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writes "Apple has been running an iPhone ad saying 'all parts of the internet are on the iPhone', but it had to be withdrawn after Britain's Advertising Standards Authority ruled that it gave 'a misleading impression of the internet capabilities of the iPhone' because the iPhone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?"

Comments

keyword 'all'

[steveargonman]

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.

Should government authorities ...

[Trigun]

Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"

Should Apple?

Re:Confusion

[EvilNTUser]

You're modded funny, but this IS another valid reason it's false advertising. If they want to decide what runs on the phone, they really can't claim it supports the whole internet. You can't have it both ways.

That comment about whether the government should really decide is very trollish. Supply and demand have in fact decided that many sites require flash*. The government is only enforcing truth in advertising. Not everything they do is automatically wrong, ok?

*no matter how much it may annoy us.

Bollocks.

[Karellen]

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".

Re:Confusion

[bigstrat2003]

No, the advertisement authority did the right thing here. "The entire internet" is a lofty claim, and Apple isn't living up to it. I don't give a damn if 99% of the population doesn't care about the entire internet, Apple is still responsible for being factual in their claims.

Re:Confusion

[bigstrat2003]

No one lives up to that claim... but then again, they aren't making it. Apple is the one stupid enough to have made the claim, so it only matters if they live up to it.

Re:Confusion

[bigstrat2003]

It could be argued, by this logic, that no device can access 'the entire internet' with the possible exception of Windows based PC's because only a Windows PC will run ActiveX controls (wine hackage not withstanding).

Indeed. Which is why companies shouldn't make stupid, pie-in-the-sky claims like Apple did. That easy.

Re:iphone sucks

[The Great Pretender]

Actually, the government mandate here is protection of the consumer. In the UK the government has the right to request withdrawal and slap the wrist of any advertisement that is considered false or misleading. Do they do it all the time? No. In this instance the question was raised - Does the iPhone have all parts of the internet on it? and the irrefutable answer is no, thus false advertising and that advert needs to be replaced by one that does not make such broad claims. This was nothing to do with the government having any control over the internet.

The better concern should be why pick on Apple when some much other false advertising get through the system...