"siriously" dude that's a terrible pun.DVS BSTrD said:
But you do make a point, he's too uptight about this whole thing.
captcha: nitty-gritty
Class-Action Suit Labels Siri Ads "Misleading"
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But you do make a point, he's too uptight about this whole thing.
captcha: nitty-gritty
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees things this way. Of course, you never really are the only one. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/9225-Highlanders-Anonymous] Anyway, for those that may remember, back in the mid '90s, Microsoft really was the great Satan of technology. After Windows 95 was released it was a nonstop bitchfest of how lousy it was. They were demonized beyond belief, much having to do with their business practices, and what many considered to be poorly QAed software. But now it seems like Apple is the bad-guy, or whatever now. The thing that galls me is that Apple hate seems to be extended not just to the company itself, but also to its users. Yeah, I use an Apple computer and I don't appreciate being called an idiot because my personal preference. Of course I'm not so blind that I wouldn't be perfectly willing to list the shortcomings of their technology, but there are many benefits too and blind hatred is just as shitty as blind fanboyism.Carsus Tyrell said:
Okay, on fucking topic:
I've seen that add for Siri and rolled my eyes at it. It seemed way, way too optimistic about the abilities of voice recognition, which has always been shaky, even on full powered computers. I immediately likened it to this commercial for Kinect that I saw a while back:
When I saw this I had the same reaction: "Yeah fucking right, there's no way this device will function to that level." Ads for new "breakthrough" tech have to be taken with a grain of salt; this lawsuit is asinine and Apple should win it.
Ha, ha. That'd almost make it worth buying one. Almost. Of course, it'd have to have the GLaDOS persona too.Lunar Templar said:is there a mod so it sounds like GLaDOS? cause I'll care if there is about this rather stupid lawsuit if there is
"What does my day look like?"
"It's going to be miserable because you are a miserable person. I not saying that to be mean, it's simply an objective conclusion based on gathered data. It says it right here: 'You are a miserable, lonely person who struggles to find meaning in your pathetic empty life.' Oh, and you have a meeting with the VP of marketing at 4pm."
This is a terrible pun, so why do I find it so amusing nonetheless? Alright, I'm done here.DVS BSTrD said:
TheMann said:Ha, ha. That'd almost make it worth buying one. Almost. Of course, it'd have to have the GLaDOS persona too.Lunar Templar said:is there a mod so it sounds like GLaDOS? cause I'll care if there is about this rather stupid lawsuit if there is
"What does my day look like?"
"It's going to be miserable because you are a miserable person. I not saying that to be mean, it's simply an objective conclusion based on gathered data. It says it right here: 'You are a miserable, lonely person who struggles to find meaning in your pathetic empty life.' Oh, and you have a meeting with the VP of marketing at 4pm."
of course, that's the whole reason I'd want it, for her snarky mean spirited quips, and it would be AWESOME
To be fair the writer who took this story isn't without his biases, though he manages to maintain some semblance of objectivity on the whole "do they deserve to be sued" angle even if he calls them all douchebags anyway.Use_Imagination_here said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/9207-The-Douche-King
That should outline his views on the issue.
Yo, it's a multinational in the IT industry we're talking about here.Spot1990 said:
You know, keeping company with folks like Dell that somehow think advertising a PC as a great "gaming PC" is acceptable when it has an nVidia 430 in it, making it below spec for every single AAA title out there.
Below spec as in minimum settings don't run properly.
Then there's apple themselves.
Most mac ads are full of crap, and I've even seen a few mac pro ads that claim they're good value for money.
If people believe the kind of BS IT companies spout, they deserve to get their wallets raped.
It will be interesting to see how this goes, personally I'm cheering for the guys pursueing the suit.
I don't think the guys bringing the suit are morons or don't understand the nature of advertising. As I understand things this is a matter of the product simply not doing what it's supposed to be capable of.
The problem is that like most suits they are taking a "shotgun" approach and throwing as many angles of attack into it as possible, which is a viable legal strategy. The idea being that some of them will fail, but will present points that Apple will have to cover, increasing the chances they will make mistakes, contridict themselves later, or leave openings. A lot of these accusatons are ones that should be fielded easily, and would not be valid reasons for a suit on their own, but that probably isn't the point. In there though are a few good points though like the issue of the iPhone not being able to process abstract requests. Basically, if you ask the same questions demonstrated clearly in the ad to the product you should get the same results, even if one could technically argue that they cut out the search time and loading time, if the iPhone is inherantly unable to interpet the question and reach the same data, then it's false advertising and the guys bringing the suit should by rights win... whether they will or not remains to be seen.
To be honest I am of the opinion that just because advertisers lie does not mean it's right for them to do so, or that they should get away with it. The very fact that it has gotten to the point where people are jaded to the point of dismissing ads as lies or misrepresentations is a problem, and shows that we really do need to come up with tighter standards for what companies are allowed to claim and how they go about it.
People laugh about "honesty in advertising" and makes jokes about a mediocre product being presented as mediocre, but really I don't see anything paticularly wrong with that, and while it seems unapprochable now, look at the situation with medications being advertised on TV and the much mocked sequence where they list all the potential side effects as part of the ad due to the requirements. Since the ad industry and sponsoring companies won't police themselves it might get to the point where the goverment needs to put similar requirements on ALL forms of advertising. A few good lawsuits and some precedents established in cases like this one with the iPhone and we could very well see a better world as far as ads go, all it takes is one billion dollar lawsuit to go through and the business world takes notice, and if enogh judges makes rulings your going to see laws requiring specific things.... such as requiring companies to do things like require the exact specs of their product as part of advertising and not use "trade secrets" as a defense. I think you'd be surprised how many people would actually understand information on how fast an iphone processes data for example. In an ad where they shorten things for time constraints to cut out the loading, there should be a mention of how fast the system would actually process a request, much like how a drug
company discloses side effects.
I don't think the guys bringing the suit are morons or don't understand the nature of advertising. As I understand things this is a matter of the product simply not doing what it's supposed to be capable of.
The problem is that like most suits they are taking a "shotgun" approach and throwing as many angles of attack into it as possible, which is a viable legal strategy. The idea being that some of them will fail, but will present points that Apple will have to cover, increasing the chances they will make mistakes, contridict themselves later, or leave openings. A lot of these accusatons are ones that should be fielded easily, and would not be valid reasons for a suit on their own, but that probably isn't the point. In there though are a few good points though like the issue of the iPhone not being able to process abstract requests. Basically, if you ask the same questions demonstrated clearly in the ad to the product you should get the same results, even if one could technically argue that they cut out the search time and loading time, if the iPhone is inherantly unable to interpet the question and reach the same data, then it's false advertising and the guys bringing the suit should by rights win... whether they will or not remains to be seen.
To be honest I am of the opinion that just because advertisers lie does not mean it's right for them to do so, or that they should get away with it. The very fact that it has gotten to the point where people are jaded to the point of dismissing ads as lies or misrepresentations is a problem, and shows that we really do need to come up with tighter standards for what companies are allowed to claim and how they go about it.
People laugh about "honesty in advertising" and makes jokes about a mediocre product being presented as mediocre, but really I don't see anything paticularly wrong with that, and while it seems unapprochable now, look at the situation with medications being advertised on TV and the much mocked sequence where they list all the potential side effects as part of the ad due to the requirements. Since the ad industry and sponsoring companies won't police themselves it might get to the point where the goverment needs to put similar requirements on ALL forms of advertising. A few good lawsuits and some precedents established in cases like this one with the iPhone and we could very well see a better world as far as ads go, all it takes is one billion dollar lawsuit to go through and the business world takes notice, and if enogh judges makes rulings your going to see laws requiring specific things.... such as requiring companies to do things like require the exact specs of their product as part of advertising and not use "trade secrets" as a defense. I think you'd be surprised how many people would actually understand information on how fast an iphone processes data for example. In an ad where they shorten things for time constraints to cut out the loading, there should be a mention of how fast the system would actually process a request, much like how a drug
company discloses side effects.