Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Cellphones Businesses Apple

What The Banned iPhone Ad Should Really Look Like 463

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What The Banned iPhone Ad Should Really Look Like

Comments Filter:
  • by brejc8 ( 223089 ) * on Thursday November 27, 2008 @11:50AM (#25909027) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by ergo98 ( 9391 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @11:58AM (#25909113) Homepage Journal

      Apple should really be slapped for repeatedly misrepresenting [] their products

      Who doesn't? Went to Wendy's the other day and got a #2 combo because it looked pretty awesome on the order board. Got back to the office and opened it up to discover something pretty gross looking, a mash of squashed bun and grey meat. Yum. This isn't a rare case, and is pretty much the norm of advertising.

      Are you as awesome as your resume paints you to be?

      • by LearnToSpell ( 694184 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @12:09PM (#25909207) Homepage
        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.
      • by Idiomatick ( 976696 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @12:15PM (#25909269)

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ergo98 ( 9391 )


          Don't start replies with Uh. It's combative and makes you look like a dink.

          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

          I'm hardly defending Apple here, but I think "4x as good" is rather ridiculous. While you seem to think a 1lb'r would be "4x as good" as a 1/4lb, in the Wendy's example I consider what I got 1/10th as satisfying as what's promised on the board (and it would be even worse if they just stuck more meat on it). Instead

          • by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @12:38PM (#25909473) Journal

            I'm hardly defending Apple here, but I think "4x as good" is rather ridiculous.

            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.

          • by causality ( 777677 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @12:52PM (#25909603)

            Don't start replies with Uh. It's combative and makes you look like a dink.

            Just to make sure I have this right, do you mean to imply that telling people how they should express themselves is not combative and does not make you look like a "dink"? Or is this more of an "it's okay when I do it" situation?

            Which is why it was an obvious exaggeration, which is pretty much the case for virtually all ads. I'd rather all ads were a lot more honest (in the case of fast food restaurants it should require random photos of randomly served dishes at regular intervals), but it seems a bit laughable to make such a big deal out of Apple.

            I think the only reason why Apple might appear exceptional is because they were required to pull the ads. Normally advertisers use various propaganda techniques to give a certain impression that may be true or false but they do it without actually making verifiably false statements. They might say "9 out of 10 dentists recommend brand X toothpaste!" instead of "9 out of 10 dentists recommend brand X toothpaste after we paid them a large amount of money!" even though both would be true and even though they only asked 10 individuals instead of doing anything remotely like a proper study of a representative sample.

            I very much like your idea about fast-food advertisements. I don't think the burgers in the ads are even edible most of the time (lots of plastic or other things you really wouldn't want to eat) although I regret that I don't have a source/reference handy. Advertising in general, or at least the way it is currently done, is something that I believe a more enlightened society would view as either a great evil or at least a corrupting influence. It's a happy smiling face on what is straight up manipulation and the power of its influence is often underestimated. If it were otherwise, then why the need to exaggerate, misrepresent, and selectively omit facts (not just talking about Apple)?

            Healthy people who can think for themselves don't need to be constantly told what to eat, what to drink, where to go, what to buy, for whom to vote, etc. They just need to know what their options are, which is a far simpler affair. To give what I hope isn't a bad analogy, it would be more like "client pull" and less like "server push". I consider obsolete or irrelevant any business model that would collapse if this were the norm, no matter how large or widespread it may be.

            • by FLEB ( 312391 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @01:58PM (#25910037) Homepage Journal

              I think it's an evolutionary result, though. Industrial manufacturing introduced a glut of consumer goods to the world, and made it possible that multiple players could be in the same market trying to sell essentially the same thing, or at least the same thing with normally imperceptible differences. One company who advertises could take a market-share far disproportionate to the comparative advantage they have against a company with a similar product, but no advertising. Increased publicity ability gave the means, and anyone outside the competition really just can't compete.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by rrohbeck ( 944847 )

              I thought the job of today's advertising is to warn smart people about what not to buy because it needs serious marketing dollars to move it off the shelves.

          • by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @01:12PM (#25909739)


            Don't start replies with Uh.

            Correct as you are, I can't help but giggle at the irony :P

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by beowulf ( 12899 )
            The ad had someone doing tasks at a rate that no one would ever do them.

            That's why the ad had a countdown timer at the bottom of the screen showing how long it took to perform those tasks. Oh, wait. It didn't.

            What it did do is claim that you can accomplish these tasks quickly by using an iPhone communicating at 3g speeds.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Which is why it was an obvious exaggeration, which is pretty much the case for virtually all ads

            Obvious to who? Someone who is seeing all these Apple ads and talking about how much "different" and "better" the iPhone is? Looking up an address without text entry? Might be "obvious" that there's some kind of "automagically linking addresses in text", or "copy and paste", but there's not, too. The selling point of this ad was just how, quote, "really really fast" everything was on an iPhone, except it's not, n

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by adolf ( 21054 )

              Whatever it was, it wasn't "copy and paste." The iPhone can't do that.

          • by kestasjk ( 933987 ) * on Thursday November 27, 2008 @03:51PM (#25910673) Homepage
            It's an ad about a $200+ phone, demonstrating how fast the phone is, but the performance displayed was beyond what the phone is physically capable of.

            I don't think the burger comparison is even worth pursuing; that was a $5 burger at a fast food outlet, and theoretically an employee who took the time to make a good one could have given you a burger that looked like the advertised one.

            It's more like if Dell advertised a laptop with hardware specs from 2 years ago and showed it playing Crysis at 40fps. When you got home and your frame rate was 10fps you wouldn't think "oh it's just an ad, I should have expected them to exaggerate the performance"
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Triv ( 181010 )

              I don't think the burger comparison is even worth pursuing; that was a $5 burger at a fast food outlet, and theoretically an employee who took the time to make a good one could have given you a burger that looked like the advertised one.

              Assuming said employee had access to toothpicks, Elmer's glue, food coloring, clear epoxy, road salt and black paint, I hope you meant. Food in commercials is constructed like skyscrapers.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              Kind of related, about 10 years ago in Australia Telstra was heavily pushing satellite and radio based internet (no higher than 256kbps) to farmers. One of their ads showed the stereotypical farmer family giggling around the computer looking at a bunch of sheep drinking from a water trough somewhere on their farm in a web browser. High resolution, very high frame rate, dvd quality. On the quiet Telstra had their fingers burned big time for spewing such bullshit, a revised advert was shown with the same scen

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              It's an ad about a $200+ phone, demonstrating how fast the phone is,

              I see it more as an ad demonstrating the variety of things it can do. As much as I hate apple, the misleading part appears to be a side effect in this case.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by LackThereof ( 916566 )

              I don't think the burger comparison is even worth pursuing; that was a $5 burger at a fast food outlet, and theoretically an employee who took the time to make a good one could have given you a burger that looked like the advertised one.

              As a member of the exclusive club of former fast-food employees, I can tell you that it's not only theoretically possible, but occasionally required! Fast food places are regularly audited by their parent company - if you're working the kitchen when corporate comes to audit, you'll be expected to assemble a burger that looks exactly like the advertisement, down to the placement of the pickles and those neat overlapping onions, in under 15 seconds. If you screw it up, the auditor will ream you, and show yo

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Quantifying "goodness" hasn't really got much to do with it. Here are a few things to consider.

            1. The main point of the ad, no the whole point of it was how fast the iPhone performed.
            2. It is not a case of puffery, but appears to be an entirely formal and objective demonstration.
            3. They used an edited video to show off the fast performance despite the fact that the phone is not capable of performing like that.

          • Typical, indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)

            by mccabem ( 44513 )


            Further, it's pretty obvious why the commercial is really laid out in the fashion it is: It shows off far more features and how they work together than would be possible otherwise.

            I'm all for truth in advertising, but only if we're going to apply the same higher standards to everyone. To me this judgement seems both absurd and targeted.

            Last, what alternative are we pushing for with judgements like this? More ads that don't even really feature the product or service being pimped? I know

      • by linuxwrangler ( 582055 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @12:27PM (#25909371)

        It is the norm. It should not be.

        I believe that the standard should be that the advertisement must show an accurate representation of the average product as it will be delivered to the consumer. To do otherwise, is fraud.

        That includes Wendy's and all the rest of the fast-food crowd. In fact, pretty much all food advertising. (Many years ago the Wall Street Journal had a very funny article about making food adverts. Jello was mixed at several times the usual concentration to keep it solid under the lights. Tensions got high on the set and someone hurled a jello chunk at someone else. The other person ducked and the jello rebounded off the wall like a superball.)

        How about stores? I sure wish the nearby Safeway were bright, clean and open instead of old, dingy and cramped.

        The before/after pics for weight-loss schemes would be pretty funny.

        Oh, sorry. Lost myself for a moment there. Forgot that it is our Patriotic Duty to buy into the advertising fantasies in order to keep the economic fantasy growing.

      • "Are you as awesome as your resume paints you to be?" Oh, much more so :)
      • Are you as awesome as your resume paints you to be?

        Yes. I tell the truth. ("Telling the truth" doesn't mean bad in any case.)

      • You forget that those burgers are paid professional models (I mean, take a look at their buns!) Do they have to be taken up close? And those bottled they always have to glisten with small drops of sweat?

        I heard some of them were real bitchy divas too...

      • by Jesus_666 ( 702802 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @02:15PM (#25910129)
        I once saw a documentation about how they make the photos you see on convenience food packaging. The tomato soup with a cream swirl was actually 100% toxic-if-ingested wall paint. Other dishes were either made by cooks (of course using completely different recipes) or weren't food at all. Don't think only models get airbrushed; food does, as well. With clear varnish, during the shoot.

        I mean, some car manufacturer recently ran a TV ad in Germany where they deconstructed the usual car ad by gradually switching off the humans (all professional models), the beautiful scenery (completely computer-generated), the brilliant highlights on the car (ditto), the majestic music and finally the street. I don't remember which car it was but the ad strikes me as insightful - it shows just how much of the ads you see has to do with the actual car (not much at all, not even the car's appearance is realistic).

        Ads lie. Ads lie all the time. Do not expect anything you hear in an ad to be remotely true, apart fom "product XYZ exists".
      • This isn't a rare case, and is pretty much the norm of advertising.

        While technically true, I'm more of a glass half-empty sort of guy: I say that the norm is for poor product delivery - and seems to apply to more than just the fast food gang. The trouble isn't that advertising exaggerates (which it does) - the problem is that the products are lousy and rather than improve product, the dollar-dollar-bill-y'all goes to advertising.

      • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @04:17PM (#25910819)

        Who doesn't? Went to Wendy's the other day and got a #2 combo because it looked pretty awesome on the order board.
          Got back to the office and opened it up to discover something pretty gross looking, a mash of squashed bun and grey meat. Yum.

        I actually worked at Wendy's back in high school, and we did a challenge once where we tried to make the food look like the 'order board' to use your words. Turns out its not that hard... but

        1) You had to use fresh toasted buns straight off the toaster
        2) You had to 'cherry pick' things like lettuce and tomatoes.
        3) You had to have someone who really knew how to work 'grill' to get perfect looking meat.
        4) Most importantly - you couldn't wrap it up. You had to serve it unwrapped. Wrapping ALWAYS squashes it to at least some degree, and meat drippings and condiment get spread to the wrapper.

        That said, a significant percentage of burgers actually look a lot like the advertising, prior to wrapping, when made by competent staff.

        So...I'm not saying Wendy's isn't false advertising, but in their case at least, the real food CAN actually look like the ads, even though it usually doesn't. So at least they aren't showing food that simply can't come out of their 'kitchens'.

    • by William Robinson ( 875390 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @12:02PM (#25909157)
      Well done ASA. Now go after adverts that gave me impression I could get hold of a chick in 30 seconds if I use their products!!!!
    • ads for washing powder where you see dirty shirt, powder, water, and oh! it's clean :)

      "you take the shirt, you put it in the water, you wash it you wash it... you riiiince, you riiince. you smell... it smells like a flower!
      you take the underwear, you put it in the water, you wash it you wash it... you riiiince, you riiince. you smell... you put it in the water, you wash it you wash it..." :)
    • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      And who really thinks that what they show in the ads are the truth?

    • Great, I'll remember that next time I buy a frozen pizza that doesn't even resemble the picture on the packaging...

      Citroen has a commerical of one of there cars transforming into a robot, don't see many of those on the streets either. And in broadband commercials I see people downloading full HD movies in about 3 seconds over a 20Mbit connection.

      There's nothing Apple about this, everything in marketing and advertisements is fake, exaggerated or just outright untrue and misleading.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by flux ( 5274 )

        Well, if they also spelled out "What's great about this product is that you get something that looks like THIS!" in their advertisement, I'd get the picture someone would complain.. Had the Apple ad plainly told "iPhone is great, it can do all this" without emphasizing on the speed, few people would have problem with that.

    • Most people would view this commercial and think, wow, you can do all that with a phone? I want one!

      By the time they have bought it and figured out how to run it, they'll long since have forgotten how speedy it looked in the advert.

      Ads aren't supposed to be starkly realistic. Just think how awful they'd all be if they were.

      For example, most car companies don't show you the sad realities of operating their vehicles in traffic. I think a realistic portrayal should include an occasional collision ("note how

      • I'd interpret it as "all those other adds shouldn't have run"
        It's still false advertising even if everyone is doing it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Ah, but the ad in question shows a user blazing through a number of tasks, while the voice-over keeps repeating: "really fast". It's like an auto company coming out with a new model and making a commercial where their car wins an F1 competition while telling the viewers how the new model is "really fast". Except I think most people know it's really quite impossible for some 5-seater to outrun a highly tuned F1 speed rocket, while the idea that the iPhone really is that fast doesn't seem quite as implausible
  • So what? (Score:5, Funny)

    by LibertineR ( 591918 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @11:53AM (#25909063)
    My friends tell me that an iPhone will certainly increase my penis size, with the only drawback being that I will need one of those fancy Apple carrying cases to keep it in.

    SOLD, bitches!

    • I don't know about penis size, but Apple convinced me I'd be cooler with an iPhone. So I bought it and... strangely, no friends - except the ones I already had from online games and RPG conventions.

      I want my money back so I can pay my phone sex bill.

    • So they are adding fresnel case now?
  • Jeez... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Abstrackt ( 609015 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @11:55AM (#25909085)

    The commercial is done by the time they finish with Google.

    Maybe if they'd put a warning similar to "screen images simulated, not really an iphone, 5x speed, etc." it wouldn't have been pulled.

  • App store (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pzs ( 857406 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @11:56AM (#25909091)

    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.

    • Apple is no different than any other company in that regard. Haven't you ever seen a MSFT commercial where they say Vista is fast and secure?

      You can't use your desktop that fast either. It just takes time to actually use the products they are showing. And over 3g connections it is slow.

    • rather like those cosmetics adverts that say "some post-processing done on model".

      We don't have those disclaimers here across the pond yet. I find mascara adverts most annoying in their false eyelash using false advertisementness.

    • Re:App store (Score:4, Informative)

      by jeremyp ( 130771 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @12:41PM (#25909505) Homepage Journal

      It is the UK advert that has been banned.

  • by Verteiron ( 224042 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @11:58AM (#25909111) Homepage

    You're telling me there's an organization that actually checks advertisements for false and misleading information, and has the power to pull blatant lies off the air? When did this happen?

  • Beauty treatments (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MrMickS ( 568778 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @11:58AM (#25909115) Homepage Journal

    Its a shame that the ASA doesn't come down with the same force on the incessant bombardment of beauty treatments we have with obviously fake material in them. I mean there is one for getting rid of deep set wrinkles, in the before shot the actress is frowning, in the after shot she's not. Viola! The wrinkles have gone!

    I guess the problem is that the there isn't the degree of competitive scrutiny going on. All of the beauty companies pull the same trick so no one wants to upset the Apple cart.

    • by pzs ( 857406 )

      I wonder where it should end? In some ways, I wish the ASA would actually take a moral stance on adverts too.

      You're right that cosmetics adverts are appalling, but in my view perfume adverts are even worse. Since all scents are basically a matter of preference and cost nothing to produce, all you're paying for is the marketing and the image you feel it projects. This is a bit dubious to a geek like me, but I accept that this is an aspirational lifestyle product and therefore must be advertised as such.


      • by stjobe ( 78285 )

        In conclusion: the human race is doomed. (why do all my Slashdot posts seem to end with this conclusion?)

        Because it's the truth.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jesus_666 ( 702802 )
        You appear to have different scent ads than Germany does. In Germany, scent ads are usually exercises in dadaism, completely devoid of any discernible content. The palette goes from women randomly gyrating with trippy special effects overlaid to a man rambling about adventure before driving off on a moped to weird disjointed nonsense that ends with a man walking away from a cyan-tinted Union Jack. In fact, most of them are simply disjointed nonsense.

        The easiest way to spot a scent ad is to look if it appe
  • News at 11! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cosmocain ( 1060326 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @12:00PM (#25909129)
    Advertisements not telling the truth.

    Next up: Giant footsteps in Alaska not done by Yetis - Signs of prehistoric giantmice found.
  • Whatever... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Bentov ( 993323 )
    Yea, well some of us don't believe most of the things we see on TV, so I have to ask, why is this news? I don't really think I can drive 60mph on a sheet of ice like I see in BMW commercials all the time, I don't think they should pull their commercials because they are not true.
  • In the UK (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Colourspace ( 563895 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @12:15PM (#25909271)
    Thats weird, because I saw the UK advert last night and it states quite clearly at the bottom of the screen that operations have been sped up etc, and does not appear to make any claims to the advert being true to life.... Is this the British ASA or is there an ASA elsewhere in the world (i.e. the USA)?
    • I noticed that too, but I don't remember seeing that previously. It was probably a change apple made in advance of the ASA ruling to show willing.

    • The complaint is that even under ideal conditions could the phone not carry out the actions demonstrated in the advert.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      THere are two adverts... one with browsing which got banned, the other with the app store which has the disclaimers and hasn't been banned yet... I think Apple are hoping the "disclaimers" are enough to avoid a ban
  • So there's a line for "acceptable lies" and "too much of a lie"?

    Because, if you know any TV ad that does not paint the product in a better light than the real world, I'd really like a youtube link. Yes, it is misleading. That's what advertisement is all about, isn't it? Yeah, that supermodel has really great hair after using that shampoo... and two conditioners (not shown), a very expensive hairdresser (not shown) and two hours in the make-up room (not shown). Let's not even get started about car ads.

    I gues

    • by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @01:16PM (#25909767)
      It's more to do with complaints. People know Shampoo isn't going to turn crappy hair into fantastic model-esque hair, but Apple made claims that could feasibly be true, but which turned out to be far off the mark. That's going to get people irked, and they will bring it to the ASA's attention. Kind of like how Dr. Pepper used to write "Solves all your problems" on their bottles in Germany. That stopped for obvious, and similar, reasons.
  • by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) <> on Thursday November 27, 2008 @12:28PM (#25909383)
    ... was the instability of Safari - I'm currently away from the office on a week long business trip, with my iPhone acting as my primary browsing device during the day (while I'm away from the hotel - London has fairly extensive 3G and wifi coverage), and I have to say that I am getting at least one crash per browsing session.

    I would expect this if I was visiting weird websites, but I'm talking about sites like Slashdot, BBC News etc. The entire page can be loaded, and I can be halfway through a Slashdot comments page and Safari will crash, I haven't even hit anything that should trigger Safari to do anything other than scroll down the page!

    On another note, on every iPhone or iPod Touch device I have used (one first gen iPhone, one 3G iPhone and two iPod Touches), Safari has one hell of a difficult time picking up link clicks on the BBC News website - I haven't had any problems elsewhere, just on the BBC News site. It manifests itself as a total lack of registering the fact that I am clicking on a link, with Safari only reacting at all either after I have held down the click for several seconds, or zoomed right in and clicked then. Has anyone else experienced this?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by spruce ( 454842 )

      Ah, to mod up, or reply. I was having this exact same problem, safari would crash sometimes when the page seemed to be attempting to render, sometimes when i'd scroll, and some times if a dog barked. This was happening upwards of five times a day. So I googled it, followed suggestions and cleared history, cache, cookies, but that didn't help. Then I disabled javascript and add-ons, and changes allow cookies to from visited, and it hasn't crashed in two days. Hope it works for you, b/c it was getting bad

  • Totally Unfair (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekmansworld ( 950281 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @01:17PM (#25909777) Homepage

    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.

  • by GrahamCox ( 741991 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @01:24PM (#25909823) Homepage
    The Grauniad has an item which gives some insight into how the ad came to be banned: Here []

    Seems to me Apple didn't really defend this one very appropriately, but then again, who cares?
  • Pfffffft (Score:5, Funny)

    by Grashnak ( 1003791 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @02:09PM (#25910081)

    I can do all those things on my iPhone 3G and at the same time drive my car at 100 mph over twisty mountain roads while an exhausted super model runs her hand over my ultra smooth face (which I shaved in one stroke with my 9 bladed razor) and tells me how great I shag since I started taking Erectzor.

    Anyone who can't is a pansy.

  • by ErnstKompressor ( 193799 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @02:33PM (#25910247) Homepage

    ...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. []

    I don't even like my iPhone that much, but there are better reasons to dislike it than simply fabricated, untruthful criticisms.

    • by chrb ( 1083577 ) on Thursday November 27, 2008 @04:32PM (#25910899)

      You are not testing the same thing. The UK advert was promoting fast 3G browsing speed on the O2 network. Your video is clearly not using O2's 3G network - Google maps takes a lot longer to load up tiles than the 1/2 second or so it does in your video. And you don't do the full claim - "finding directions" is not the same as starting Google maps, zooming in, and exiting. In fact, you don't appear to use the keyboard at all in your video, so apparently you're just loading pre-generated data, and not actually carrying out any of the tasks the adverts says are being carried out.

  • by mosb1000 ( 710161 ) <> on Thursday November 27, 2008 @02:57PM (#25910387)

    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?

UFOs are for real: the Air Force doesn't exist.