Apple: Who Believes Our Ads Anyway? → Other companies don't "lie"

When I see internet advertised at being 3 mbps and I get it and run a bandwidth test and it doesn't come back 3 mbps, can/should I file lawsuit? Hell No!

Speeds are ALWAYS exaggerated in advertisements. This is nothing new. And the fact is, the actual product, though definitely not as fast as in the commercials is still pretty damn fast. Nothing I complain about, which leads me to believe these people are just out to make a quick buck.

I'm not saying I like companies "lying" to me, but again they've only 30 seconds to sell you their product and how often does this stuff work as well as in the commercial?

That's not the point.

Internet is a service that delivers "up to" 3mbps, is advertised as such, and frequently, the fact the people cannot achieve such speeds is because they live too far from the CO, bad cabling, etc... ie. not the provider's fault.

However, there are PLENTY of people who will get the 3mpbs.

In this case, Apple is selling a product and putting it all on speed, the whole AD claiming how fast it is and showing the execution of tasks what in RL could NEVER, under any circumstances, achieve those speeds. Much different.

Then again I've looked at your post history, most of it in the Apple forum, and you seem to be a biased Apple fanboy, arguing against anyone who have something bad to say about Apple or report a negative experience.

You need to see beyond your love for the brand and be objective here.

Damn right.

Haha, your really taking this seriously? Looking through my post history and all?

I'm not afraid to admit it, I'm an Apple fanboy. What's the problem? I don't "hate" everything else. I just use Apple primarily because it's something I'm familiar with and it works for me. I have absolutely nothing against other companies, in fact I have a good amount of respect for Microsoft with all the hardware and software they build (things outside of Windows).

If Apple said, "This is exactly how your iPhone will act!" then I'd be pissed, but they don't mention that anywhere. If you don't know to take commercials with a grain of salt thats your issue for lacking common sense. When I see a commercial for anything I don't assume it's going operate exactly how they show it.

Especially something like a cell phone and network speeds, thats AT&T, not Apple. If you read my post you'd see I made a statement based off my observations, nothing fanboy-ish about it.

If you wanted me to make a fanboy statement I could have said something like... "How could anyone sue Apple? They're the greatest company in the entire world! Everything they make is perfect including the iPhone! Theres absolutely NO issues with the iPhone what so ever!"

....Pfft, yeah right!

Unless they specifically state that their demonstration is NOT what you will get, then it is implied that what you see is what you get. Notice how EVERY other product out there says "time lapse 30 mins" or "dishes pre soaked for 10 mins" because they know that people will expect to get what they are shown unless they are informed that it's just compressed to fit into the 30 second commercial, and even then they will get complaints but are protected because of the disclaimer.

Considering the rate that technology advances these days, it's not that out of line to expect the iPhone to be so advanced that it actually performs as in the commercial, especially considering how "amazing" and "advanced" the iPhone is supposed to be.

That's the old "the other guy did it so that makes it ok" argument, which is based on moral relativism (and fallacy).

Must of us know and agree with the principles of caveat emptor (if we have a lick of sense) but that doesn't excuse any company from gilding the lilly when advertising a product; it's like selling snake oil cure-all. Somewhere, sometime, someone has to draw the line and call companies out on this sort of BS. If it's Apple, so be it. I don't care what company it is.

Apple shouldn't represent something as such (video representation) and then when called on it, make the speciously disingenuous argument that "Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact ..." That's one steaming pile if I've ever smelled one. The argument implies the relative meaning of "reasonable persons" and goes further by suggesting how that person should "reasonably" interpret Apple's intent. That's for a judge or jury to decide; not Apple.
--