Apple G5 Ads Banned In UK 709
Justen writes "The Independent Television Commission has quietly banned Apple from airing an advertisement (in QuickTime here) for the Power Mac G5 in the UK. The Committee says that, prior to the initial broadcast of the ad, it was critical of the assertion that the Power Mac G5 is "the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer." However, Apple supplied what was asserted to be "fair and even" data, based partially on SPEC benchmarks, which "substantiated" Apple's claims and "satisfied" the concerns of their "IT expert." However, the Committee says some "viewers complained that the advertising was misleading," and thus, after an investigation, it reversed its original decision. The Committee has now decided that the ad "should not be re-shown in its current form." Conspiracy theorists take note, Apple's sales in the UK are up 36%, so far, this year."
Which conspiracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Conspiracy theorists take note, Apple's sales in the UK are up 36%, so far, this year.
Which conspiracy theory should I be concerned with? The theory that the ITC is out to thwart Apple or the conspiracy between Apple and ITC to sell more Macs?
Glad to see the UK take a stand for integrity in advertising.
Re:Irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:UK Advertising laws are different. (Score:3, Insightful)
That probably explains why Carlsberg advertise as "Probably the best lager in the world".
Of course, it would leave Budweisser open to attack with their "king of beers" claim. Clearly wrong!!
Re:Conspiracy? Yes. (Score:1, Insightful)
I saw the ad myself. I even remember thinking "thats a pretty bold claim" and wondering if anyone except me would even think to research/analyse/evaluate/complain.
So people did complain. Good show!
Because its simply NOT TRUE.
Plenty of big iron boxes like Crays and IBM are obviously more powerful machines. The ad contains a blatently FALSE sataement.
Apple merely wishes it were true. Which is not the same as it being true.
btw I quite like Apple computers, and still do.
TV Commercial Banned? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Conspiracy? Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
While i would concede a point arguing that the current intel offerings are as fast or faster, I have to ask the question :
what world do you live in where a Cray is considered a personal computer?!
The ITC (Score:4, Insightful)
Adverts should be held to certain degrees of honesty and integrity. In the US, you can (almost) say what you like, and get away with it. It's very rare that anyone's disciplined in any way, shape or form for misleading or deceptive practices, even when it's blatantly obvious fraud of the consumer is intended.
In England, a few hundred complaints is usually enough to spark an ITC investigation into wrongful advertising. However, they're slow, beaurocratic, and often act in ways which gives the product and the misleading claims far more publicity.
Nonetheless, they do some good. When a rogue advert is found and stopped, it does help bring a touch of reality to the industry. People tend to be a bit more skeptical, a bit more suspicious of claims that seem too good to be true. Which is good! Because it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Here is one of those instances that I'd like each country to borrow a bit from the other. I'd like to see more free speech protection in the UK, but I'd also like to see commercial speech better regulated in the US.
(Commercial speech should not have the same protections as other forms of speech. It should be protected, especially where it is true, but it shouldn't be absolved of all responsibility - it has a lot more weight and power than just some person you happen to meet, and that weight and power needs to be accompanied by responsibility.)
Mindless Note: I honestly believe that the UK and the US sit on different halves of understanding how to make a civilization that can respect itself and others, while remaining strong, free and a damn good place to be. I don't pretend to know how to fit those halves together, or what bits of which are the good bits. All I know is that both countries achieve a degree of happiness in areas that the other can't, that both have strengths the other doesn't, and that on the level of individuals, the wisest are the ones who learn from others.
Re:Conspiracy? Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
People made the same argument about Apple claiming it was the first 64-bit personal computer: "I have an Ultra 5 right here on my desk", but a Sun is not a personal computer, neither is an RS/6000, ad nauseum.
And remember, in the USA, "the fastest" really means "as fast as the competition." As long as all three brands of washing powder clean as well as each other they are the "the best".
Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks (Score:1, Insightful)
Intel can't use their best foot forward because IBM hasn't finished their platform-optimized compilers?
AltiVec is just there, but never used, and doesn't get used by applications like Photoshop, which NEVER shows up as a benchmark?
Please. GMAMFB. They should both be allowed to put their best foot forward, not try and emulate the potentially lagging performance of the other platform. Apple will trip all over themselves to update the benchmarks once IBM finishes their new compilers. Will they be cheating then?
Is it possible... (Score:2, Insightful)
Centrino? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, OK, it says "service depends on availability of WiFi hotspots" in small letters at the bottom of the screen, but come on - the implication of the main ad is just ridiculous! Especially for the 99% of people who have no idea what it's all about.
It's a bit like the P3 (I think) advert that claimed that a new processor would speed up your downloads - that one got pulled fairly quick
Re:Which conspiracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty common knowledge that benchmark results depend in large part on who runs them. Apple ran some tests (carefully selected, no doubt) which did show the G5 was superior to everything on those tests. I'm not surprised, it's a VERY fast computer.
But sure, if you used a different compiler on the PC, or if you ran a different set of tests, the PC could well be faster on those tests.
Does that mean that Apple's claims are blatantly false and misleading? I don't really think so. It's a marketing spin on something that's true in some (but not all) cases.
Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! (Score:3, Insightful)
In Norway we have similar rules: You cannot air commercial claiming something that might be false
I think I prefer the US model (being a native, that's probably to be expected.) In the UK/Norway model, no car could be 'the fastest car', since it would have to be fastest at ALL distances, terrain, etc. Yeah, it's more accurate, but the annoying picky accuracy of grammar nazis.
Perhaps Apple should take a different approach (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not trolling with my love for Apple here. Instead, just pointing out some ways for Apple to go about being a larger thorn without having to argue their point. Novell has been known for their outspoken attitude at times, so perhaps it's not so far fetched to imagine a Novell ad in the near future promoting Linux in a similar vein?
Re:Superfalous? (Score:2, Insightful)
And slowly the world would be held up by millions of little white lies, which individually don't matter much, but together they form a flimsy foundation for what should be a trustworthy global community.
Good job, Europe! I applaud you.
marketing departments should be officially renamed to "The Department of Lies, Cheats, and Doublespeak" as should University curriculums which give degrees in Marketting.
Re:Superfalous? (Score:2, Insightful)
None of them, of course. Instead they would ignore the whole performance issue and point out that their computers looked more like yummy gumdrops than the competition.
It's a fact of marketing.
KFG
Re:Which conspiracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
personal computer [n. Abbr. PC ]
"A computer built around a microprocessor for use by an individual, as in an office or at home or school."
There claim was simply too broad. They also claimed it to be the first 64bit computer (maybe for personal use? who cares, they're still wrong).
I was pretty shocked they made the claim myself. Seemed a little over the top to me.
DISCLAIMER: I would *love* to own a new G5. For now I'll stick to building ~3ghz PC's for under $500.
Re:BMW -- the pen-Ultimate Driving Machine... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Conspiracy? Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
All joking aside, you have been able to buy dual processor desktops for A LONG time.
Difference in Claim & Assessment (Score:2, Insightful)
"the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer"
Assessment:
"the G5 was generally as fast as the best Intel-based workstations currently available"
Apple never claimed to have the fastest workstations instead the fastest personal computer. The only way they were able to demonstrate that Apple was misleading was by using a different class of computer (which cost much more).
Re:Conspiracy? Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that, I run a dual Xeon System. The fact that you and I (not to mention other computer geeks) have these systems and probably use them as personal systems, does not make them "personal computers".
Going to dell.com and looking under home, or students, you won't find dual processor systems. The same is true of almost every other x86 vendor. Apple on the other hand markets it's dual processor systems to home users.
This leads to my conclusion: From the stand point of "personal computers" (and we can argue about what this really means all day), I'd be shocked if the highest end (dual processor) Apple couldn't out perform the highest end "personal computer" from an Intel vendor(which will inevitably be a UP).
Re:Conspiracy? Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, $3K is definitely a personal machine. Its the same as Apple want for their G5.
The slight of hand here is that Apple is classifying the competition as being something different. Basically the Apple definition of PC seems to be 'any computer less powerful than our flagship'.
The UK Advertising council does not accept half truths.
Parsing words does not make a falsehood (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently extreme truth in advertising is necessary to not confuse the English mind. The ad clearly states "The worlds fastest, most powerful, personal computer."
Where the hell did you get the idea that "big iron boxes like Crays and IBM" are personal computers?
In the US, superlatives are OK, as by some measure something can be the most, best, or greatest. The problem is when some product is advertised with comparatives. A product can be the best, but just better requires irrefutable proof.
They said fastest and most powerful, and by the SPEC benches they submitted, it is. They didn't say the G5 is faster than a Dell dual Xeon 3.0 running XP or a HP Pavilario running Red Hat because this type of apples to oranges comparison would require specific results and would throw off the simplicity of the advertisement.
Anyone who takes the claims of a twelve word advertisement as gospel is a retarded idiot who shouldn't be allowed to buy anything more expensive than a pack of bubble gum. If this is the situation in England, then I truly feel sorry for the few intelligent people who are trapped there and have to be protected by this type of "truth in advertising" laws.
-- Len
Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks (Score:1, Insightful)
A standard compiler is not part of the SPEC benchmarking process, because what we're all interested in estimating is the ultimate hardware performance, not hardware + a compiler only some of us will use (and joe home user, be he windoze or mac user, won't be compiling anything with gcc himself.). If you want to measure hardware performance, you should use the compilers that actually make use the hardware in the way it was intended.
GCC isn't taking advantage of the hardware in a uniform way between the the various x86 architectures and the Motorola G4 or IBM 970 chips, so I don't see how you can think its a truly level playing field either. Its certainly not using the exact same machine language in all cases.
Why didn't Apple use IBM's XL compiler, which does have 970-specific optimizations - they could have, and shown us a real comparison against Intel and AMD? That would have saved everyone from this annoying fuss... I feel they were too busy attempting a quick PR victory using numbers that exaggerated the differences in chip speed.
If you can afford to buy Apples products you can damn well get Intels compiler if you really need something to run fast, even if you are a running linux and wouldn't dream of actually buying other software.
All misleading advertising should be challenged. Unless you are a technophile and read fine print you would be mislead by those ads - the spec scores are only one of the way they're exaggerating. This knee-jerk over-hyping and then fanatical defense of everthing Apple does (not specifically by you, I mean in general) exceeds that of the Microsoft apologists in volume. Its a pity, because its making ./ is go way down in signal-to-noise.
Re:Which conspiracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
However, again comparing white box systems to full systems with a warranty by a major vendor really isn't fair. You need to compare to a system from a top tier vendor like Dell.
Compare a dual Xeon from Dell to a G5, and you'll see they're fairly similar.
Silver lining... (Score:4, Insightful)
-psy
Re:Conspiracy? Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
The enthusiast/do-it-yourself market throws a wrench in advertisment-based categories. Instead, price and capabilities become the things to look at, not what some
You also have to deal with the fact that in its marketing efforts Apple does go and compare it to Xeon based systems, so it can't go and say "don't compare me to a server/workstation" now.
Re:Conspiracy? Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
You say that you cannot cite a different market segment, but I am not doing that. I'm looking at people who want to spend $2000-3000 (or $4000, still in the range of a G5) for a computer that will run a wide and flexible range of software applications. Whether you call a machine in that range a personal computer or a workstation is neither here nor there as they perform the same function at the same cost. The link you clicked when you bought them does not change what they are.
And again, Apple does feel that it is fair for them to cite a workstations in their ads, so they themselves were the first ones to open this door: http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
Re:The ITC (Score:3, Insightful)
Suing is never easy or risk free. You can win and still be stuck with enormous legal costs, or you might be awarded costs, maybe. Or you lose, in which case you would lose big. In any case the lawyers win. And suing a well-healed corporation is even more risky, they can afford expensive lawyers that are more likely to win (if nothing else), or they can just buy you off (in which case the advert stands and other, less knowing people will get ripped off.)
Personally I much prefer an 'umpire' to make the decisions- it's cheaper alround that way- sure they don't always make the absolute best decisions, but like an umpire in sport, they're usually pretty good and very rarely terrible.
Re:Which conspiracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't take metaphors literally! (Score:1, Insightful)
What seems to be missing from this discussion is a single word at the heart of the issue: metaphor.
The expression "the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer" contains two living, breathing metaphors:fastest and powerful. It is the nature and charm and power of metaphors that they are deceptive, and that no enumeration of facts (time to complete certain tasks, or whatever) can prove them. (There is, after all, the fact/metaphor gap to consider.)
No, "fastest" is not a quantitative claim when applied to stationary objects. Neither is "powerful", "higher", or "stronger" when applied to computers. No, Apple did not present their metaphors as fact; no, such obvious evaluative metaphors are never "objective statements".
Not since a jury ruled against Papa John's for its slogan "better ingredients, better pizza", have so many people been duped by metaphor in advertising. Please, people, get over it! If you think that the G5 really is the fastest personal computer, you are deceived by language. If you think that it really isn't the fastest, you, too, are deceived by language. Use metaphors, by all means, but don't believe them!
And please: if you live in the U.K., call off the metaphor police!
Re:Apple's advertising is false and misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
Calling a dual-processor computer with a PCI-X bus a "personal computer" and a single-processor system with a PCI bus a "workstation"?
The original poster is right, Apple's ads are incorrect and misleading. That being said, so are the ads of just about every other company out there.
Re:Conspiracy? Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes they cite workstations on their website because they also target that market with a version of the G5 with more RAM, fiberchanel cards, etc.
Ah, but by your arguement Apple must have a seperate website for you to go to if you want to buy the G5 "Workstation", otherwise it wouldn't be a workstation. However, you can go to www.store.apple.com and notice that there's nothing to distinguish a G5 personal computer from a G5 workstation. Careful! You might buy the wrong one!
Re:Which conspiracy? (Score:1, Insightful)
Pentium4 is slow with GCC, naturally both were used in Apple tests.
Re:Which conspiracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple have a long and illustrious track record of stretching the truth and this time they stepped over. I don't see what the fuss is. If they can't make claims are backed up by impartial facts and reality they deserve to be yanked every time.
Agreed - but that kinda makes it ok (Score:1, Insightful)
So at first glance Apple should be in the hotseat for making SERIOUS claims that just arent true, but, as you say - it's based on a benchmark, that can be tweaked to favor the benchmarkee (is that a word?) Which in my mind puts it in the "Our tropical forests..." category.
Re:Seems like censorship but we like it (Score:3, Insightful)
Changes of that happening here in the US are next to nil, as we cling to the shibboleth of deregulation even when it brings us crisis after crisis in energy, health, stocks, banking, industry, etc. If your Blair keeps studying his lessons well, you can have our troubles, too.