iPhone marketing is "unreasonable" according to Apple

 

After 70-year-old William Gillis filed a lawsuit against Apple alleging that their marketing was misleading regarding the iPhone 3g's abilities, the computer powerhouse released a 9-page rebuttal that would bring any competent PR person to their knees. Apple's statement officially told its steadfast clientele to "not trust its marketing".

Gillis claims that the campaign's "twice as fast for half the price" slogan is misleading as the 3G's $200 price tag was, of course, limited to those with ATT service and an already activated, first-generation iPhone. While this is a brazen suit to file against a computer giant, Apple's reaction was less than satisfactory to say the least.

"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," was Apple's response.

In my opinion, this response is pretty despicable. It sounds like the billion-dollar legal team at Apple HQ really phoned this one in. The legal document that states Apple's advertising is "such that no reasonable person . . . could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood . . . as claims of fact".

Wait a minute . . . did that just confess guilt? Unless something is a statement of fact, does that mean it's all just fluff?

At a glance, the "twice as fast for half the price" slogan IS deceptive as the 3G's $200 price tag was only extended to those with existing ATT contracts and a first-generation iPhone. The 3G service is spotty at best, and the phone had many other initial flaws that stood to test the "fewest dropped calls" claim from ATT (the verdict is still out on whether Gillis will try and sue for that as well).

Several U.K. courts have already deemed the ads "misleading" and have had them pulled from television.

However, Gillis' claim is unmeasurable and outlandish at best. At the risk of sounding agist, a 70-year-old in San Diego suing over the fact that his new 3G is half as fast as his old iPhone seems a bit contradictory. Unless Mr. Gillis holds a degree and several years experience in tinkering, professionally, with devices like iPhones, I doubt he can really tell that his 3G is less than twice as fast.

While Gillis' futile argument seems to hold no water, it is Apple's response that continues to give it life. Writing a 9-page rebuttal and anchoring it with a phrase that labels its ads as fluff doesn't exactly promote consumer confidence. We're talking Marketing 101 here, folks. Instead of addressing the problem publicly through websites, emailings or promotional offers, the company chose to slug it out in several courts across the land. Wouldn't the simple fix be to update the software at first sign of complaints? Isn't Apple a computer company to begin with? Especially in light of the ads that drag Windows OS through the dirt as a chubby, Bill-Gates-looking fellow holds a bake sale and devotes millions of dollars to marketing instead of fixing the issues with Vista.

Calling the kettle black, much?

Info Sources:  Wired Magazine, gizmodo.com