising at all? How is false advertising handled other than by consumer law suits?
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
It's not "the government" deciding what the Internet is.
For a start the ASA are an independant organisation, their remit is to ensure advertisers don't tell porkies in their ads. They usually work after complaints from the public.
In this case Apple has mislead the public. Many consumers use Flash and Java sites and deem these to be "the Internet".
the web != the Internet
Holy non sequitur batman!
Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!
Considering how obnoxiously ubiquitous Flash has become on the web - and how many sites you can't view without the sexiest version of Flash - it is no surprise that people are angry that the iPhone doesn't do Flash.
But on the other hand, there are plenty of other configurations that don't do Flash, either. Really most Linux distros don't do Flash to the satisfaction of plenty of Flash-only sites. And of course Flash doesn't care about people using Lynx or anyone with impairments that makes it difficult to use a mouse.
However, as much as I'm not an Apple fan myself, I would say really the fault likely belongs more to Adobe. They have chosen to develop Flash in a way that allows third-rate web designers to use it instead of genuine code, while simultaneously giving a big middle finger to those of us who don't meet the compatibility requirements for the newest version.
Perhaps with some luck, some significant good could come from the iPhone - people will start writing more non-flash sites (or at least non-flash versions for those of us who cannot or will not use flash).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"
Should Apple?
After all, it can't run Silverlight or look at the Democratic convention videos.
Plus it doesn't do mouseover/hover/tooltips -- pretty basic javascript. It's a cool device, but I find I have to re-engineer my websites to fit the iPhone's capabilities. Sure, the web may morph so that it will fit onto the iPhone, but for now I agree with the original article.
I couldent care less about flash and java, more media support would have been nice.
(I have an iphone, what it does well it does very well, what it does badly it does very badly. Typical Apple and typical mobile in my opinion).
Oh and the ads ARE misleading.
Well, Bart, your uncle Arthur used to have a saying: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
Source:http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/about/
The iPhone App store better get cracking on those Archie, Gopher and WAIS clients.
That isn't raised unless you think it's quite alright to claim that a Prius is an "all terrain vehicle" (as long as 'all terrain' doesn't include deep mud, steep unpaved hills and stuff like that).
This isn't about the government making the decision that "this or that is an essential feature of websites", it's about Manufacturer A claiming that Product B can do Feature C when obviously it cannot do Feature C but only a subset of that feature.
Lying to sell your products is not allowed in the UK. It may be in the US or elsewhere in the world, but this is about the UK. And in the UK they have this pesky law about not claiming your product can do things that it cannot do.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
The Advertising Standards Authority is an independent advertising industry body; it is not government funded, and is not a 'government authority'.
The article summary states:
"This raises an interesting issue of where do you draw the line between essential and non-essential features of websites. What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"
I'd argue that this situation really has NOTHING to do with that! The only "issue" here is really simple and straightforward. Is it ok to advertise that your product is capable of accessing ALL parts of the Internet, when in reality, it isn't?
All Apple has to do to correct this commercial and "clear" it for viewing is to qualify their statement in some fashion, or maybe re-phrase it. What's so bad about saying "The iPhone is capable of accessing MOST parts of the Internet.", or flashing some small text at the bottom of the screen with as asterisk in front, saying "Some 3rd. party Internet technologies such as Adobe Flash and Java not included."?
"All parts of the Internet are on the iPhone" could be construed to mean "The entire Internet is on the iPhone." Not only does this mislead the buyer into assuming that their iPhone has enough storage to hold the entire Internet, but implies that bricking an iPhone would result in the bricking of the entire Internet and destruction of the global economy.
I don't see this as government interference as much as a continued suspicious advertising approach by Apple. I questioned their strategy after they ran those commercials that suggested their computers were free of security issues. Am I the only one who's been concerned about Apple's misleading advertising before now?
I didn't hear or see the word "all" the internet anywhere in the ads. "...Just the internet...on your phone". Am I seeing the same ad as all of you are?
What?
Please point us to Ubuntu's internet advertising campaign.
You do realise what this story is about don't you?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
This raises an interesting issue of where do you draw the line between essential and non-essential features of websites. What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"
Or perhaps we should leave it up to corporations to make the decision according to whatever criteria they see fit, no matter how misleading the result may be. "I have here a coffee mug. It gets all of the internet [for my particular definition of all of the internet]".
Let's be clear, this isn't a matter of the government dictating what constitutes the internet, this is the judiciary making a ruling as to what the current common perception of the internet is. It is not laying down a definition, but rather making a judgement (as judges are expected to do) as to whether Apple's particular idiosyncratic definition of "all of the internet" differs sufficiently from the current average public definition so as to be misleading. We're not even talking about "essential internet" here; the Apple ad said "all".
In short, this isn't the government dictating what the web should look like, but rather the people. If the judge believed that most average UK citizen could reasonably interpret "all of the internet" to mean the same as what Apple apparently does, there would be no conflict.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Here's one instance where I generally don't mind the government being a little heavy-handed. I wish that the US government would go after every company that advertises an 'unlimited' plan that has a cap. If you're going to use words like 'unlimited' and 'all' you should probably mean it. 'Unlimited' is probably easier to sort out than 'all' since there are plenty of fringe technologies in regards to the internet, but I think flash and java is widely used enough to draw the line.
Ideally I wish that the government wouldn't have to do this since it does spend taxpayer dollars and everyone would be a good consumer and do some research or avoid companies that have a tendency to flavor their advertising to make it seem as though you're getting something that you're really not. Of course, most of the world is horrible at taking the initiative to check into what they'll be buying. It's probably not quite so bad when it happens with an iPhone, but if people are advertising a $300 cure for cancer, there are enough stupid people who'd fall for it without even thinking to check the treatment out at all.
I suppose we could all write letters to the company and anyone who's a shareholder could express their distaste towards dishonest advertising, but the next Slashdot article will probably be posted soon and it might be interesting; and I might be able to get first post! I guess I'd better not bother with that letter, writing my government representatives, leave my comments on a consumer information website, or anything else that might help to make an actual difference.
What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?
"What the web should look like" is irrelevant to the question of the iPhone's capabilities. The fact is that a non-trivial chunk of the web *does* use Flash and Java, so the question of whether ignoring that constitutes misrepresenting the iPhone's capabilities is indeed a question the Advertising Standards Authority should answer.
"Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?""
The Advertising Standards Authority is not a government authority. It was established by the Advertising Association, a trade body representing (from the wiki) "advertisers, agencies, media and support services in the United Kingdom" The ASA's introduction on wikipedia reads:
This is how most media watchdogs in the UK are run. Important facts like this should really be checked before making very flawed summaries. For if Apple wanted, they could simply ignore the ASA's ruling. Most carriers would probably refuse to run the adverts, but it's most certainly not a "government decision".
This raises an interesting issue of where do you draw the line between essential and non-essential features of websites.
Which is exactly the wrong question here. The ad actually stated "Which is why all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone". It doesn't say all "essential" parts of "The Internet" are on the iPhone.
It's very clear this is a misleading statement, as the iPhone can't possibly support everything on "The Internet". The most obvious retort is that with the "The Internet" doesn't consist of just websites accessible via a browser (or a few apps packaged into the iPhone). The statement is simply patently ridiculous, as "The Internet" isn't really a tangible thing, but rather a means of communication that's changing on a daily basis. It would be impossible for any single device to do that.
AccountKiller
When you have web sites like target that are exclusively on flash, flash becomes an essential part of the web.
Like it or not, there are plenty of web sites that have no content without flash installed.
Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?
To the extent that the government has the job of enforcing the truth in advertising laws, yes, they should be making that decision.
The navel-gazing questions about "What is the internet?" and other techno-philosophical issues probably shouldn't be made by the government, at least not as laws or restrictions. But to the extent that "we" (the more-or-less civilized world) are a society of laws, sometimes those questions will have to be answered -- even if unsatisfactorily -- in order for the legal/governance system to work.
I'll admit to being biased myself -- I think advertising is generally too misleading and given too wide of a berth to make claims that sound like factual claims but in reality are too murky to have their truthfulness tested.
Here is an iPhone user who hates the design. Not the design of the phone itself but of the service plan. It turns out that the iPhone sucks if you don't live in the U.S.
What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?
Britain's government isn't making the decision as to what the web looks like. It is saying that Apple's claims are false advertising.
I wish my government had such strict rules about advertising. Here in the US a consumer can't complain, only the advertiser's competitor. So if all the car companies are claiming a hundred miles per gallon, none complain, and the customer is screwed.
Apple should change their ads. Simple enough, "all HTML web sites". It has the aded benefit of not having customers complain that their favorite flash sites won't work.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
"All parts of the Internet" should mean all reachable machines over all reachable ports. Whether it has a web browser or not is immaterial - if I can "telnet xyz port nnn" for any legal xyz and nnn, then it can access all parts of the Internet, technically speaking.
Actually, it's nice for a government to use human common sense over a hypertechnical reading now and then.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
That's not honest. Don't know the truth in advertising laws in the UK but, there is a lot of the entire internet that you can't get on the iPhone. No Shockwave, WMV, Flash, etc, etc. It simply can not display all of what is on the internet, in fact, I doubt there is a computer that can.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
"This raises an interesting issue of where do you draw the line between essential and non-essential features of websites. What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"
How the fuck did you come up with that? what does that have anything do with the iPhone ad (either it's misleading or not)?
Let me know when the non-Flash version of Homestar Runner is up.
It turns out that it's not much different from the iPhone in the US, then.
Think different
Personally, I think it should look like a bunch of HTML 1.0 pages with colorless background and a few heading styles used sparsely. A few images here and there and post tags for ordering stuff are okay, too. Anything above that is just needless crap.
Yes, it's a good idea to enforce this style. The NATO should have the power to do that.
Roaming charges in Europe are a problem in general, not just the iPhone.
Sometimes people get confused and think that Internet is the web and that the web is the Internet.
The web sits on top of the Internet and is a part of the Internet.
But the Internet is much bigger than just the web.
The web is just a part of the internet.
I haven't seen an iPhone with Gopher or WAIS yet. Until I can access these critical parts of the Internet, I cannot use the iPhone.
The iPhone can access flash and java content perfectly.
That it can't render it is a different argument entirely. It's particularly specious for proprietary shite like Flash which subverts the whole paradigm of the web being built around open protocols and formats.
Jeez, I suppose my Linux/PPC box can't access "all of the web" because fscking Adobe haven't been gracious enough to release Flash for it yet, and Gnash doesn't work perfectly on all flash "content".[0]
Utter bollocks.
[0] "content" in used here its loosest possible sense, which includes "effectively content-free content".
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
It's only misleading if you consider the world wide web to include sites that aren't available without third-party plugins. If so, then what about ActiveX plugins, and Silverlight, and Quicktime VRML, and Acrobat, and SafeTCL, and Processing, and Silverlight, and Firefox extensions, and Lively, and plugins that require SVGA or larger displays... what's "the whole internet" anyway?
'nuff said.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
From the summary: "What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"
Where the hell in the article does it even HINT at the possibility of government authorities making the decision of what constitutes what the web should look like? Oh, you're right, IT DOESN'T. This article is about a government agency, tasked with the job of policing advertising, doing its job. Nothing more, nothing less. Had timothy or Wills (story submitter) bothered to read the story, both would have seen that the second sentence perfectly sums up the entire issue.
"The Advertising Standards Authority said that a TV promotion had falsely suggested that iPhone users would have unfettered access to the entire internet over their mobile."
It's a feature!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What confuses me is I know someone with an iTouch, who claims he could play Flash games on the web via WIFI...
You mean he hates the data plans and the roaming charges, and not the actual phone.
So you really need to say; Here is an iPhone user who hates the roaming charges. Not the design of the phone itself but of the service plan. It turns out that the roaming charges suck if you don't live in the US.
Anything else is dishonest.
GPL Deconstructed
If it doesn't work in lynx then it stinks.
I lack java and flash on my main browser yet I can still function just fine on the internet.
http://www.xpurple.com
It's the whole internet because Steve Jobs said so. Obviously flash and java aren't part of the internet.
These are all basic protocols that I use everyday with my desktop. I don't have an iPhone, but I'm under the impression that none of them work with the iPhone.
What do java and Flash have to do with the internet? Now individual programs are considered part of 'the internet'? What if my computer can't run Real Player? Am I no longer on 'the internet'? Sounds like more government bureaucrats that have no idea about the basics of modern technology.
Essential web services?
ftp?
gopher?
ssh?
IRC?
NNTP?
SMTP?
Here is a better idea, if only there was a law that required any company doing commerce to design their "store/web-site" so that entry, egress, navigation, and information were easy to access by EVERYBODY regardless of physical ability. Or wait there is. ADA (US-Centric I know, but I am making a point so bear with me) states that even web-sites should use correct tags so Blind people can still use them. Text-to-speech an brail readers only work when there isn't crap in the way.
Heaven forbid an option to view/use the WWW in plain-text would exist. The only purpose all this eye-candy serves is to advertise something.
Proposal: make every web-design student use a text-only browser (like lynx) for the first 2 years of school.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Whilst the summary's nothing more than a troll (as everyone else has said, the ASA isn't a government authority) there is at least one area where it mandates something in this area - website presentation. It's in the "Disability Discrimination Act 1995":
(1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled personâ"
(a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;
The link to the text of the law is here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/ukpga_19950050_en_4#pt3-pb1-l1g19
It's usually interpreted as forcing web sites to be compatible with screen readers (used by the blind) and high contrast / large character screen modes (used by the partially sighted).
It'd be interesting to see what would happen if someone who relied on a screen reader decided to take a service provider who didn't provide an accessible mode to court. If it meant that more sites had a more easily accessible "just the text, please" mode I'd welcome it.
It's worth mentioning that Adobe apparently do have a go at making Flash content potentially accessible:
http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/flashplayer/
The ASA aren't 'government bureaucrats.' TFA is as misleading as the Apple ad.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Surprised this hasn't been brought up yet...
Does anyone know if UK law has puffery defined in its trade laws, and if so, the extent (if any) allowed?
I presume that puffery protected Apple from similar problems here in the States.
Well, if it's "essential" then it's part of a w3c-like standards body and implementable anywhere, if it's extra stuff then it's some extension that can be only used on a certain platform. It would be pretty stupid to restrict something essential to just a handful of controlled implementations that aren't portable.
Not only that, but apple's claims for 'fast' speed are also false and debunked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaN1Nz1Dyls
iPhone problems are with advertising, not the web.
ASA is not government!
"...where to draw the line..." -- there's no place for line drawing here except in the mind of the poster.
I think that the problem here stems from what Apple thought people would interpret the phrase "whole internet" to mean. They probably thought it implied that you get the regular internet, not the red-headed step child of the internet that most web enabled phones get (Not talking about most smart phones here). That claim is fairly well founded. The group that made the ruling (not the government according to some here) had a different interpretation of that line. The question is which was is more acurate for the most people (us geeks not withstanding).
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
What if my computer can't run Real Player?
The you can't claim that it can access ALL the internet. There's probably no device that can claim to access all the internet (both it's protocols & content).
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Apple should have learned from the best misleading advertisements, and restated the iPhone as having "virtually all the internet"
One essential role the government has in protecting a free market is enforcing truth in advertising. Left to just the buyers and sellers, the market fills with fly-by-night liars who sell a boatload of lies before they can be caught, then reappear under another name later to sell some more lies.
Instead, civilized societies of people band together to protect ourselves by making a government that enforces laws requiring substantial public statements to be true.
--
make install -not war
I'm as quick to slam the government as anyone, but I did not get the impression that big brother is specifying what parts of the internet are essential. Rather, they're saying that a reasonable person would consider these features essential, a measuring stick used by governments for everything from boundry disputes to self defense.
In this particular case, I happen to agree. Without flash and java, a lot of sites will not work. A reasonable person would not consider that "all parts of the internet". Apple's marketing got carried away, and they deserved to be spanked.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
131 000 hits
Microsoft ? 72 400
>Presenting content in a way that requires Flash or Java is a choice, not a requirement.
Well, that is only true for certain types of data. Say, for example, I want to display 3d models of protein crystal structures along with other data relating to the chemical.
I can do it using the JMol applet assuming my browser supports Java.
You think that could be done with Ajax?
Just because a few retarded people have misused the technology doesn't mean it can't be used in a worthwhile way by other people.
So, in my example website, iPhone users get to see the data but not the 3d molecules. ie, they don't get "the full internet".
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
"fiannaFail" - Is that like a badge of honor? Everyone knows "Fianna Fail" is the gaelic for corruption: Charles Haughey and Bertie Ahern
Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?
No.
Why is the question even in TFA? There is not a single reason why the government should have any say about the web.
automatically makes it 'non-essential'. No one in their right mind makes a flash-only website. *Adding* some flash content, where flash is appropriate (video, animations), is fine. But using flash for the basic navigation of your site is just INSANE. Anyone that would argue otherwise is either INSANE or an UTTER MORON.
I'm *glad* my iphone doesnt have flash, and if Apple ever does decide to add support for it, I will find a way to disable it. I like that Youtube had to let their videos *out* of flash format. I'm glad that people wanting to develop for the iphone are *forced* to not use flash.
what a waste of space including rs-232...?? we can afford to go to space,
but we need an rs-232 port just in case we can't afford the newer USB peripherals!?!?
maybe we should include PS/2 ports in case they cant afford a USB keyboard & mouse??
imho, the ports should be:
- DVI video
- USB 2.0
- Ethernet
- Compact Flash
- Audio In/Out
- fit more RAM where you wasted space for RS-232
that's it.
Flash has become the 4-cyl Hummer of the information superhighway. I don't want to sit behind a lumbering behemoth. I want info. I want it at a reasonable speed. I don't want to head over to some site and find out that it takes several minutes to get through what they want you to see and are patting themselves on the back for creating. speedtest.net is a great example of this. And very ironical. A minute of gratuitous painfully slow flash animation to get to run a 10 sec test of my connection speed. Just give me a list and let me click it.
If Flash went away tomorrow it would be no great loss and speed up the web user experience significantly.
Java however is a puzzlement for iPhone. My low-end Motorola L2 can run it - Apple should have had this done eons ago.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The better concern should be why pick on Apple when some much other false advertising get through the system...
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
You are absolutely right in that the government should protect consumers and that their demand to withdraw the ad was justified.
However, the question raised in the article, and the question I responded to was...
What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"
And I still believe that No, the government does not have the right to make that decision.
On a side note, here in Austria comparative advertisement (which is often misleading) is allowed [1]. And I've heard/seen a lot of advertising which is based on false statements or otherwise misleading information.
[1] http://www.fachverbandwerbung.at/de-service-faq.shtml#5 (in German, unfortunately)
Turns out it doesn't have enough tubes.
"All parts of the Internet" includes a huge array of technologies, some of which a phone can't handle, or Apple probably wouldn't put on their platform (Silverlight?). Governments should be in the business of making sure that businesses are not allowed to mislead the public. Businesses certainly aren't going to police their own advertising for truth.
Who cares if it's "essential" content? That word is completely subjective. Apple said someone could access any kind of media put on the Internet via iPhone - all parts of the Internet. If that iPhone user can't access it, or obtain a player/runtime to access it by legal means, then the statement is not true.
As somebody that doesn't have a working flash player on his computer, not having flash significantly limits access to the web. Java not so much, but it does limit things.
If they're not going to provide a flash or java plug in they have absolutely no right to say that all parts of the internet are accessible. Those two plug ins are sufficiently widespread that you're not getting access to a fairly significant portion of the web.
Some of the sites that one would want to go to like take out restaurants don't have a non-flash part of the site. Sure they really should, but realistically if random sites aren't going to work because a mainstream plug in isn't available, that's hardly access to the whole web.
I was always bothered by the Iphone commercial in the states that said something along the lines of "This is not a watered down internet, no, this is the real full internet" for this same reason.
Thanks, Apple. I was not under the impression that internet = WWW, but now I know I was wrong. Apple would never mislead me with their marketing claims, would they?
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
speedtest.net is a great example of these. A very ironical. A minute of gratuitous painfully slow flash animation to get to run a 10 sec test of my connection speed.
Holy fuck, how slow is your computer that speedtest.net takes a minute to load? I'm on a 1 GHz Pentium M, and from the moment the site begins loading to the point that I can start a test is about 10 seconds. And most of that is simply due to the animations they feel like running; without any transitions, I'd guess that the Flash app might take two or three seconds to get to a usable state. Are you sure that you're not the person with a "4-cyl Hummer" here?
What's actually ironic here is that you berate Flash but apparently don't have a problem with Java. Well, maybe that's more hyprocritic than ironic.
I am pretty sure the UK government has no such right. As others have pointed out, the Advertising Standards Authority is an independent industry body, not part of the government.
I know this will burn my karma into the ground, but what the hell:
The troll comment by the OP regarding the government regulation is typical Apple fanboy crap. The reality distortion field is fading here, so rather than face the (obvious) flaws of the iphone -- this time highlighted by Apple's very own ad -- he attempts to shift the story over to an anti-government wah wah story. It's really kind of sad how desperate he is to point blame away from the perfect little iProduct and its organization.
...what the web should be, we'd be back in web 0.25 days in about five year. If you let private industry decide, the entire web will be one big bill board (which it very nearly is). Find the middle ground folks...
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
It's enforcing fair trade descriptions laws. The web includes a LOT of flash etc. The iPhone claims all the web can be on there, it cannot. Apple knows it. It's a false claim. Now if it was some piddling little thing that wasn't supported it'd be no big deal, but this is a major de facto standard so you you cannot legally make an advertising claim like that in the UK. Consumers are protected from false claims there without having to resort to a court. I wish it were so in the USA.
Either you are joking, or you've never actually used the site. It is not the non-flash version of Homestar Runner. It is a podcast of the most recent strongbad email, starting in 2007. You can't get to any of the shorts, full cartoons, games or the other rest of the Homestar Runner website. And it was done by converting the flash files movies, which took away all the interactivity that is a big part of the emails.
Plus it was discontinued in January.
This is starting to remind me of the logic of Apple claiming the iPhone can access the whole internet...
iPhone -> VNC Client -> Flash!
or even
iPhone -> ssh Client -> Gopher!
Come on guys you just need to Think Different (tm)
Britain's Advertising Standards Authority also forbids advertising related to the occult. Coincidence? I think not.
From the code:
(2) For these purposes, 'the occult' includes, for example, invocation of spirits, tarot and attempts to contact the dead or demons. (No, I'm not making that up; see the pdf, section 10.3.)
That's all the proof I need.
It's all well and good to say they shouldn't have to include telnet, irc and some weird unknown plugins that are probably just spyware but Flash is a very big part of the web and to a lesser extend so is Java. So I would the ruling is spot on. Someone needs to let Apple know that if they want to be software Nazis then they lose the freedom to make such claims.
mac, current leopard. 30 sec gratuituous animation on a g4 1.33, 16 sec on a g5. just to draw a map. with worthless animations.
why use flash at all just to let me choose a test server from a 90% static list off a database?
when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
my problem with java is much less, as it scales down to something like my simple L2 and scales up to run its parts of neooffice quite well.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Seems like Apple's iPhone latest speed claims might be rather off as well.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Not out of the box, but the iPhone has the hardware and software capability to access all of the web. Whether it does with the default software is irrelevant. Anyone with a jailbroken phone probably knows that typing 'ifconfig' on it will give you a internet-routable IP address on the cell interface.
So it's as real of a internet connection as your computer at home, just not with all the proper software.
As much as I hate crap advertising, they never claimed that it could render Flash or Java, and the capabilities of the hardware and underlying OS allow the possibility.
Methinks there are more important and misleading ads to fry.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
why do supposedly intelligent fellow overhype a clumsy device?
Probably because, unlike you, they've used it.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Let them claim whatever they want to.
By extension, are you saying that any browser which is unable to render ActiveX content is unable to "access the web" and should be prohibited from making such claims?
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
This is really non-news. Consumer watchdogs are doing their job to stop ads that two users (perhaps Nokia and Microsoft? : P ) complained about. So Apple will run its shit-ton of iPhone ads without that one in the UK. No lawsuits involved, absolutely no impact on anything.
What will happen however, and is already underway, is that the iPhone is cracking open the prospect for real mobile websites that don't require Flash or Java. Previously, everything on the web was moving toward WAP-type mobile junksites, where you could barely do anything on the site, or alternatively Flash-heavy rubbish sites designed for users on a 10-megabit cable Internet feed.
Apple has upgraded "mobile web" to mean modern web standards-compliant sites that load fast. It has shared its own advances with Nokia (in both directions, as Nokia contributed to WebKit before the iPhone was even released), and has pushed hardware that is having a real effect on the market. That in turn will help FOSS devices, including Google's WebKit-using Android platform. It has also allowed Firefox to get a foot in the door with a mobile version based on the same standards but a unique implementation.
Apple redefined mobile web and the consumer web itself. It has already forced Adobe to support H.264 rather than its proprietary Flash video codec, opening the market for, among others, Linux users who can write their own H.264 based on the standards but can't as easily implement the undocumented, moving target of the Flash specification. Of course, Apple is doing it for the Mac; Linux just benefits from it.
Mobile web now means "fast loading pages," and that fact that Apple has absorbed nearly instant dominance over the mobile web means Apple is choosing to lead in an open market where competition and interoperability work to create better products. Apple could have developed a proprietary "Cocoa Web" that forced all of the iPhone's market power into a monopolized model that only benefitted Apple (in the model of IE), but did not.
Incidentally, Engadget recently reported that 95% of its mobile traffic was from the iPhone. Engadget is frequently critical of the iPhone and its readers and comments are not predominantly Apple-lovers by any means. That's market power, and Apple is using it "righteously."
This also benefits desktop users, particularly those with less than a fat pipes. It also puts a bullet phone in the forehead of Flash, Silverlight and other attempts to convert the web from open HTML to some closed, proprietary binary that requires a license from Adobe/Microsoft to use. Apple is using its market power with the iPod/iPhone to open standards; Microsoft used its PC market power to shut down competition and take over markets that it then either threw away as not profitable enough or sat on without adding any further innovation (such as the web browser, which flatlined for years from IE 5 to IE 7 because there was no competition).
That's why I laugh in the face of morons who try to say Apple = Microsoft.
Ah, my favorite Steve Jobs lover, Daniel Eran. Yes Daniel, Apple is open and everyone else is close. Apple is "righteous" and Safari and iPhone are going to lead us in to a desktop-less and laptop-less utopia where everyone will type on 3" touchscreens. You're the biggest douchebag in the world.
If you include third-party applications, the phone really can access the entire internet.
Please show me a SIP videophone that works while not near WiFi.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Actually, the ASA are there to protect the general populace from misleading advertising.
If anything, I wish they would censor more advertising than they currently do - far too many corporate lies make it onto TV and cinema screens, and into colour spreads in magazines.
Sorry, but if Apple is selling the concept that the iPhone can give users a similar but portable experience of the web like they get on their PCs, then the ASA is perfectly correct pulling Apple up over those claims.
Just because Apple does it does not make in excusable.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
The ASA is not a governmental body. It is independent.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
I would, if I were a lawyer, suggest that since the iPhone has access to IP space, that indeed they do have access to the "whole" internet.
TCP or UDP are connection protocols, which I also suspect also are complete.
This means, that if you want gopher, write your own client.
This is reason why Governments shouldn't get involved in such things. Too ambiguous.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Yes, Flash and Java have become popular but they are still plugins. By the UK's logic, iPhones need to support all plugins as well? What about SilverLight or ? Apple provides access to entire internet just some doesn't render. :-)
First post! (just in case I am...)
What will happen however, and is already underway, is that the iPhone is cracking open the prospect for real mobile websites that don't require Flash or Java. Previously, everything on the web was moving toward WAP-type mobile junksites, where you could barely do anything on the site, or alternatively Flash-heavy rubbish sites designed for users on a 10-megabit cable Internet feed.
Mobiles moved away from WAP years ago. It's already been the case that for years, any bog standard phone can access ordinary webpages, and smart phones will do so just as good as on an Iphone.
(Now sure, it's true that it's annoying that most normal webpages are still not designed with mobile devices in mind, and hopefully that will change as mobile usage becomes more common, but that's got nothing to do with an Iphone.)
That's why this ruling is important - the other phone manufacturers have played by the rules, and not mislead the consumer into thinking you can have full web functionality on a phone, so why should Apple get an unfair advantage by misleading consumers?
Apple redefined mobile web and the consumer web itself
Fap fap Apple fap fap Apple fap fap Apple fap Apple fap Apple Fapple Fapple Fapple Sploooooooge.
Jesus Pontificating Christ - can't all you Apple Fanbois go be gay together on some other web site?
The iPhone is a poorly designed, vastly overpriced peice of crap as a portable web browsing appliance. At least with 3G it's not a dog-slow poorly designed, vastly overpriced peice of crap, but that's hardly anything to cream your jeans over.
This comment was tagged "overrated". Yesterday a comment I made was tagged "flamebait". And not long prior another of mine was tagged "overrated" as well (without having been moderated up at all).
Or perhaps someone with something against me has pulled moderator points once or twice in the past two weeks?
And yes, I acknowledge this comment deserves to be tagged "offtopic". But it had to be said.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
With all the messages here so far, I'm surprised that nobody has posted the obvious auto analogy:
It's like an auto ad that says the car can drive anywhere on the public street system. So you buy it, and discover that it has a sensor that determines the road-surface type, and the engine turns off if you try to drive on any surface except asphalt. The car company excuses their misleading ad by saying that nobody needs to drive on concrete or (God forbid) gravel. You should be able to get anywhere you need to go on asphalt.
Now aren't you ashamed of not posting this analogy first?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Until the recent 3G launch and the 2.0 firmware upgrade you could not even save files to the device without installing a 3rd party 'hack'.
This is something that has been possible for a long time on wireless devices but was crippled by Apple. During this time they were claiming the same things regarding its capabilities ala the Internet. "We do it all"
And now, how about downloading and installing an application outside of the App Store? oh right not possible without another 'hack'.
Therefore, who cares about flash etc, you can't even perform simple protocols on the device.
The better concern should be why pick on Apple when some much other false advertising get through the system...
The ASA only investigate when someone complains (usually a competitor, but could be anyone).
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
The whole thing is stupid. Does "full web functionality" mean having every single piece of crapware required to make every single web site function? I doubt there are many computers that have "full web functionality" in that sense. As for asking the British authorities to decide on what counts, give me a break.
And if we were to pay attention to the actual meaning of the words, then a reasonable argument could be made that including flash decreases the functionality of the web in many ways. I personally hate it, not because the technology itself is rubbish, but because site designers cover their sites with useless flash shit.
If flash is so functional, why is flashblock so popular?
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
I'll translate that from Fanboy to English.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
This wasn't a government authority though. It was the Advertising Standards Authority.
And yes, they pull advertisments all the time, even for stupid resons.
The ASA can basically make sure that it isn't advertised anywhere where it's going to matter.
I'll translate that from Fanboy to English.
because they are trying to justify spending A$700 on a crippled device
That's not Fanboy to English. It's Fanboy-A to Fanboy-B. You're behaving the same way you're complaining about other people behaving.
This level of over-zealous silliness amazes me. "The iPhone doesn't support Flash just like every other cell phone on the planet. That means it's crippled!" It's sad to see people waiting in line for hours to get an iPhone. It isn't much less sad to see people devoting energy to a propaganda'esque movement to convince people that have never used one that an iPhone is simply a $200 lump of plastic with a 2 year committment.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
The wording itself is wrong... they claim 'all parts of the internet are on the iPhone'. This is a misuse of the word internet, because they clearly mean web. Does the iPhone do:
irc
ssh
rdp
gopher
etc...
Is flashblock really that popular? Sure, you hear about it here, but I'm not sure I know anybody in real life who uses it.
This case has nothing to do with government deciding what should and shouldn't be considered essential elements of a website or not. Rather, they are simply making a "truth in advertising" judgment, which is rather easy against Apple's claim that begins with "all parts...". It only takes a single excluded element to make that claim false, so Apple's just silly for wording their ad that way. They should have seen this suit coming with such a bogus claim in their ad.
-=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-
Incidentally, Engadget recently reported that 95% of its mobile traffic was from the iPhone. Engadget is frequently critical of the iPhone and its readers and comments are not predominantly Apple-lovers by any means. That's market power, and Apple is using it "righteously."
I don't mean to be rude, but are you on crack? Engadget is *heavily* pro-iphone. I had my posting account banned for pointing out that a chinese player might not have had wifi support, but it did have DivX support so it was a bit unfair that they had compared it to the iphone and said "Why would anyone buy this when the Iphone is only 100 dollars more?" -- even though the product hadn't even been oficially released, didn't require a 75 dollar a month 2 year contract, hadn't been actually reviewed by anyone, and had clearly superior *media player* features when compared to the iphone.
What was wrong with it? It looked vaugely like an iphone, but it wasn't one. Ignoring its vastly cheaper price and superior features when viewed strictly from the perspective of a media player -- It wasn't an iphone, and thus was only deserving of scorn. They trashed it without ever even seeing the player anywhere but in a promotional video. And that was hardly an isolated incident -- many, many, many devices have run afoul of engadget simply for the cardinal sin of "not being an iphone". Apparently any device that isn't an iphone, is bad.
How on earth could you have come to the conclusion that Engadget has ever been "fair and balanced" when talking about the iphone?
P.S. I own an iphone, btw. I'm well aware of it's many good points, but that doesn't mean I'm not aware of its flaws too. The point I'm making here is that any website that bans users for pointing those flaws out probably isn't very neutral.
Please explain to which product I am being fanboyish to?
Nothing?
Then its not fanboyism, sorry but all our contestants leave today with our signature gold plated pendant and board game from Crown and Andrews.
No, unlike a fanboy I will actually backup what I claim. I am fairly apathetic when it comes to phone brands (I wont buy Sony because of the way Sony acts) but anyone else is fair game (Nokia, Siemens, Motorola, LG, Samsung, Sagem and so on) I don't claim loyalty to any particular brand but I do want value for money, my last phone was a sagem My-c5 which was well worth the A$100 I paid for it. My current phone is a Nokia 6500 Classic I paid A$400 for my Nokia unlocked and am still out on weather it was value but I've only owned the device for 5 months.
When I do indulge in fanboyism I generally attach a decent reason to it and it doesn't prevent me from buying competing products or lead me to attack anyone who disagrees with me. For example I am an AMD fanboy, I like AMD because 1, the K9's were far superior to the P4's 2. they keep Intel honest, without competition Intel could charge what they like (and I remember when Intel had no competition), point in short my laptop runs an Intel processor and Video adapter, plus Intel networking cards are easily the best available. Sorry if I have shattered you fragile view of the world by being logical and reasonable.
My Nokia 6500 Classic (A$400 unlocked) supports Opera Mobile which supports flash (in fact comes preloaded with Opera), comparing that to the price I would pay to get the iphone unlocked (A$800+) it definitely wouldn't be worth it and an unlocked phone is an absolute must for me as I travel overseas a bit and prefer to use local SIM cards (an imperial butload cheaper than roaming). So yes the iphone is crippled, lack of flash which I would use on a smart phone, lack of the ability to MMS which I do use on my Nokia and being SIM locked to an Australian carrier (meaning it wont work on local SIM's in Thailand, Malaysia, New Zealand or Japan unless hacked which would void the warranty). Add to this Apple's draconian control (selective carriers, no unlocking unless forced, having to hack it to unlock it, ability to disable apps remotely) the iphone's value decreases even more.
Indeed, just as sad to see Apple fanboys and Apple themselves (paying people to line up outside apple stores and limiting supplies in some countries to give the illusion of demand) resorting to just these tactics to convince people otherwise. Just in case you didn't get it, my original post was a joke but now I feel that I must point out your hypocrisy. A hypocrite is someone who would accuse others of what they do themselves or if you would prefer, pot, kettle, black.
Is it wrong to show people the downside of what they might purchase? I'll give the iphone full credit for what it can do, and I'll tell you what it cant do, the simple fact that it doesn't stack up favourably to a phone half its price is not my problem. The biggest downside to the iphone is the 2 year commitment or as I prefer to call it, danegeld. All the plans for the iphone in Australia require you to pay more for services then if you went with another handset.
For the record, I have used the iphone, V1 and 2. I find them the same as all apple products (but hey at least its consistent) more effort when into it's aesthetic design than its engineering design.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The Internet is a packet-switching network. As far as I can tell the iPhone has just as much connectivity as any home computer, it's not sandboxed into some crappy WAP corner nobody cares about.
No there are serious restrictions on how you can use your iPhone. No P2P is one such restriction. The other is you cannot use your iPhone as a modem to link to your computer. That is what decided me against it.
So does this mean you are an anti-fanboy fanboy?
irc - yes
ssh - yes
rdp - yes
gopher - doesn't seem to have this one, though some interested person could likely make an app to do so.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Please explain to which product I am being fanboyish to?
Nothing?
Then its not fanboyism...."
Hehe. Anybody who 'fought' in the great Playstation 3 Flame War would see the silliness of this statement and chuckle quietly to themselves.
No, unlike a fanboy I will actually backup what I claim.... When I do indulge in fanboyism I generally attach a decent reason to it and it doesn't prevent me from buying competing products or lead me to attack.
Okay. So when you originally responded to me, you didn't back up your claim. You didn't attach a decent reason. You're not buying an iPhone. Your sarcasm could be interpreted as an attack. So are you taking the scenic route in saying that you are a fanboy? Seriously, man. Reread what you said.
Indeed, just as sad to see Apple fanboys and Apple themselves (paying people to line up outside apple stores and limiting supplies in some countries to give the illusion of demand) resorting to just these tactics to convince people otherwise.
Actually it was the company/store trying to sell the iPhones (Orange) that paid the actors to show up. Thank you for illustrating my point about spreading propoganda'esque bullshit, though. So long as the important-detail-omitted sensationalist headlines keep getting relayed, you lot are all happy.
Just in case you didn't get it, my original post was a joke but now I feel that I must point out your hypocrisy. A hypocrite is someone who would accuse others of what they do themselves or if you would prefer, pot, kettle, black.
I'd respond but it's hard to take this comment too seriously after the last bit. Hehe.
Is it wrong to show people the downside of what they might purchase?
Not at all. That's something you should have done in the first place, then we'd be discussing instead of arguing. You're behaving all high and mighty, but your original post that kicked it all off is betraying your civility. That's what's sad about this whole thing. I had to bust your chops to get you to talk about it. For all the iPhone bullshit (Both pro and con, I mean. You're right, it's overhyped, hence the tension...) that's floated around Slashdot for the last your, your post is the FIRST TIME I've run across anybody who has actually mentioned a competitive phone that actually supports Flash. I'm actually happy we had this discussion because I'm walking away some information I can use when I go phone shopping in December.
But... heh... I see why the Flash conversation hasn't gone on as much as it should have. Your phone doesn't support Flash, it supports Flash Lite. While that is better than what the iPhone can do, are you really getting much more out of it than Flash ads? Maybe I'm just being fickle here, but the main reason I want Flash on my mobile phone is to play Flash games. It's dumbfuck stupid that Apple didn't release it with that, otherwise my iPod Touch would be even more valuable to me.
I've drifted off topic, though. I did look at the specs on your phone and I found it kind of interesting. No GPS. No touchscreen. Significanly fewer pixels for displaying web pages. No Wi-Fi... wtf? How can you actually web browse on this thing? Every important feature it needs to do that is 'crippled'. Who would want to pay.... well I think I've made my point. I could sit here and tell you what a phone you are using can't do, and you'd justifiably think I was an idiot for ignoring what it does do. Still though, you'd probably still think more highly of me then than if I had said "it's crippled, you're trying to justify spending your money."
I'm amazed these silly discussions still have steam a year after the iPhone's release. "I'm smarter than you because I didn't buy a product." *Yawn.*
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
How does this prove me a fanboy, and of which product. This is a non-sequitur, just a strawman argument to cover up your own fanboyism and attack after failing to get a joke.
Having to tell people when you've made a joke is considered the hallmark of a poor comedian and to have to ask for this is considered decisive proof that one lacks a sense of humour.
How do you come to this conclusion? don't bother answering, you'll only froth at the mouth more, we both no there is no basis for this claim beyond your need to attack me for having a divergent opinion.
Yes, its called proof reading, if you tried it you might not have so many spelling mistakes in your posts.
Makes little difference in the long run, created for the same purpose, to make an artificial demand. This also doest explain why in the city of Perth approved retailers received an average of 3 of the heavily hyped iphones per store (and this was heavily in favour of the most expensive provider, Telstra), this was done to ensure they sold out on the first day, Apple not the Telco's control distribution. You were cherry picking points and hoping the points that don't work in your favour would be ignored.
Hard to respond without a response is it? You just said you cant refute what I said, rather turning back on a strawman and non-sequitur (nested strawman at that), very poor debating skills, good sir.
Hard to say that I agree with you, you took every opportunity to attack, often without reason or facts to back it up, but if this makes you happy then all the best to you.
How strange, my phone doesn't do the job of my UBD street directory (I can read paper maps, in fact I've been orienteering for years and am pretty damn good at triangulating my position from topographical maps) or my laptop. My phone is a phone, it makes phone calls, SMS's, MMS's and not much else, I've used it to access the web about 5 times, all to the yellow pages so I could find a number and it worked fine. As I said, the biggest impediment with the iphone (another fact which you conveniently ignored) is that I cant get it unlocked, I travel a bit and use my mobile with local SIM cards, in addition to this in SE Asia using a device like the iphone as a farang (Thai for white skinned foreigner) is a giant rob me sign. All Iphone owners I know don't use it as a smart phone or nav device, they bought it because it looked shiny (and if this is important to you by all means don't let me stop you, I've already said aesthetics is the Iphones most well developed feature), most people who actually need an smart phone don't care about aesthetics, hence why blackberries and Imate JasJams look hideous in comparison.
I have only ever argued the points that have merit, the only arguments that still have steam are the ones that have merit but yet apple fanboys are still trying to remove this merit, and time alone does not make problems or deficiencies go away.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
How does this prove me a fanboy, and of which product. This is a non-sequitur, just a strawman argument to cover up your own fanboyism and attack after failing to get a joke.
Heh. Uh huh.
Having to tell people when you've made a joke is considered the hallmark of a poor comedian and to have to ask for this is considered decisive proof that one lacks a sense of humour.
*Shrug* I'll give you credit, though, you're spot on with the bit about the poor comedian.
How do you come to this conclusion? don't bother answering, you'll only froth at the mouth more, we both no there is no basis for this claim beyond your need to attack me for having a divergent opinion.
Nah, it's not about having a divergent opinion. It's about having an ignorant opinion. Actually... ignorant's not quite the wrong word. Group think? Hmmm I can't find the right word. But anyway, I've already gone over this in my previous post.
Yes, its called proof reading, if you tried it you might not have so many spelling mistakes in your posts.
Hehe. In your previous line you said 'no' instead of 'know'.
Makes little difference in the long run, created for the same purpose, to make an artificial demand.
Except... it wasn't Apple. Retailers pull shit, that ain't Apple's fault. There's plenty of other things to criticize Apple for (like Mobile Me not working...), but this one's just the latest sensationalist headline to get the Group Think movement babbling.
Hard to respond without a response is it? You just said you cant refute what I said, rather turning back on a strawman and non-sequitur (nested strawman at that), very poor debating skills, good sir.
*Shrug* You dug a hole and fell into it. That ain't my fault.
All Iphone owners I know don't use it as a smart phone or nav device, they bought it because it looked shiny (and if this is important to you by all means don't let me stop you, I've already said aesthetics is the Iphones most well developed feature), most people who actually need an smart phone don't care about aesthetics, hence why blackberries and Imate JasJams look hideous in comparison.
Well, this'll be an interesting test of whether or not we're actually dicsussing or arguing this little matter. All the people I know with an iPhone, most of my coworkers in fact, are using the phones to do a lot of web browsing, game playing, music playing, and they're having fun with the software store. With the exception of the App Store, the generation 1 dudes were still constantly using it for stuff. (as opposed to a short lived "well that was fun for about a week..." process that a lot of other geek toys went through.) I think the main reason for this is that most of them use GMail and the iPhone plays nicely with it. They also use it a lot for sending quick instant messages via AIM. If you were to look around the studio where I work, you'd see iPhones being used in much the same way PDAs were envisioned to be used back in 2000. That's why I bought an iPod Touch off of one of them. I don't even have my Treo in my pocket anymore, it sits on my desk. When I need to call up information about a scene I've just worked on, I turn it on, do a GMail search, and give the answer. Not bad considering that the Touch is much more tethered than the iPhone given its lack of cell phone capability.
I'm personally watching people use these phones. A phone is not just a phone if it can actually handle the other tasks it has been designed to do. I work in a place where people have to roam about from building to building a lot, but at least it's covered by WiFi. None of these people would consider it 'crippled' because they're doing more useful stuff with it than they were with their previous phones. (Treos, Blackberries, you name it.) That's why I want to ge
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Think Different. Lie
Are all iphone users as stupid as you? That's one more reason not buy an iphone for me. Thanks!
Will you stop shagging Steve Jobs, for once?
The statistics Engadget reported was for traffic to their 'main' site from mobile devices - but you conveniently forgot that they redirect most of the mobile devices to m.engadget.com, and that the statistics ignored it? Because, if they had included it, your "95%" would come down to less than 5%.
Also, if Engadget is anti-iphone, then pigs must be flying nowadays over your head. Just like other replies mentioned, they have banned most of the posters who were critical of iphone - it included me too.
Laugh as much as you want, it's just like watching an idiot laughing at his own poop and comparing how shiny it is compared to somebody else's.
Yeah like nobody knows who you are, Mr. Coward. Heh
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
No facts to refute, no pithy remarks, not even a thinly veiled insult?
This proves me a fanboy how? here's a dictionary link to the word fanboy. You've well and truly failed here good sir.
At least you managed the pithy remark here, I'll give you half a credit for that.
Thats because I used it, "divergent" it means differing from yours.
You might also learn the difference between spelling and grammar.
In fact I'm going to stop here, this is a waste of my time and valuable cynic skills answering a fanboy who's best answers were "He. Un huh" and "Hehe" and which both set off my moron alarm and spell checker and of course completely attempts to avoid answering questions which could prove you wrong, but if you did this you might see some logic which would completely shatter your fanboy world. This whole thing started because you could not take a joke and blew out of control because you couldn't handle the fact that I didn't think your much vaunted JesusPhone 3G was the saviour of the universe. I've talked to plenty of apple users on this forum and others as well as in (shock horror) real life about the deficiencies of the iphone and why I don't see it as a suitable replacement for my phone (chief among them the SIM lock and lack of a 3G modem functionality, both points that you have conveniently and repeatedly ignored) and these people are quiet capable of saying "well I disagree with your divergent opinion but you are entitled to it", some have even made jokes or asked questions that have deserved answers but somehow I cant see you doing this as it would be totally against the Apple fanboy code, oh I wont bother reading any replies as I don't really want to give you any more material to troll over as I consider it an insult to decent material, I think I'll go help my mate buggerize around with Linux on his Macbook, sorry if I have shattered your little world but don't worry I'm sure the RDF will fix it in no time.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
A week late I know, occasionally I do like to go on crusades. This may just be my somewhat twisted sense of humour but that deserves a funny mod.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I wasnt touching this one for a while because I really have limited patience for fanboys.
I hear ya, man. Consequences suck, eh? In any event, I sympathize totally.
No facts to refute, no pithy remarks, not even a thinly veiled insult?
This proves me a fanboy how? here's a dictionary link to the word fanboy. You've well and truly failed here good sir.
I know you're just super eager to declare victory here, but it just ain't doing much to bother me. Sorry. You know how you came across. You also know how it looks when you continue doing it with every reply. It's entertaining, to say the least, especially when you try to claim the high ground in order to avoid my point.
At least you managed the pithy remark here, I'll give you half a credit for that.
It wouldn't have much impact if it didn't have a little truth to it.
You might also learn the difference between spelling and grammar.
Your spelling of 'know' was really really bad. I didn't bother researching the grammatical ramifications of it. I wouldn't have had time, that wasn't your only typo, Mr. Kettle.
In fact I'm going to stop here, this is a waste of my time and valuable cynic skills answering a fanboy who's best answers were "He. Un huh" and "Hehe" and which both set off my moron alarm and spell checker and of course completely attempts to avoid answering questions which could prove you wrong, but if you did this you might see some logic which would completely shatter your fanboy world.
That's convenient. You wouldn't want to address my most deatailed point, would you? Very classy.
This whole thing started because you could not take a joke...
By your own admission, your joke failed.
(chief among them the SIM lock and lack of a 3G modem functionality, both points that you have conveniently and repeatedly ignored)
Actually I did acknowledge the SIM card problem. It was in the huge chunk of text you skipped for frivilous reasons in a vain attempt to sound superior. Amusingly, it's completely inconsequential. I am not, nor was I ever trying to sell you on the iPhone. For somebody claiming he doesn't act like a fanboy, you're sure doing a lot of not-listening.
your much vaunted JesusPhone 3G...
Yep, I'm the fanboy here. Mmmm hmm. No signs of that coming from you, no siree.
...oh I wont bother reading any replies as I don't really want to give you any more material to troll over as I consider it an insult to decent material...
Who do you think you're bullshitting? We both know the real reason.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
So does your denial of being a fanboi.