"Twice as fast for half the price" could be the statement that gets Apple in a heap of trouble. William Gillis of San Diego is suing Apple for its claims that the new iPhone 3G is indeed "Twice as fast for half the price". While it could be quick to write this off as another lawsuit get rich quick scheme, Apple's rebuttal is quite interesting. Wired are reporting that Apple's lawyers have crafted a nine page response [PDF] to Gillis's complaint. While most of the rebuttal is standard lawyer gibberish about how Apple would never do such a thing; they do write "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". A quick translation says that the complaint about the "twice as fast for half the price" should not be taken at face value and the statement is not a fact.
The lawsuit has more ground than one might think; with other iPhone lawsuits Apple has moved to have them dismissed and the courts agreed, but not so in Gillis case. Is Apple going to admit that its advertisements were misleading? Apple will be able to prove that the phone is indeed faster but only under ideal conditions. Unfortunately for Apple you can't advertise non real world conditions. It would be as if Ford said their cars got 100 MPG but only going down hill with your foot off the accelerator.
The lawsuit accuses Apple of unsatisfactory performance from the iPhone 3G; claiming "frequently dropped calls to sluggish broadband speeds and the inability to stay on 3G before it switches to the slower EDGE network". Apple has promised to remedy the issues but users are still complaining about the issues since launch.
Apple, for the time being, has been able to protect itself in US courts. This statement can't be said though in the UK where the U.K. Advertising Standards Authority banned two iPhone 3G advertisements, deeming them misleading for exaggerating the speeds and internet capabilities of the handset.
The question remains if Apple is producing advertisements that are truly misleading; advertisements claiming the "full internet" even though it lacked flash and "twice the speed" while dropping 3G connections. Did Apple truly mislead customers? That's for the courts to decide.
Ooh, and LinSUX and Micro$haft!
I see what you did there. Funny stuff.
MApple
and best. How ironic is that?
Yah, Apple ads are terrible.
Justice sucks for Apple.
As to the ad, I really don't have an opinion on it.
Seeing as how many parts of technology double in speed/quality/capacity on a regular basis, usually accompanied by a price cut (CPU speeds, GPU capability, broadband speeds) you can say ANY reasonable person would believe this to be a possibility.
Not like Apple has a history of this kind of thing dating back to the early days of the Pentium... oh wait, yes they do.
I smell hardcore apple fanboy troll.
As for the advert I agree with bob_c_b.
I smell hardcore apple fanboy troll.
As for the advert I agree with bob_c_b.
Welcome to last year!
I smell hardcore apple fanboy troll.
As for the advert I agree with bob_c_b.
I smell someone who has trouble reading:
". . . at least that's what Apple's lawyers are saying specifically.
As to the ad, I really don't have an opinion on it."
I HAVE NO OPINION ON IT. I merely told you what Apple's lawyers were trying to say.
"Apple advertised it's a fast phone, yes, but it should not be taken literrally!!!"
"Apple advertised it's a fast phone, yes, but it should not be taken literrally!!!"
That should read "summary of Apple's lawyers' comments."
Anyone else exhibiting a reading disability today?
I just take it one day at a time, ex . . . one day at a time.
A couple of bucks per week couldn't hurt.
Hypocrites ftw.
Same ****, plast.
We still think you're smart and clever, though. Rest assured.
Complete and utter tross. How did this get onto neowin?
From what I've seen, in fairly large letters at the bottom it says "sequence altered" or similar...
"Life without Walls" is figurative.
"Twice as fast for half the price" is literal, it's about the factual speed and performance, LAWL.
"Life without walls" doesnt refer directly to the product and it is clearly a slogan it is not claiming the product removes walls from your life.
Its like commercials which have a car surfing on the sea or turning into a robot - its obvious they are not claiming the car does these things. Whereas an advert which claims a car to be twice the speed of a previous car is directly related to the performance of a realistic item.
Do we really need adverts to state ""The following you are about to see must be considered completely factual, please disregard all previous knowledge of anything." at the start of them?
Lol, there's this magical youtube app on the iphone which is able to browse youtube and even watch videos! Amazing!
You must remember this is an advertisement. People will buy the product expecting the same web experience as on their PC. Then they won't be able to play their favourite flash games. Oh no.
See the point?
A lot of websites on the internet are plain flash websites so your point is not valid.
Apple suggesting AntiVirus?
Apple Ads saying "Twice as Fast and Half the Price" and needing lawyers to explain in legalese that it is a joke?
Seriously... "Twice as fast" in the computer world isnt taken as a slogan or a joke, it is generally truth. Especially when a reputable company (like Apple) states such a claim.
Put it this way, if Sun MicroSystems put out such a claim on a new server line and it wasnt twice as fast AND half the price - they would be in court for a long long time.
Lets say if eBay took Sun to court because they were setting up for eBay2 and needed whole new server farm, purchased 100 new Sun Servers and it wasnt any faster - I dont think Sun's lawyers would say "Aww come on guys...it's a joke.... geezzz... Are you serious?... You really thought that.... Haa haahahaa oh my god you though we were serious... pheww now what is even funnier that you bought it because of that... hahahaa aww man"
Apple suggesting AntiVirus?
Apple Ads saying "Twice as Fast and Half the Price" and needing lawyers to explain in legalese that it is a joke?
Seriously... "Twice as fast" in the computer world isnt taken as a slogan or a joke, it is generally truth. Especially when a reputable company (like Apple) states such a claim.
Put it this way, if Sun MicroSystems put out such a claim on a new server line and it wasnt twice as fast AND half the price - they would be in court for a long long time.
Lets say if eBay took Sun to court because they were setting up for eBay2 and needed whole new server farm, purchased 100 new Sun Servers and it wasnt any faster - I dont think Sun's lawyers would say "Aww come on guys...it's a joke.... geezzz... Are you serious?... You really thought that.... Haa haahahaa oh my god you though we were serious... pheww now what is even funnier that you bought it because of that... hahahaa aww man"
Funniest thing was, I checked out their website the day before they announced switching to Intel processors (still using PPC). In the top right hand corner of their web page it stated something similar to:
PPC Processors 30% faster than Intel.
It was a link, so I clicked on it and it showed these diagrams of the speed of their PPC processors and the speed of Intel's x86 processors. It looked like a valid result because it showed Intel winning in one area, but PPC winning in all the rest (looked valid because Intel won one).
The next day I saw their announcement of switching to Intel processors. I thought: "This doesn't make sense, they were saying..."
So I checked their website again. Guess what it said now? It had a really hyped statement similar to:
Using new Intel processors, the fastest processors in the world*. *25% faster than PPC processors.
I had no idea what to think. Apparently, in one day, Intel processors got about 67% faster. I checked to see if a new processor was released by Intel. Nope, their last release of a fast processor was months ago.
Irrelevance had its advantages, notably invisibility. Not any more. Welcome to the majors, Apple.
just one of the reasons why I don't want Apple to become even more mainstream...
Glassed Silver:win
Of course they do--but only as long as you're not going to sue them.
Trolling for suckers, duh. The suckers won't sue.
I believe that, instead of sueing, this guy should make Apple put a disclaimer stating that after every commercial lmao.. That's what they said themselves, why not feed it to the masses.
So far my favourite is the 15th affirmative defense - Apple had no knowledge that it was untrue or misleading... If they didn't know it was untrue they do not know it is true... and therefore should not be allowed to make such claims.
Actually reading this document to me looks like Apple do not stand a chance, as what the claimant is bringing forward isn't even relevant to some of the defenses.
Compared to what? Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can see, it may even be twice as fast as a 90's mobile phone and for half the price of a laptop.
The statement is not complete and competent defence will be able to get any court to dismiss charges.
Compared to what? Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can see, it may even be twice as fast as a 90's mobile phone and for half the price of a laptop.
The statement is not complete and competent defence will be able to get any court to dismiss charges.
Good point. But we'll see . . .
Compared to what? Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can see, it may even be twice as fast as a 90's mobile phone and for half the price of a laptop.
The statement is not complete and competent defence will be able to get any court to dismiss charges.
Oh please, any moron can see that "twice as fast for half the price" means that the new iPhone is twice as fast as the original iPhone. If Apple weasels its way using your excuse, then its proof positive that they are not looking after their customers.
But no, I'm sure Apple made those statements because no one could reasonably accept them as fact. Yes, that must be it. Apple needs to hire better lawyers. Start shifting money away from the Steve Jobs yacht fund and put it in their legal department.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.