Oh, speaking of news out of WWDC for the iPad thread here, beyond sales numbers it wasn't talked about at all. No demonstration of iOS 4.0 on one, no idea of features for the iPad, and no beta for developers. I was expecting at least something. With iOS 4 going out to iPhones by the end of this month, it's going to complicate things for developers making universal apps for both platforms.

Ouch.

I think if there could be a "lessons learned" here for me it would be:

Only enter more deterministic contests where Ed McMahon comes to your house.

The Financial Times is reporting that "someone" - some US regulator - is "interested" in the mobile advertising provisions in Apple's iOS SDK. Apparently while they know this, they don't seem to know which regulator cares nor which if any is going to do anything about it.

I'm no lawyer, but by all (sane) accounts Apple is pretty much in the clear. They don't have a monopoly position which to abuse. They don't forbid third-party ads nor ad networks. They only block parties with clear conflicts of interest from spying and stealing their IP.

I think someone has 'way' too much time on their hands.....

Really? Seems like if you already have the movie, it would take all of a couple minutes to put that together. Besides, he makes a valid point, though at the most I just consider it to be pretty lame on Apple's part.

Personally, I wouldn't buy an iPad to be a media playback device, so it doesn't bother me too much...

I'm with Andy on this one. This is an issue on any device capable of showing a movie, be it the iPad, an iPhone, every Android phone, every TV ever made and so on. Mixed aspect ratios aren't new, nor is marketing changing images to make it look better in promo material.

I still wonder what it is about Apple that attracts this unequal level of nitpicking. Their marketing team does the same thing the rest of the industry does. But yet some people are only horribly offended when Apple does something, enough to make the image Caleb posted. Seriously, did Jobs personally punch that many people when they were in kindergarden?

It's the fact he/she thinks it's even worth mentioning.

I'd written a small diatribe, but I can condense it to one sentence:

Personally, it's because the company as a whole is so damn smug, and that turns me off.

Tell you what, if I could launch a cutting edge device that basically has age old features like multi-tasking and crappy video calling as it's main selling features, then release it to the world at large with a massive design flaw, be able to convince everyone that it's supposed to be like that, then I would be pretty smug too.

The worst part of it is, I'm right in there with all the other mugs. I've still got my iPhone 4 on order and I've had an iPad for about 10 days now (love it BTW). Let them be smug, they deserve it.

Cheers

Cris

And you might be surprised to hear me say this, but I agree. They do deserve to be smug.

I don't have to like it, though.

Is that true? (I'm asking, I really don't know)

I don't know how to say this without sounding holier-than-thou so please bear with me. But is it really all right for Apple to cheat and lie in their advertising in order to sell their product? What does that say about them as a company?

I am a little taken aback by this. More than a little, actually...

tanstaafl.

Of course it is, he drinks the koolaid, too.

I don't see why you said that first part, Tom. Of course the issue isn't that a 4:3 display can't properly display 16:9 material. The issue is that they blatantly lied about the result you will get by playing that movie on that device.

I'm surprised and not all at the same time. It seems wrong to me to advertise this way, but its also seemed wrong to me from the beginning to market this thing as the best browsing experience and not have it support flash. I realize that many hate flash, but it still seems disingenuous to market it the way they have and not support a ton of content out there on the web. It's the height of arrogance that Apple is going to try and strong arm the industry away from plug-in technology. The worst part is, I think they might succeed, and that's a dangerous amount of power to give a company like Apple.

So back to the original issue- Apple has already show me they are less than honest in there desire to move product. It scares me more than anything M$ has ever done, and yet I'm continuing to drink their Koolaid because the iPhone is one of the far and away best products I've ever owned, and the iPhone/iPod/Apple TV integration is a pretty powerful setup in our household.

Thus far I have resisted getting an iPad even though my wife wants one badly, and this only firms my resolve.

Thanks for answering for me, it saved me time in having to write a reply.

Seriously though. You really think this is the first time ever that a company has doctored an image (ever so slightly, like 20 pixels worth here to make a widescreen movie fit better into a 4:3 advertisement) and it's worth deciding the company can't be trusted. I have a hard time thinking of a company that doesn't "blatantly lie" in the same way with their commercials, product boxes and so on, including the company you work for Caleb. Doctored screenshots and movies (simulated images) are very common in the game industry. And the movie industry, and TV industry, and food industry, and car industry, and, well, I could keep going. But yet again, because Apple did it, stop the presses and burn them at the stake. That punch in kindergarden must have been very memorable, maybe he stole everyones lunch money too.

Again, I just have a hard time understanding why people hold Apple in a different light then everyone else when it comes to their actions. I get the popularity part, fine. It's popular to pick on the company that is doing things well and is successful due to it. But is that really the reason? At least when Microsoft was popular due to illegal actions, I had major reasons to burn them at the stake, and not some simple photoshop in an ad. If anything, my reason for disliking Apple today would be over the antenna design flaw on the iPhone 4, something tangible.



Apple scares me far less then Microsoft did in the 90s, though it's all due to perspective and my position in the PC industry when Microsoft was rampaging. Sure, Apple is doing everything it can to shift people away from plugins, but in a legal way by showing an alternative and sticking with it on their own products in a non monopoly environment. If you don't like the choice, buy something else, it's that simple. Microsoft in the 90s had the power to force every PC company into doing what they wanted, and did so many many times illegally. Gateway did a simple thing of offering consumers choice between Netscape and IE on Gateway computers (not Microsoft computers), and was punished hard for that action. Even worse, Gateway was punished before this choice by simply using Netscape internally. Microsoft forced PC companies to buy Windows illegally. If I wanted a computer preloaded with OS/2 Warp, I was still paying money to the PC maker for a copy of Windows I never got. But yet Apple scares people more? Again, at least with Apple, their actions are confined to their own products in their own segment of the market. Microsoft had control over the entire industry and had many companies dancing to their demands. I'll take a 20 pixel photoshop of a movie on a device over having to pay for something I didn't want and losing choice.

It's true that everyone doctors their screenshots for marketing purposes, and surely a some of the resentment over this particular case is due to the fact that it's Apple doing it. I've been very critical of Apple a lot lately, but I can't get worked up over them having a marketing division that does what marketing divisions do.

That said, all is fair in love and war, so I don't have a problem with someone pointing out the disconnect between the marketing and the actual performance. Maybe it is just because of Apple's market share, or their "smugness" or whatever, but it's a legit criticism, and no matter how nitpicky it is, I'm glad someone out there is pointing this out so people can make an informed decision -- and I hope somewhere there's an Apple fanboy doing the same thing to police the Android marketing materials.



While it's true that Apple isn't engaging in monopolistic tactics to increase its control of the user experience, that doesn't mean that their kinder, gentler form of a closed system is any better for users, or that Apple's endgame doesn't include an option to use monopolistic tactics later once users are confined to a very small universe of options.

Microsoft's early success was probably 5% inspiration, 5% perspiration, and 90% dumb luck. They didn't have the leverage to muscle competitors out until the late 80s, and didn't really start using it in illegal ways until the early-to-mid 90s. In other words, Apple could very well be the next Microsoft, and it's totally legit for people who are concerned about Apple's increasing control over the platform to criticize that trend.

I don't find the "but they have good technical reasons for doing things that make them more money" apologia persuasive at all. (I'm not attributing that position to you in particular, but I've certainly seen a lot of it around.) Not only is Apple doing exactly what Microsoft would be doing in the situation, but they're doing it for the exact same reasons Microsoft would be doing it.

The only tech company that scares me at the moment is Google. Far more so than Microsoft at any point in time.

And if anyone wants to pick nits, Flash content is usually about interaction not about browsing, so Apple's statement can still be taken at face value quite easily. I don't think it would have been as succinct to say "the best web reading and navigating experience."

I agree that Microsoft was (and probably still is) far worse than Apple in its abuse of power. To be blunt, what Microsoft did was almost certainly illegal, whereas what Apple is doing is almost certainly not.

That said, I don't have to like Apple trying to force people to its will. I'll admit that it's potentially a somewhat hypocritical viewpoint, but I feel that there's a big difference between an underdog sticking to its guns and the leader forcing everyone to its will. From the perspective of the underdog that becomes the leader, there's no change, but for everyone else there is.

As far as the image doctoring goes, I'm going to have to side with Caleb. Yes, doctoring images in this nature is commonplace in advertising. However, in most cases, the accompanying text is something of the nature of "Hey, look! It can play movies!" In this case, their accompanying text is "The best way to experience … video. Hands Down." It doesn't even qualify it as the best way to experience video on a mobile/handheld device. (Though I think we can assume that's what they meant.) As such, I think an accurate representation of the experience is not unwarranted.

The weird thing to me is: surely there was another scene in the movie that wouldn't have required any manipulation.

If I too had too much time on my hands (which I don't), I'd check whether it was Apple who shopped the Spock or whether that's actually the film-makers' own publicity shot. It's not like the Ipad is the only 4:3 device people try to watch films on, and I'm sure I've seen that moment (or a very similar one) used elsewhere as a synecdoche for the whole film.

Peter

The reason Apple scares me more than MS is because I have allowed myself to be sucked into committing so many of my spending dollars on products that require an Apple device to use. I never had this problem with MS. Sure I was using their OS and therefor the applications I was using required their product, but you can't escape that- and really most apps I use are either replaceable in functionality (word processor) or fairly temporary (games). With Apple, though, I just feels like with the iPhone/iPod/Apple TV I have some apps and content that are becoming irreplaceable to me (or difficult anyway).

Go too far though in pointing out things about a screen, or responses to 3G issues, and it can push people here over the edge... :-) I guess in a way I'm at the same point Bitt was. It does seem at times the nitpicks go so far into the pointless category on either side. To me, readability of text on a screen or 3G reception are far more important things to discuss, compared to a 20 pixel shift in a screenshot in ads. But I suppose everyone has their different priorities. And I think we can all be thankful Palm is no longer using creepy looking ladies to advertise their phone :-)


They could indeed be the next Microsoft, and if they ever get to that point, I'll likely reconsider what I use at that time. The future is unknown though, and for now I see a clear exit path from their devices and ecosystem. As long as that path exist, I'm not going to be very vocal about any "monopolistic" practices Apple may or may not be doing because I don't see it as a problem yet. And today, their devices suit my needs very well. With Microsofts actions in the 90s, that exit path was very obstructed with a mix of illegal monopoly actions, and proprietary formats built around the lock-in principal. This in a time that I found Windows 95 very flawed compared to the competition of the era that didn't have a chance. With Apple, the only true lock-in I feel is the DRM on their iTunes videos and I respond accordingly by limiting how much I use that service. Their music is portable to other platforms, as is all of my critical data due to their use of standards. And their current OS does well on both their computers and mobile devices.


This is why I don't try to become too attached to any of their services clearly locked down to their environment. Most of it is movable to another platform though. Apps are about the only investment I'd lose if I were to change phones to an Android device. Movie wise, I still buy the stuff I want to keep long term in another format, usually BluRay these days. Most come with digital copies for playback on all the iDevices, so I don't even have to try and rip it myself.


That "almost certainly" part was enough for the Department of Justice and the European Union to go after Microsoft. The US case ended without an absolute guilty verdict, but it was a "you did wrong, and heres the punishment" type of situation. The DOJ even has current updates. I think had the election gone differently in 2000, Microsoft would have been in pieces today. Nothing Apple has done (business wise) has gone beyond an inquiry by various government agencies. They did have their stock grant issue though.

(Been carrying this reply forward for nearly 4 hours now, better post before more appears :-)

To be fair, the image of Star Trek is clearly manipulated, regardless of its import. The nonsense about the Nexus One "only" having an 18-bit screen was all but a lie, since even the LCD on your desk has "only" an 18-bit screen.

Seriously, people at Apple aren't smug. It's a lot of people working their asses off to make the best product - and I do mean that. Yes, it's expensive stuff but if you saw all the thousands of decision points through a design's evolution where there were "do it cheap/well enough or do it right" questions, the only answer is always "do it right".

When I was at Rio I'd often tear apple stuff down and wonder what the hell all this extra circuitry was for that we wouldn't have put in (or been able to afford to put in) at Rio. I've never seen anything in consumer electronics as thoroughly engineered or exhaustively tested as the stuff Apple makes.

If the marketing goes on and on about how good it is, that's no different to, say, BMW's marketing. They are justifiably proud of the premium product they've made.

My personal opinion, obviously.

? The LCDs on the 3GS and 4 are 24 bit native. Not every LCD has to dither to get 24 bit.

There's a difference between how I perceive the technical folks and the marking/PR/decision makers. The iPad looks cool to me and I'll bet the engineering of it is really solid and well done, but it's hard for me to swallow that the decision to not support browser plug ins (on a device for which web browsing is a primary function) was made in an effort to make the best product possible. Even if what Jobs says is true about this decision (to steer people toward HTML 5), this sounds more like strong arm tactics to control the industry than an attempt to make the best product possible. Which is a shame, because I really want to root for Apple.

I love my iPhone, and I even love my Apple TVs (despite the fact the Apple TVs require a factory reset once a month), but I don't love it when companies limit my options. I never wanted to root for MS because I've never really loved anything I've owned by them. With Apple its different because I do really like a lot of what they do.

Um, I know I'm talking to someone far more knowledgeable about this than I am, but I'm pretty sure that the 3GS has an 18-bit display. Not that I think it makes a lick of difference.

Regardless, my point is that the color depth of the N1's display is not sub-par. It's not top-of-the-line as compared to every flat-panel display available, but it's far from bad, and has the same depth as the vast majority of flat-panel displays as a whole. Ultimately, my point is that those goobers at Displaymate, who claim to be display tech experts, are seemingly unaware that 18-bit displays are the norm, mistook an obvious rendering problem for a display problem, and made a mountain out of a molehill a perfectly flat field.

I think that's actually a good point. While there are undoubtedly Apple fanboys out there that will salivate all over the iTurd when it's released, there are also a large number of us that genuinely like Apple products and tend to think that the company has the proper goals. Which makes it that much more frustrating when they make a misstep, and then lie about it.

I can't wait until the day you are free to comment on the current apparent design issue on the iPhone 4...



...unless of course the update fixes/mitigates it, I can but hope.

Like Jeff said, of course I wasn't talking about the technical people who work hard to create a great product. Besides, how would I see that at all?

All I was talking about was their public face. You may perceive that face one way, but I perceive it as portraying a smugness that turns me off of the company. If I ever bought or owned an Apple product, it would be despite their marketing, and not because of it.

I can't say their marketing has ever been solely responsible for my decision to buy one of their products. My purchases have always been based on actually using them first. My early experience of Macs while at school made me want to smash them into little pieces with sheer frustration (partly due to At Ease). My opinion on the matter was largely unchanged until I was given an old iMac with Jaguar on it about 7 years ago. It was just refreshing to find an OS that didn't suck balls (and unlike Linux at the time, was a viable alternative to Windoze as a home desktop for me).

Since that time, I've been very happy to buy Apple. Not because of some smug 'lifestyle choice' but because their products do what I want and Apple provides the support I've needed. My thread on my experience in Las Vegas sums it up for me.

Despite having picked up an iPhone 4 recently, I would've quite happily entertained the option of getting an Android phone, but the ones on sale over here (and available to me) just didn't cut it for me. The Nexus One isn't available on Orange and the Evo isn't available in the UK.