Slashdot Mirror
What The Banned iPhone Ad Should Really Look Like
Barence writes "To demonstrate just how misleading the latest (and now banned) iPhone television ad really is, PC Pro has recreated it using an iPhone 3G and a Wi-Fi connection — with laughable results. Apple was forced to pull the advert today after the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) decided it exaggerated the speed of mobile browsing. 'In the 30-second clip the iPhone is shown loading a webpage, finding its current location in Google Maps, opening a PDF from an email and finally taking a phone call. The ASA concluded that the iPhone cannot do what was shown in the mere 29 seconds afforded in the advert, ruling that it was misleading.' Try it for yourself and you'll undoubtedly agree."
Apple should really be slapped for repeatedly misrepresenting their products. I will buy a beer to anyone who can find a single photo of any of their products on the store website. Every single one has been hand generated usually with incorrect proportions.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
SOLD, bitches!
There's a similar advert for the app store here in the UK. It has some guy instantly downloading and using games, location software and so on. It has an amusing "actual sequence speeded up" disclaimer at the bottom, rather like those cosmetics adverts that say "some post-processing done on model".
Why don't they just say "this advert is a total lie, but it looks pretty and you're a gullible moron, so buy buy buy!"
What bugs me about the app store advert is that it finishes saying "this is going to change everything!" No, it isn't - it's another incremental improvement on smart phones, which is quite similar to many competing products. Ever since I found out about the reality distortion field I've started noticing that Apple try to use this in all their advertising.
Are you as awesome as your resume paints you to be?
I'm even awesomer! I left off all the parts about how I can play drums, my massive Spawn toy collection, and my mad pepper-growing skillz.
Haida Manga
Just to clarify, if the Apple advert says "Fast browsing" then you will most likely focus on the time it takes to browse in the advert, so it isn't immediately obvious that that might not be "true".
On the other hand, it's pretty easy to guess that you couldn't fix a light in another building from your phone. And that a Citroen C4 doesn't transform into a dancing robot
The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
Uh their ad showed it to be 4x as good as it really is. If i went to wendys and got a 1/16th pounder i'd be pretty pissed. If on my resume I said I could build a bathroom to finished in 4hours they would likely be disappointed. Beyond that their speed was the WHOLE advertisement.
Quite right.
It was 4.86 times faster, cooler and better. In the PC Pro video it looked like celebrities in one of those "with&without makeup" slideshows.
De-glamored and like just another mobile phone. Which nobody really needs.
Not at all like something hand-sculpted from pieces of the true cross and philosopher's stone by (female) virgins gently rubbing their pelvises over the aforementioned imaginary artifacts.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
KFC?
Okay, that was BS.
I'm certain that Apple sped things up for the commercial. Big whoop. But I would have been a lot more sympathetic if PC Pro had done anywhere near a realistic comparison.
The ad starts with the phone unlocked, and the user opening Safari to a pre-loaded page. The fumbling PC Pro fingers slowly unlock the phone and go to Google to find the page, rather than even entering the URL or opening a bookmark!
How about a realistic comparison? I'd like to see how fast the iPhone can work, not how slow your damn sausage-fingers are at molesting it.
WARNING: iPhone 3G browsing speeds may be impeded if you're an idiot.
Actually, I did the whole test and did it in 42 seconds on 3G. Here are the results:
14 seconds to load the apple iphone page (the main google page loads in about 8)
10 seconds to load my location on gps
10 seconds to load a pdf attachment from an email (exchange, 100KB pdf)
8 seconds to call my house (I dialed it directly).
The same test took about a minute an a half on wireless (my iphone doesn't gps well on wireless and took over a minute).
My iphone is not unlocked either, and I am on Rogers in Canada. Maybe our 3G is different, but I doubt it. Also, the same pdf from a pop3 account took 36 seconds, so that might also make a difference.
...Dishonest, or just incompetent. The same goes for the UK Ad council responsible for demanding the ad be pulled. I couldn't help but make a video this morning to see what the results should really look like...
Try 48 secs and that is with me flubbing a bit, waiting for GPS to lock and timing a call to myself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwbZkkJhfcA
I don't even like my iPhone that much, but there are better reasons to dislike it than simply fabricated, untruthful criticisms.
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
Maybe it's meant to reflect the actual user experience, but they spend a lot more time diking around with websites than the iPhone add. They load two webpages instead of one, and spend time scrolling around those webpages, where as the add merely shows the phone zooming in. They also enter the URL manually, while the add shows them only loading a link. They also spend time scrolling around the PDF document, while in the add the user receives a call immediately after the PDF has loaded. Not to mention that they obviously used different sites and files. They also started from the unlock screen instead of the home screen. You can't call something a recreation if you didn't even try to recreate the add.
Why didn't they actually try to recreate the add ? The iPhone is obviously not that fast over a 3G network (though it is that fast over a 802.11 connection in my experience). What is it about journalists that makes them think they need to exaggerate things that are already plenty bad?