Those "wonder" phones don't cost $1,000/ft or whatever number some scammer wants to apply to his wonder wire. What about car ads, if you drive this particular car, your life will change, too bad ya can't do teh stuff they show on teh ads, cus it's always a "closed" track, pro driver....if you try some of teh stunts they try to make you think is normal driving, you'd be ticketed for reckless driving. Take one of them SUV's off road, like they claim they can do, see how it survives, and what teh repair bill will be.
And what about those Victoria Secrets ads, if you wear one of these, you will look like this.....bigger scam than the sound of a $100,000 TT.

Actually I use my iPhone's "always on" web browser all the time. In fact I've often read (and even made) posts on this very forum while I'm at my local bakery/coffee shop in the morning!

I get weather, Google Maps, email and stock quotes from it all through the day. It's not full broadband, but it's plenty fast loading up web pages and has intelligent frame zooms. I'm no Mac addict either- I only use custom built PCs for my work in animation, but it's one of the few gadgets that actually lives up to the hype...

Preacha' DUP- are you actually COMPLAINING about those Victoria's Secret ads? Common- that's ART man. One of the few commercials worth rewinding on the DVR!

The iphone web enabled mode is part of the package- pretty much the same as any cell package- the keys are fine, but granted, you ain't gonna type War and Peace on the thing! For quick messages, posts, emails or looking up a business or restaurant it's great. Good for settling conversational disputes too- Wikipedia right in your pocket!

Yes, my iPhone is actually practical for browsing. Right now it's hooked itself up to the WAN in the office. It does the same thing at home, at the airport and at any open portal. I get weather reports, GPS, stock reports, YouTube, etc, all on the fly.

It's an amazing device. Just like cables, some work and some don't.

Dave

Here's a cautionary tale on what can happen when your claims make it into your advertising, and someone calls you out.

Someone in England was none too pleased with the claims made by Russ Andrews Accessories, and made a complaint. The Advertising Standards agency investigated, and found the claims...wanting.

Have a read here. ASA Adjudications

Quote:
Someone in England was none too pleased with the claims made by Russ Andrews Accessories, and made a complaint. The Advertising Standards agency investigated, and found the claims...wanting.

Wow! Do we have similar protections here in the States or does caveat emptor apply? How in the world are snake oil products targeting audiophiles marketed in the U.K.?

Quote:

Wow! Do we have similar protections here in the States or does caveat emptor apply? How in the world are snake oil products targeting audiophiles marketed in the U.K.?

Thanks goodness, no, but JA recently reposted some old articles about an audio "demonstration" attended by some New York consumer protection official. There were threats of civil action related to claims about something like speaker cables. Fortunately nothing came of it.

We don't need protection when we have our ears and wallets. If every claim had to be irrefutably proven, then we'd never be able to find fine wines, chocolate, the best single-source coffees or the best single-malt Scotch. Those kinds of stupid, do-gooder rules need to stay in the UK.

Dave

Quote:

Quote:

Wow! Do we have similar protections here in the States or does caveat emptor apply?

Thanks goodness, no

You have no advertising standards or protections laws in the USA? Really?

The U.S. has all sorts of advertising and laws regarding claims that can be made.

I am not aware however of any one fussing over the claims made by an audiophile component manufacturer - but it may have happened.

Quote:
You have no advertising standards or protections laws in the USA? Really?

I guess that as far as consumer rights, we Yanks are trying to find a balance between freedom to choose and protection from charlatans, and our politics are always swinging between these positions. Protection from dangerous pharmaceuticals would be an example where almost all accept a strictly regulated market, whereas, in the world of audiophile tweaks there isn't much complaint about every man for himself.

There are plenty of advertising regulation agencies out there, where the US government is the highest level of control. These government agencies include the FTC, FDA, and FCC (probably you would go to the FTC if you wanted to make a claim about cables). You can even sue the media presenting the information if they have some sort of regulatory say in what they present (though not the best strategy since they're usually not the "deep pocket").

You can go to the FTC with claims of Deception: false claims which mislead consumers to circumvent the competition. But! you must provide substantiation i.e. acceptable evidence for the claims. A true and honest experimental study must be done with whatever you're complaining about before you go whining. As we've discussed in plenty other threads here, all the tests so far for cables have always had plenty of room for error due to their poor design (like the MF and JA test at CES where they listened to two different systems to listen for the cables, an outright scientific flaw, but they got it right anyway).

Advertising in the US, supposedly, thanks to our free market and individualistic and capitalistic motivations is to help the consumer make better decisions. If you really feel these cable ads are circumventing consumers away from the right choice write your State Attorney General who will investigate the matter.

Quote:

You can go to the FTC with claims of Deception: false claims which mislead consumers to circumvent the competition. But! you must provide substantiation i.e. acceptable evidence for the claims. A true and honest experimental study must be done with whatever you're complaining about before you go whining...

I'm probably misunderstanding you. There is typically reverse onus in these instances: the "whiner" (a member of the public, for example) has no obligation to test the claims and provide evidence that the claims are misleading or false. Rather, the onus is on the advertiser to substantiate the claims they are making.

Zane9, you are correct. First, the FTC will look for previous substantiation made by the firm or secondary sources to see if the case is even worth trying. If there is none to find, then the case will most definitely proceed, and substantiation is the burden of the advertiser, but to be done through an outside source to avoid bias.

Quote:
Action
We told Russ Andrews not use the claims again unless they could substantiate them with robust scientific evidence.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

Heh! In my best Monty Python voice "or we shall taunt you a second time."

Ariel, how old are you??? No offense meant, but your view of the US regulatory environment seems like something out of a college text book.

The true rule in the US is "buyers beware." It's very unwise to forget that.

The Federal Government has very little ability to discern and protect us against threats. Anything the feds do is usually after the fact, witness the latest mortgage fiasco. The perpetrators new darn well that those securities had extremely high risk of going bad, yet Wall Street, the SEC, securities rating agencies, auditing firms, etc., etc. all lined up to cash big checks before it all collapsed.

Basically bureaucrats are incompetent when it comes to anything requiring discernment, so I think that it's foolish to expect any help from the government except in all but the most black and white issues.

Dave

Quote:
Ariel, how old are you??? No offense meant, but your view of the US regulatory environment seems like something out of a college text book.

I am 20 years old and a marketing major. No offense taken, and this is material that I learned in my advertising management class, so its not like I pulled it out of my ass. So its textbook, but its true. Buyer Beware applies to classified ads and ebay, but it when it comes to advertised consumer goods, the buyer has all the right in the United States. That's the beauty of capitalism. For the most part, advertising really is regulated. The issue is whether people are willing to challenge it.

Quote:

The Federal Government has very little ability to discern and protect us against threats. Anything the feds do is usually after the fact, witness the latest mortgage fiasco. The perpetrators new darn well that those securities had extremely high risk of going bad, yet Wall Street, the SEC, securities rating agencies, auditing firms, etc., etc. all lined up to cash big checks before it all collapsed.

I believe it is unfair to compare financial market regulation to advertising regulation on the basis that financial regulation is out there to stop the big bad corporations from stealing money, not to stop people from making bad decisions. Advertising regulation is brought about by the consumer, thus is different from financial regulation (unless we're talking about shareholder interests which can also be brought about by the shareholder, but like any litigious process takes time and lots of proof, but there are many court cases that prove that with substantial evidence, the consumer can win)

Quote:
Basically bureaucrats are incompetent when it comes to anything requiring discernment, so I think that it's foolish to expect any help from the government except in all but the most black and white issues.

bureaucrats are not who does the discernment, it is the scientific evidence.

this is not to say I have blind faith in the American judicial system and the FTC. I understand that lobbyists and big business interests rule the government. But if some audiophile is brave enough to go up to the FTC and say, "I think these guys are full of shit" and prove it, then they have a case.

Also, lets not confuse deceptive advertising with puffery. Which is essentially just inflating your product. You can claim its the best, or that there's no other like it. But if you claim that it sounds better than other cables, a direct comparative viewpoint, then you better have the evidence to back it up.

Ah youth, I remember it well. I'm not dissing you friend.

When you start seriously thinking about investing for retirement you'll have a different view of the financial systems.

Mark my words, text book writers' and professors' stature will decrease in your mind as you increase in age and direct experience. I was sitting right where you are forty years ago. Now, as a grizzled veteran of corporate bankruptcies, frivolous lawsuits, corporate intrigue, accounting sleight of hand, etc., I can give this advice, "watch your own back." Those regulators and protectionists will CYA, abandon you and sacrifice you to congress quicker than you can bat an eye. They're only in it for a paycheck.

Keep studying. You're on the right track and at a good point for your age. Experience, so long as you don't let it beat you, can give you incredible insights. Always listen to your healthy skepticism.

Despite my cautionary words, I'm an optimistic capitalist, but always watching my own back.

Dave

Quote:
...
bureaucrats are not who does the discernment, it is the scientific evidence.

Only on paper my friend. (Excluding medical certification).

Dave

Thanks Dave, I'll take the words to heart. I hope that with the internet and mass access to information these days that "silent" (as Thomas Friedman aptly put it for this generation) civil unrest may possibly put a slight end to government deception. My faith here isn't in the US Government, its in capitalism.

Quote:
Ariel, how old are you??? No offense meant, but your view of the US regulatory environment seems like something out of a college text book.

The true rule in the US is "buyers beware." It's very unwise to forget that.

The Federal Government has very little ability to discern and protect us against threats. Anything the feds do is usually after the fact, witness the latest mortgage fiasco. The perpetrators new darn well that those securities had extremely high risk of going bad, yet Wall Street, the SEC, securities rating agencies, auditing firms, etc., etc. all lined up to cash big checks before it all collapsed.

Basically bureaucrats are incompetent when it comes to anything requiring discernment, so I think that it's foolish to expect any help from the government except in all but the most black and white issues.

Dave

Actually, I'll bet my bottom dollar some folks, like me, have stories that are from right inside the regulatory agencies and the like..but want to protect the folks they know, by being circumspect with what they know is actual truth. That truth I'm talking about is the idea of integrity in presidential appointees of said agencies ruining the entire branch for driven and directed agendas...and all the good folks being severely curtailed or driven out.

Quote:
Thanks Dave, I'll take the words to heart. I hope that with the internet and mass access to information these days that "silent" (as Thomas Friedman aptly put it for this generation) civil unrest may possibly put a slight end to government deception. My faith here isn't in the US Government, its in capitalism.

My generation is no stranger to "civil unrest". It can lead to change, but don't put too much stock in its power.

Capitalism is a fine balancing act, with too little regulation the robbers take over and with too much regulation the system dies and drives away the innovators. Therefore, it's constantly in flux and the pendulum swings back and forth. Hopefully it never stops swinging.

Dave

in regard to the war against corrupt marketeers, our government has chosen to fight a different war right now, so you're on your own - unless you have friends in very high places. no, i'm not a cynic.

tom

Quote:

Quote:
Capitalism is a fine balancing act, with too little regulation the robbers take over and with too much regulation the system dies and drives away the innovators. Therefore, it's constantly in flux and the pendulum swings back and forth. Hopefully it never stops swinging.

Dave

Very well stated. I'm sure to be quoting from that statement fairly often in the future.

You're welcome to use it. I wasn't quoting anyone else, that I know of, so it's public domain. I just don't want Obama to use it in a speech.

Dave

Quote:
I just don't want Obama to use it in a speech.

Little worry. Politicians do not understand the concept of balance.