·Embarq Now Centu..
|reply to TCub |
Re: Other companies don't "lie"
said by TCub:That's the old "the other guy did it so that makes it ok" argument, which is based on moral relativism (and fallacy).
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.
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.