iPhone Web Claims Draw Governmental Rebuke in UK 517
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writes "Apple has been running an iPhone ad saying 'all parts of the internet are on the iPhone', but it had to be withdrawn after Britain's Advertising Standards Authority ruled that it gave 'a misleading impression of the internet capabilities of the iPhone' because the iPhone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?"
keyword 'all' (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:iphone sucks (Score:1, Insightful)
Because it is markedly less clumsy than all other phones out there?
You know, improving state of the art?
Huh ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Is it the fault of Apple or Adobe? (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Should government authorities ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"
Should Apple?
Ubuntu doesn't support the Internet either (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ubuntu doesn't support the Internet either (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, then you can file a complaint to the BASA as soon as there are Ubuntu ads on TV claiming that all parts of the internet are available under Ubuntu.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Wrong question. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Actually, the ad was technically correct (Score:2, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Ubuntu doesn't support the Internet either (Score:5, Insightful)
Has Ubuntu created an advertising campaign where it implies that it's the only operating system that works properly on the internet, despite the fact that many others have more solid support apart from the user interface?
Re:iphone sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
It turns out that it's not much different from the iPhone in the US, then.
Re:Huh ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bollocks. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Summary is flamebait... (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Re:Huh ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash and Java are not parts of the Internet. They are content served across it. You can download them without the applications in place to use them, even.
Disengenuous (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
99.9% of the population don't know what Gopher is, let alone expect it to be on the iPhone
Gopher is a contrived example, but what about other protocols? The average user might not use NNTP, but they probably do use some kind of IM protocol, whether it's something proprietary like MSNM or AIM, or something open like XMPP (e.g. GTalk). They might use VoIP, again with either a proprietary protocol like Skype or a open one like SIP. They may not understand the protocols, but they know that they use these things over 'The Internet' and if something advertises the whole Internet then it should allow them. As it is, it doesn't even support the whole web.
Re:Who misses flash? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think the government is defining what the Internet is in this case? Or are they simply taking the commonly held definition and applying truth in advertising laws? Why, exactly, was the line about the government defining the Internet even included in the summary, in your opinion?
Re:This raises an interesting question?? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Internet is a communications medium and content delivery system. Flash and Java are content. The iPhone doesn't restrict people to WAP proxies and a limited number of preselected sites like some cell phones. What you can do with the content once you get it has no bearing on whether or not you have access to the site it's on.
Re:It doesn't raise those issues (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
As long as you agree that an SUV doesn't qualify as 'all terrain' either because it can't plow through a dense forest or go up Mount Everest.
This isn't about the government making the decision that "this or that is an essential feature of websites"
It probably is. 'All terrain vehicle' doesn't mean a vehicle can navigate all possible topography. The ASA objects because the iphone doesn't fit its own definition of all parts of the internet.
Java and Flash are not the internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Text. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Huh ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Arguing that you can download the flash file, you just can't do anything useful with it I would say definitely comes under the heading of following the letter rather than the spirit of the regulation.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
It will do what most people want it to do.
Yes, but this doesn't make the advertisement true or acceptable. The same argument can be made for ISPs' advertisements of "unlimited Internet" (unless you consume too much) or "6 Mbps download" (for the first 3 seconds) -- these are both misleading even though most people will not suffer from these statements.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Gov't says "stop bsing in your ads."
The non-sequitur is in the fact that it wasn't the government that asked Apple to stop; it was the Advertising Standards Authority [asa.org.uk]. From their web site: "The Advertising Standards Authority is the independent body set up by the advertising industry to police the rules laid down in the advertising codes." There is no government involvement.
Re:Confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you seriously trying to claim that it's OK to use the word "all" just because you haven't defined all="html,java,flash..."? Quoting dictionaries is usually stupid, but you may want to find one in this case.
Also, even if gopher were indeed the only problem, the claim is still not true. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population misunderstands it. There's no reason Apple has to use that exact wording, when it could easily be corrected.
Re:Confusion (Score:2, Insightful)
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).
Is it really appropriate for the court system to reinforce a monopoly position by saying that unless a device supports various proprietary software offerings it cannot claim to access the internet as a whole? (Even when, perhaps, the vendor of that software elects not to support the device.)
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
You're modded funny, but this IS another valid reason it's false advertising.
Well whether or not it's false, I think the key issue is whether a reasonable person would find it misleading. What I mean is, even if you give Apple the benefit of the doubt and say it's not intentionally deceptive, and even if you think Apple is trying to say something that's true, I can still see how it would lead someone to assume things that are false.
And therefore it seems fair to me that it would be labeled "misleading". Apple should rework the ad to make it more clear.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Who misses flash? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, these less than brilliant site creators *should* make a non-flash version of thier sites, they don't always. If for some reason you need (or even "just" want) to access these sites, for the content that they are using this shoddy medium to deliver, you are SOL. That is the point. Whether or not these site developers are being morons is not the question, the answer around here is 'yes they are'. The question is whether or not the iPhones have the software to access all of the content formats of significant use. Sadly, thanks to many shortbus-commando web developers, flash is one of them.
Re:iphone sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
The better concern should be why pick on Apple when some much other false advertising get through the system...
Re:Huh ? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Okay, let's extend the idea with an analogy. Can any computer access all of the internet? I mean is there any one computer that can play back every single video and audio and Web app format in existence? If I put up a video archive in a proprietary format that only my computer can read, does that mean no company can claim their system or service can access all of the internet?
The question with regard to false advertising laws is if Apple is intentionally deceiving end users and if those users are not getting what they expect as a result of the advertising. Thus the question of what people feel constitutes "the internet" is quite relevant. Should Microsoft be able to advertise IE as a "Web browser" when it cannot browse all of the Web because it cannot render some of the more recent Web standards and pages that make use of them? Should Firefox be able to advertise their program as a "Web browser" when it cannot render some Web pages that use proprietary standards written by Microsoft?
Personally, I think Apple should tone down their advertising or at least present reasonable qualifiers, but does the rest of the industry do the same? The question is a lot more grey than you're making it out to be, but then almost all false advertising suits are.
Re:Puffery (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, I'm an iPhone user.
Re:Confusion (Score:4, Insightful)
If we approach it that way, any 64-bit Linux distro wouldn't be able to access "all parts of the Internet" because they don't have a compatible Flash plugin either. Heck, the Olympics site is a very prominant site and so is the Democratic Convention site, and both of them (and a smattering of others) require Silverlight, which doesn't have a full implementation on even 32-bit Linux, but I'd hardly call my Ubuntu laptop an Internet loser.
If you show that any Linux distro can be proven to have advertised in the UK, specifically in the UK, that they could access "all parts of the internet", then yes, they would be subject to the same issue as Apple here.
And the Wii uses Opera on Linux, which probably gets the shaft from a lot of crappy banking sites that boot non-Windows UserAgents. Should Nintendo be barred from claims of access to the whole Internet?
Again, do Nintendo actively claim this in any advertising?
The government isn't deciding the web (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:Confusion (Score:2, Insightful)
And that's what they delivered. They delivered what the W3C says the Web should be coded to. They delivered email following the POP3 and IMAP standards for email.
If the W3C/RFP documents that outline HTML, HTTP, HTTPS don't outline what "web and email" are, then nothing does.
The truth is that the failure of coders to obey standards is the fault of the coders and the sites, not the browsers. And to say otherwise is hypocrisy considering how often Slashdot collectively screams that a site that renders in IE but not in Firefox/Safari/Opera isn't messed up because of the other browsers but because of coding stupidity.
Re:iphone sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
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 [roughlydrafted.com] 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 [appleinsider.com], 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 [roughlydrafted.com] 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 [roughlydrafted.com] Apple = Microsoft.
Re:Confusion (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, IE can't browse a lot of sites, including Mobile.me at Apple. Safari, Mozilla, and Opera all can't go to Microsoft.com anymore since they don;t support silverlight. Only IE and Firefox (with a plug in and some hacks) can access Activex controlls on many sites. Most porn sites use proprietary video codecs that can't be displayed without a 3rd party installer, and then still only incertain browsers.
"THE WHOLE INTERNET" means this: you are not restricted to websites specifically designed for your mobile device. You can see a site the exact same way you'd see it at home. If at home, you have not installed flash, you'll see the same error you do on the iPhone, linking you to an installer page, but since you can't install it on your iPhone, you can't go there. No different from trying to surf TechNet on FireFox in Linux.
This order is yet another example of how undereducated government comitties get things wrong, and why buyer beware should be the golden rule once again.
Re:Confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to clarify, part of the reason I posted is because I think a lot of people will create a false dichotomy on this issue: either (a) the ad is perfectly fine; or (b) Apple is trying to deceive us. I'm hoping to break up that dichotomy before it forms and show that there's a third option.
For the record, I don't believe Apple was trying to deceive consumers, and I think the ad is saying something that is both true and worth advertising. Many past mobile browsers weren't very good for browsing web pages unless those webpages were designed for mobile viewing. So what I believe Apple is trying to say is, "The iPhone renders normal web pages normally, so you're not limited to some special subset of web pages that are designed specifically for mobile."
So in that sense the ad is fine, and I think that many of us would have understood that immediately. On the other hand, some people might see the ad and misunderstand what Apple is trying to say. The question we have to ask is, is it likely that a "normal person" might misunderstand the ad and have false expectations as a result. It's a judgement call. Certainly a stupid person could misunderstand, but could a "normal" or even highly intelligent person be mislead into assuming that Flash would work on the iPhone.
I'd seen the ad and never thought about it, but when the issue was raised, I thought "Yes, I could see how an intelligent person could be mislead into having false expectations." And so in that sense, it doesn't really matter whether the misunderstanding was intentional on Apple's part. The issue is only whether a "normal person" might be mislead. If the answer is "yes", then Apple should rework the ad.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
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. In that sense the advert is true.
The complaint is actually about the Web, which is not the Internet and not what Apple were claiming to have all of. Besides, Flash and Java are not really part of the Web, they're applications which are accessed via the Internet. If the Java and Flash files can be saved to the iPhone, even if they don't run, their claim is not misleading.
This is actually a pretty scary prospect, since WebKit is one of the most standards compliant browser engines there is, and it's drawing fire for not running proprietary (at least when the iPhone was being developed) third-party applications just because those things happen to work "at home" (ie. on a desktop/laptop probably running IE).
Re:Ob auto analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
A more suitable analogy would be an all-weather car that doesn't start in temperatures below -30C (-22F) or above 30C (86F). Sure you can argue about how one can get along fine with that limitation. You can even argue that the car company is doing you a favour by preventing you from driving in such ridiculous (I'm Canadian, I've seen worse) temperatures. But, for many people it's an unquestioned expectation, since it's a part of their regular driving experience.
The point is. The everyday plain vanilla web surfer doesn't differentiate between a WC3 compliant and Flash enabled pages. They're simply web pages they have access to and expect to have access to. I think this is a reasonable belief. When you tell the plain vanilla web surfer that he's going to have access to the whole Internet on an iPhone. He'll probably expect to have access to both the WC3 compliant page, and the flash enabled page. I think this is also reasonable.
Re:iphone sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:iphone sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
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.