Slashdot Mirror
Apple Stops Hiding Samsung Apology On Its UK Site
An anonymous reader writes "Apple has quietly decided that it probably shouldn't be using JavaScript code on its UK site to hide its second Samsung apology. While you still have to scroll down in almost cases, the company is no longer forcing it; check it out yourself at Apple UK."
It didn't change for me. I still need to scroll down to see it no matter the browser window size.
I'm viewing it from the US and it still has that JavaScript snippet.
Everybody knows they're not sorry. All court-ordered apologies do is remind us that people in authority aren't satisfied unless you agree with them. Then they can go home satisfied, knowing that their world view is intact. All they really did was use coercion to force somebody to lie. Apple is not sorry. Everybody knows it.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I still have to scroll...1920x1080 monitor, using firefox.
If it's not visible without scrolling to me, who the heck is it visible to?
n/t
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Still hidden via Chrome on W7
'Oh, they've removed it entirely, have they?'
Do you honestly believe that corporations have feelings?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Without javascript turned on, there's an additional fifth advertisement block that is located below the first one on the left, effectively blocking a portion of the apology and rendering anything beneath as 'garbage that should not be read'.
With javascript supported Iron, I had to scroll down. Maybe I haven't zoomed back enough, or my 2560x1440 resolution is not modern enough for Slashdot's standards.
Not that I really care about the apology, but the article is bunk as seems to be the quality of increasing amount of *today's slashdot editorials.
*The last year or three.
-Second decade Slashdotter.
Did the previous iteration of the apology also lack any references to other cases?
When I read the headline, I thought it meant that Apple was only displaying the apology on its UK site and in so doing was "hiding" the apology from everyone. Gave me a good laugh to think that something posted to a UK site would be considered hidden. "Well sure the English can see it, but does that really count?" The real story was less funny and more disappointing (as far as Apple's actions go).
It's worse than just needing to be scrolled down for me, on Firefox under Linux using the max window size on a 1920x1200 monitor.
A key part of the statement is obscured by an overlaid advert for the Mac Mini which covers the text, and so the paragraph makes sense at all.
It's certainly not effective as an apology.
If we assume that Apple is technically competent and so could easily make the statement visible if they wished, the fact that it is not visible means that Apple is taking the piss again.
It's sad that if the judge doesn't spell out every little detail of how the apology should appear, the company will take advantage and try to 'hide' it.
The judge needs to assign further penalties on Apple. And every time they do something like this, slap on another, larger penalty. Like the old punishment for kids that always interrupt or talk back.
"You're grounded for the weekend. And don't argue."
"That's not fair!"
"Two weekends. Don't say another word."
"But-!"
"Three. Wanna go for four?"
"You're going to post an apology."
"Fine." *hides it in the paper*
"Not good enough.$100,000, and do it again."
"Fine." *hides it on the website*
"Not good enough. $500,000. Wanna try for a million?"
Even though they removed the Javascript, It is still effectively hidden on most monitors.
It should be displayed like a click-through spash page. In other words, top-left show Apple logo or standard menu bar, then below, show the appropriate Court judgement.
The first thing I see when going to apple.com is not the judgement, but instead an ad for the iPad Mini...hmmmm...remove the ad, and we have lots of room for the judgement text. Funny that. Even going straight to apple.com/uk/ shows a gigantic ad for the iPad Mini, with the judgement link appearing below the copyright text. Who is honestly going to read the judgement unless they are actively looking for a link to it? It's still buried.
"Apple is not sorry" shouldn't imply a belief in corporate personhood either. What's the appropriate grammar for expressing an attitude likely to be held by the members of a group, without implying corporate personhood? "Apple are not sorry"? Meh. Makes them sound like the Borg. It's my understanding that in common usage phrases like "The AARP said", or "Congress ruled" are shorthand for collective action that doesn't imply a belief in corporate personhood. OK folks, what's your suggested phrasing that wouldn't imply a belief in corporate personhood when discussing these matters?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Here in the US Corporations are people. Just ask Mittens.
At the bottom of the screen, had to scroll down, is a paragraph stating that they did not correctly follow the apology ruling, and a link to an "apology".
This apparently new "apology" is just a statement of what the ruling said, and in no way could be considered an apology. And let me reiterate, it is NOT on that or any Apple homepage, it has its own specific page (http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/).
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
More politics then? 2020. Your predictions??
They've been calling it an apology. Now that I've dug into it a bit, it sounds more like a retraction. This might also be yet another case of Americans and British being "divided by a common tongue". Maybe a retraction is called an apology over there.
Anyway, stick a fork in me. I'm done. AFK. Lunch.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Please, for the love of all things good and holy STOP WITH THE APPLE V SAMSUNG POSTS!
o.O
I'm grumpy now.
N O B O D Y C A R E S
Not interested in politics either.
Just tired of all the drama. If I wanted to see drama I'd watch ANY tv channel. I come to slashdot for news and information that is relevant, and something I probably didn't already know, and drama is something I know exists and don't need to be reminded of daily on the site I go to 'get away' from all of the other nonsensical BS out there.
Credits: "We apologize for the fault in the apology. Those responsible have been sacked."
Later: " We apologize again for the fault in the apology. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked."
Have gnu, will travel.
How about Apple PRODUCTS instead of Apple LITIGATION stories...
Funny, I see it just fine on my portrait-mode 1080p display...
If you want that, fuck off to Roughly Drafted.
"I apologize. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my remarks may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat such a slander at any time in the future."
Don't read the summary?
Man, I wish I could use my mod points to mod this entire story Redundant
main picture on www.apple.com/uk is bigger then www.apple.com - so i assume they got rid of the java script but made the picture bigger to make up for it - still forcing people to scroll down (even more) then they would normally have to?
Nobody's forcing you to read the summary, or go into the article to read comments/post...
There's an iPad mini? Thanks for the link!
Sneaky implies some form of cunning.
They are a stunning cunt. Not the spooner version.
More to the point We are just Mad at Apple because Samsung was Pushing Android A Linux Based OS, made by our favorite company Google.
If this was say Nokia with Windows Mobile. We probably would laugh on how Apple is sticking it to Microsoft.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Seriously. It's the biggest item on the page.
Apple spend more on advertising than R&D and thieving other companies' designs and illegally using patented technology choosing not to pay licenses. They have control of over 90% of the media by giving them "exclusives" all the while the they don't post anything negative about them. Apple disrespecting a court decision, twice, is big news.
Apple have a large pile of cash, a fair chunk belongs to those they've been stealing from since they went into the mobile phone space. Their time is almost up, whether you like it or not. The "largest company on the planet" is in trouble.
You dont have to read the post. It is very obvious from the title what it is about. So if you are in any way surprised it is your own fault.
I came here explicitly for all you fantards (both sides) to duke it out in your own little bubbles of ignorance.
Thank you for providing me with entertainment (i notice you are one of the more active in this story...)
Sure, of course nobody is forcing me to read anything. This argument is almost as dead a horse as the article itself.
I *want* to read articles on slashdot, because I generally find them interesting. In *this* particular case I have seen enough, and I am sure that a lot of people feel the *exact* same way. Go troll someone else' posts.
This is a massive victory for those Brits incapable of scrolling.
Everyone keeps talking about whether or not they are hiding the apology. I have yet to see the apology. I have seen a statement that indicates they published an inaccurate statement, but I have not seen an apology...
How about tell that to Apple?
Ouch
On 16:10 1980x1200 landscape oriented monitor with somewhat minimalistic Firefox you can see the whole text as long as the iPad mini ad shows.
With iPad ad only part of the first line is visible. Every refresh two ads switch.
http://i.imgur.com/U6JjY.jpg
If you click that top left thing that says "recent", you too can help stories you don't like die before they are really born.. ;)
It is still just a statement about the judgement
Apple wins again. Apple is even considering repairing the bite mark in their logo. Apple 1 : Legal 0
The problem is that Apple release squadrons of apparently effete attack lawyers at least as often as they release products. They therefore bring this bad publicity on themselves, they invite it.
And to be honest, who cares about another product? Just go to a review site - or a web shop - if you want info on products. Products really are dime a dozen.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Apart from hiding the alleged apology/withdrawal it's worse than I'd possibly imagined - they're dressing the retraction (or whatever you want to call it) as a *Samsung* comment!!!
"On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement."
Note the last sentence - trying to address this as though Samsung 'misspoke'* - Methinks that Shakespeare had it correct in so many ways.
Their lawyers & designers need some corrective detention IMHO - the directors need a lot of the same + a big enough fine to seriously damage said people + a big enough fine to damage their profits for the past year. Stop trying to play games Apple.
*what a horrible & stupid Americanism
Having Leeched on
Indeed you can see it entirely here.
If they'd put the required note at the bottom of the page under an ad for the newest apple gadget, that would have been cunning.
But their cuntitude meant that they didn't do this cunning thing because they are petulant little arseholes who think that the courts should only decide their way (cf sosume vs "Block their rounded corners!").
So now they've pissed off the judge who can still go contempt charges, displayed to all other judges that they have complete contempt for the court and judges, and ensured that people will be scrolling down their page to find out how they fucked this up again, ignoring the advert.
The court DOES have the power to force them to make a false statement about their remorse.
It's called a retraction or apology.
The BBC when they have said something that wasn't found to be false, but also not found to be definitely true, will have an announcer say "We previousy said... this was not true and we withdraw the accusation".
Newspapers have had to say that about Jeffrey Archer when they made accusations about him.
Did the papers feel remorse? No. Did they put an apology in? Yes. Did they do it because the court can force them to do that? Yes. Is it better than being banned from publishing? Yes. Would that have made them REALLY sorry? Yes.
So do you want Apple banned just so that they can actually feel sorry about the harm they did?
Or do you think it better to apologise properly and pay zero cost for lying their arse off?
Not only can't you see the so called apology without scrolling, there is no evidence what so ever of an apology in the statement. It only says that they've lost the case, without much information about what they've actually lost. There is nothing what so ever to indicate that they were wrong or that they are sorry that they did something wrong.
The message is not even an apology, it's merely a retraction.
I am using a 1920x1080 TV as a monitor and I still had to scroll. Then again it moves the actual 'apology' to another page. Wow Apple. No wonder I don't buy your products. Only when in portrait mode does the link show up without scrolling.
Their guy doing web obfsucation really loves his scroll bars.
On the first screen he went with a vertical scroll bar to put the note down in the basement.
The linked page is even better.
If you don't scroll waaaay over to the right to see the unwrapped text, it reads infringe instead of not infringe.
What we are talking about here is a retraction. Newspapers do this all the time.
Ideally, fairness would dictate a retraction that is in the same type with the same prominance as the original mistake.
(But, I don't think I've ever seen a newspaper do that?)
Given that the world isn't ideal, same size and prominance seems unreasonable.
But what Apple is doing seems like unreasonable contempt for the court.
Not wise unless they want the next version to be a picture including jail bars.
Seems like what they ought to do is turn it into an unbiased news story for their web site.
If done well, they should be able to turn the lemons into lemonaid.
They just need to make sure that the clowns that did the current attempts are not involved.
(Their attempts appear more like a spoiled kid needing a apanking. They are hurting the Apple brand.)