Half the price... False Advertising?

SmartAlx

Zealot
Gold
Jun 7, 2007
1,087
8
38
#1
I just saw the 3G commercial again on TV and sure enough it says that the iPhone is half the price, but NOWHERE does it say "for qualified customers." Not even any fine print.

Since some people (like me) aren't qualified for the $199/$299 price, isn't this false advertising? Could I record this ad on my iPhone, take it to the Apple store and play it for them to show them exactly why I should be able to get the 16GB for $299 instead of the inflated price?
 

Saverino

Zealot
Gold
Jun 1, 2008
4,480
92
48
Burbank
#2
Well this is the reason you have to read the bold print and it's also the reason why sometimes in advertisements when they say certain things there's a star or a tiny number next to it.
 

SmartAlx

Zealot
Gold
Jun 7, 2007
1,087
8
38
#3
Well this is the reason you have to read the bold print and it's also the reason why sometimes in advertisements when they say certain things there's a star or a tiny number next to it.
Umm. Yeah, that's my point. Did you read my post? Doy? There is NONE of that in the commercial. I told you that. And the lack of all of that makes it false advertising.
 

Saverino

Zealot
Gold
Jun 1, 2008
4,480
92
48
Burbank
#4
Umm. Yeah, that's my point. There is NONE of that in the commercial. And the lack of all of that makes it false advertising.
Well if they did say that they would probably not have as many customers waiting in line trying to buy the phone. I'm sure a lot of them were people who went thinking they could get the discount and when they were told they didn't qualify they bought it anyways because they were waiting in line already for a long time. There were a lot of people in that position where I was waiting in line.
 

SmartAlx

Zealot
Gold
Jun 7, 2007
1,087
8
38
#5
Those people just didn't know what to do. They didn't know that Apple broke the law. If they knew it, then they'd have been less likely to fall for it.
 

Youngbinks

Zealot
Gold
Jun 4, 2007
7,617
3
38
31
Atlanta, Georgia
#6
I'm pretty sure Apple hasn't broken any laws so I doubt they would sell you the phone for the unsubsidized price. Good luck with that.
 

Lincoln

New Member
Gold
Aug 11, 2007
6,100
4
0
#7
They haven't broken the law. And if you go to the Apple Store to buy an iPhone just because you saw that one commercial, that's pretty much your fault. Look at http://www.apple.com/iPhone. Next to "Half the price" is an asterisk, and the bottom of the page reads as follows:

* Comparisons between iPhone 3G (8GB) and first-generation iPhone (8GB) running on EDGE. Actual speeds vary by site conditions. Requires new two-year AT&T rate plan, sold separately to qualified customers.
 

SmartAlx

Zealot
Gold
Jun 7, 2007
1,087
8
38
#8
They haven't broken the law. And if you go to the Apple Store to buy an iPhone just because you saw that one commercial, that's pretty much your fault.
How DARE you tell me what I should do before I make a purchase! Who are you to tell me how I should make my purchases?

Why am I required to go to a website before I buy an iPhone? If I had to go to a website then they should have put that in the ad. Did they? How would someone who saw the commercial know that they had to go to a website to find out more information before they would wait in line for 10 hours to buy one? That's ridiculous! How many thousands of people out of the loop saw the commercial and decided that they wanted an iPhone based on the ad? I'm sure there are some and there is nothing wrong with that. That's the purpose for the ad! To reach people who are out of the loop! If there was more information, then Apple HAD to mention it. That's the law.

The law does not require anyone to do any research before they go make a purchase. Obviously they won't have any legal recourse if they make an outlandish assumption. "Wait! This iPhone won't work underwater?" No legal recourse there, but they are entitled to sue if the advertiser neglects to explain (in the ad) something that contradicts the ad itself. The law DOES require the advertiser to include everything within the ad that contradicts any claims made by the advertiser, or a statement telling the audience where they can find the additional information. This ad does not do this.

No, Apple didn't break the law by making the ad. But when they didn't honor their ad, they did break the law.

Look at http://www.apple.com/iPhone. Next to "Half the price" is an asterisk, and the bottom of the page reads as follows:
That's a different ad. This one is legal. The one on TV is not.
 

Lincoln

New Member
Gold
Aug 11, 2007
6,100
4
0
#9
How DARE you tell me what I should do before I make a purchase! Who are you to tell me how I should make my purchases?

Why am I required to go to a website before I buy an iPhone? If I had to go to a website then they should have put that in the ad. Did they? How would someone who saw the commercial know that they had to go to a website to find out more information before they would wait in line for 10 hours to buy one? That's ridiculous! How many thousands of people out of the loop saw the commercial and decided that they wanted an iPhone based on the ad? I'm sure there are some and there is nothing wrong with that. That's the purpose for the ad! If there was more information, then Apple HAD to mention it. That's the law.

The law does not require anyone to do any research before they go make a purchase. Obviously they won't have any legal recourse if they make an outlandish assumption. "Wait! This iPhone won't work underwater?" No legal recourse there, but they are entitled to sue if the advertiser neglects to explain (in the ad) something that contradicts the ad itself. The law DOES require the advertiser to include everything within the ad related to any claims made by the advertiser, or a statement telling the audience where they can find the additional information. This ad does not do this.

No, Apple didn't break the law by making the ad. But when they didn't honor their ad, they did break the law.

That's a different ad. This one is legal. The one on TV is not.
Whoa, dude, cool down. When I said "that's pretty much your fault", I was not speaking to you, I was talking about the people that see one advertisement and decide to pick one up without doing any research first.
 

SmartAlx

Zealot
Gold
Jun 7, 2007
1,087
8
38
#10
Whoa, dude, cool down. When I said "that's pretty much your fault", I was not speaking to you, I was talking about the people that see one advertisement and decide to pick one up without doing any research first.
I know I know. I'm cool. But still, your statement could just as much be about me as anybody. The only reason it's not about me is that I am an iPhone fan. I did research it because I wanted to. But I might not have had the time to do any research before I waited in line for 10 hours.

Your claim that it's the customer's fault for not knowing about any fine print is pretty harsh. How would they know about any fine print if the ad doesn't give any clue about it?
 

Youngbinks

Zealot
Gold
Jun 4, 2007
7,617
3
38
31
Atlanta, Georgia
#11
Well then I guess we will be seeing the Class Action Lawsuit soon. It seems as if you've got the case wrapped up.
 

theevilone

New Member
Bronze
Dec 30, 2007
85
0
0
#12
sign me up for the law suit. I have to wait to get a phone for 599 what's that? they will not sell no contract phones for a month or two. I smell a law suit, most company's have a product in stock they sell it to anyone.
 

OJsakila

New Member
Jul 15, 2007
3,021
1
0
Jupiter's sulphur mines
#13
its jerkoffs like you with stupid ass lawsuits that drive the price of the very object of your suit up. To make anals like yourself happy, they'd need a two hour comercial to just cover their ass. Its ADVERTISING you bleeding heart.

I'm SURE you are the guy that it takes an hour and a half to watch 60 Minutes with!





Quit acting so lonely.
 

x999x

New Member
Gold
Aug 6, 2007
1,656
0
0
#14
@John

HOW DARE YOU!

Good day Sir...

I SAID, GOOD DAY!
 

coal0101

New Member
Bronze
Jun 30, 2007
125
0
0
#15
oh well

I guess Apple "assumed" people are smart enough to understand a subsidized phone requires a contract...guess people are not. Good luck with that lawsuit...idle hands.
 

x999x

New Member
Gold
Aug 6, 2007
1,656
0
0
#16
Its all part of the hype machine. WWDC would not have had the momentum it did if SJ threw the bit in there about it only being half the price based on upgrade eligibility for a price subsidization.

I felt a little confused too, especially since I had to open a new line to qualify for the subsidization, yet ironically ATT called me back to apologize and have me transfer back to my old number because I in fact was eligible... doh!

In any case, all current iPhone switchers with v1 on new contracts should be eligible, provided your bill is current, and there are no outstanding charges. You basically extend your contract another 21 months or so.
 
Mar 30, 2008
5,126
0
0
Elizabethtown, Kentucky
#17
I just saw the 3G commercial again on TV and sure enough it says that the iPhone is half the price, but NOWHERE does it say "for qualified customers." Not even any fine print.

Since some people (like me) aren't qualified for the $199/$299 price, isn't this false advertising? Could I record this ad on my iPhone, take it to the Apple store and play it for them to show them exactly why I should be able to get the 16GB for $299 instead of the inflated price?
A little off-topic. . .But what channel were you watching when you saw the iPhone 3G commercial? Cause I have never seen it on "T.V", only on youtube after the WWDC conference:eek:
 

SmartAlx

Zealot
Gold
Jun 7, 2007
1,087
8
38
#18
Watch yourself OJ. You just voilated forum rules by calling me a jerkoff. That's a very nice attitude you have there. Not what I expect from a "genius" especially one who is so well known here.
 

SmartAlx

Zealot
Gold
Jun 7, 2007
1,087
8
38
#19
And what you are talking about is frivolous lawsuits for millions of dollars because some idiot spilled coffee on themselves or some such. This is a few hundred dollars all because Steve Jobs is too arrogant to put a disclaimer on his TV ad. And it would not have been as difficult as you make it out to be. They just needed to put the fine print on the screen. But that would ruin the look of the commercial, so Steve apparantly didn't want to do that. This is a fight of right against pride. It wouldn't be an attempt to get rich. Steve needs to learn a lesson, that form should follow function. And there are real reasons, sometimes legal ones, for the function, so he shouldn't just ignore them.

Frankly I'm surprised the Apple legal team didn't catch this.
 

SmartAlx

Zealot
Gold
Jun 7, 2007
1,087
8
38
#20
A little off-topic. . .But what channel were you watching when you saw the iPhone 3G commercial? Cause I have never seen it on "T.V", only on youtube after the WWDC conference:eek:
Sorry, I don't remember. I was all over the dial at the time.