The Mac Observer

Skip navigational links

You're viewing an article in TMO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site:
UK Advertising Standards Authority Upholds Complaint Against Apple's G5 Advertising

UK Advertising Standards Authority Upholds Complaint Against Apple's G5 Advertising

by , 1:30 PM EDT, June 11th, 2004

For the second time, a UK advertising regulatory body has ruled against Apple's advertising campaign for the Power Mac G5. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), an independent body with authority over advertising in the UK, upheld one of three complaints from the public against Apple's marketing claims about how fast the Power Mac G5 is; the other two complaints were not upheld.

In November of last year, we reported that the UK's Independent Television Commission (ITC) had ruled that Apple's advertised claim that the Power Mac G5 was the fastest PC on the planet could not be justified, and that the commercial could not be aired. This week's ruling from the ASA is similar, but concerns the magazine campaign that accompanied the TV commercials.

The short version of the ruling is that Apple's claim that the Power Mac G5 was the world's fastest G5 was not true in all instances, and therefore isn't true at all. Complaints that the Power Mac G5 was not actually the first PC (personal computer) to use a 64-bit processor, and that it was the first PC to "shatter the 4 GB memory ceiling," were not upheld.

The ruling, which was issued on June 9th, in its entirety:

Complaint:
Objections to two magazine advertisements for the Power Mac G5 PC. One stated "The new Power Mac G5 is here. It's the world's fastest computer, and the first with a 64-bit processor ...". The other advertisement stated "... Introducing the revolutionary PowerPC G5 processor, the world's first 64-bit processor for personal computers ... the G5's 64-bit architecture addresses dramatically more memory - over 4 billion times more than 32-bit chips - so that the systems built around the G5 can shatter the 4-gigabyte memory ceiling that limits every other PC on earth ...". The complainants challenged the claims:

1. "the world's fastest personal computer";

2. "the first with a 64-bit processor" and

3. "the systems built around the G5 can shatter the 4-gigabyte memory ceiling that limits every other PC on earth."

1. Complaint upheld
The advertisers explained that the G5 was tested against the Dell Dimension 8300 and the Dell Precision 650, at their request, by an independent technology testing company; they believed those machines were the G5's closest competitors. The advertisers maintained that the tests were fair and showed the G5 was faster than the Dell Dimension 8300 and Dell Precision 650 for floating-point calculations and Integer calculations as well as for real-world applications such as Photoshop, standard programmes for professional and music audio creation and scientific analysis of genetic research. The Authority took expert advice. It understood from the advice that the advertisers' tests showed the Power Mac G5 was faster than the other two processors on some applications under certain conditions, but not that it was the fastest processor in all circumstances for all applications. It also understood that the G5 machine tested was still under development and the tests seemed to be configured in a way that might have given the Power Mac G5 an unfair advantage. The Authority was not satisfied that the advertisers had justified the claim "the world's fastest computer" and asked them not to repeat it.

2. Complaints not upheld
The advertisers maintained that the Power Mac G5 was the first 64-bit processor available in a personal desktop computer. They said that, although other 64-bit processors existed at the time the claim was made, they were not available in personal computers. They acknowledged that another 64-bit processor was now available in personal computers, but maintained that the claim was correct when the advertisement appeared. The Authority understood from expert advice that, although 64-bit processors had been available before the G5 was launched, those computers were normally described as "workstations", designed for business use, not personal computers. Although it accepted that some people may have used 64-bit machines as personal computers before the advertisement appeared, the Authority considered that most people would interpret the claim in the context of machines designed for personal computing. Because it understood that the advertisers' 64-bit processor was the first one available as standard in a personal computer at the time the advertisement appeared, the Authority accepted the claim.

3. Complaints not upheld
The advertisers explained that the system built around the G5 allowed users to scale memory up to 8GB as workflow demanded. They said users could access up to twice as much memory as with any other PC. They pointed out that tests showed that other systems such as the Dell Dimension 8300 and the Dell Precision 650 could offer 4GB of main memory only. The Authority took advice. It understood that most personal computers were not equipped to address more than 4GB of memory and could not do so without additional hardware, whereas the Power Mac G5 had an inbuilt ability to address more than 4GB. The Authority accepted the claim.

You can find the complaint at the ASA's Web site.

The Mac Observer Spin:

The Inquirer's spin was that the ASA gave Apple a smackdown for its felonious claims. Then again, that's the Inquirer we are talking about.

Our reading of "The Authority took expert advice. It understood from the advice that the advertisers' tests showed the Power Mac G5 was faster than the other two processors on some applications under certain conditions, but not that it was the fastest processor in all circumstances for all applications." is that what Apple said was true, but that there were other things that were not said, and that those unsaid things made the "fastest" claim technically not true.

Fair enough.

Apple has always showed just the speed tests it wanted, and this is something that is generally true of any advertiser in the US. Most of the speed tests Apple showed were aimed at the company's target markets, which means they are relevant to Apple's customers, but it would seem that such selective claims just aren't kosher in the UK.

Again, that's fair enough.

As for the effect this might have on Apple, the campaign(s) in question were over long before these rulings were issued. As we noted back in November, Apple seldom runs any particular campaign longer than a few weeks. Most of those who might care about this issue one way or another are partisans whose minds are already made up on the Mac vs. PC issue. As such, neither ruling is likely to affect anything other than future campaigns.

Then again, Steve Jobs' policy is to do what you want and the heck with any repercussions, so maybe it won't even affect the future.

Observer Comments

Show: Subjects Only | Full Comments
Close Name:Guest
Subject: Intel & Centrino

I want to know who I complain about for Intel's Centrino Ads.

1) A guy is in the Arctic (or is that Antartica) and is wirelessly video chatting with his daughter. --- Yeah right, where is the access point!!

2) A coupe is in some Greek Amphitheater and is wirelessly steaming video from a camera mounted to his Centrino laptop. Intel advertises how this site has NO POWER and NO WIRES of any kind. --- Again where is the access point. They show the couple ground all around the theater, There is no public 802.11 access point at that site. Even if the couple set one up themselves nearby where there is power and communications line, they wouldn't have the range Intel is showing off.

If people are going to complain about Apple's advertising, I want to complain about Intel's!!!!!! Who do I call?

Close Name:jakee Posts: 50 Joined: 09 May 2003
Subject: UK Advertising

Not mentioned in the ruling is the fact that comparative advertising is banned in the UK. Of course advertisers try to (and do) push the boundaries but essentially you can't say product A is better than product B. We get soap adverts like 'product x washes whiter' but not whitest. Whitest would be comparing with every product in the market but whiter is meaningless, whiter than what? Also Intel may have said they were effectively product B, AMD etc being used only in servers and specialist (eg gaming) computers.

Apple's advert didn't upset many people and the complaint will only be seen by a fraction of the people who saw the advert but maybe Apple should try to tailor adverts to local markets rather more than trying to produce one for the whole world.

Close Name:Guest
Subject: Apple's Bad Marketing + RDF = ........

Let's face it Hype can Hurt, Credibility and buyers confidence go hand in hand, and Apple does not need any negative publicity...so why is Apple shooting itself in the foot, and we're talking with a machine gun? I mean talking about being your own worst enemy!! The way Apple acts you would think they are deliberately trying to sink the Mac!!

Close Name:Katherine Posts: 1085 Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Subject: Re: UK Advertising

Quote
jakee wrote:
Not mentioned in the ruling is the fact that comparative advertising is banned in the UK.


That's really interesting, I didn't know that law existed over there.
So...why didn't Apple make a commercial with these guidlines in mind?
And to Guest: I don't know if I'd call this Apple "shooting themselves in the foot", kinda just seems like someone should be paying attention to the advertising laws in other countries. Are they going to make a commercial that is more acceptable to British laws?

Close Name:Guest
Subject: That Mac has already shipped.

I can understand that the comparison claim is not kosher in England... I think this is the way it used to be in the US as well, but we let the law get lax because it really wasn't helping people evaluate and make good decisions anyway.

But my problem with this is that they are saying the claims are false, because under some conditions, some of the PCs are faster. I've seen good benchmarks on this subject (OK, throw out the C|NET junk), and it shows that the Mac of 2003 to be fastest on 3 of 5 tests, and to be in second place on the other two benchmarks. An AMD box might do well on one test, and then blow wind on another. Xeon's the same. So if you combined all the PCs that were sold as servers or premium game machines, you might say that the Mac was overall the fastest part of the time. But if you stack the Mac Dual 2ghz G5 against any one box, it looks bad for the PC.

That was last year. And the problems with 90nm processes have kept all of the chip companies from really making any headway in the past year. Meanwhile, we now have a Dual G5 with an even faster x-bus and a better graphics pipeline and ECC RAM making it much better for the high-end tasks. You can also couple that with improvements in XCode and the OS that would makes my year-old Dual G5 2ghz machine actually faster, like 30% in OpenGl and other common tasks (finder about 300%, but that is more of a bug fix than an improvement). And when you get to 3D rendering, database and scientific computing (where AltiVec -REALLY makes a difference), and tasks that can really use more speed, the G5 shines. Stuff that is already fast enough is sometimes better on a PC, like Word document scrolling (snore).

And that "rigging" of the tests was because the SpecInt 2000 and other tests are not cross-platform. How you program code can make a lot more of a difference in speed than the processor. If I can tweak something in PhotoShop to make it faster, then that is called "optimization". There is a lot of good Optimization for Pentium chips. That is called a mature improvement. Apple improving code so that things run well is a good thing. You can't make it faster than it is. Those changes to PhotoShop are in PhotoShop now, and those tweaks to the system are in the OS now. But mainly, PC benchmarking code may not run too well on a Mac. So how do you test? You have to adapt the code. Duh.

The 64 bit issue was valid, because non-standard and workstation designed versions of Windows had to be used in the case of AMD. And don't even try to run your home applications and games on the Itanium. So yeah, it is still pretty much the only desktop 64 bit PC out there. The Alien or Boxx is a workstation and gamers wet dream (though, not as fast as the Mac, overall), but they are not in any sense used in the home. I can get an off-the shelf, consumer supported machine from Apple for less and do more. But I will say that the way the marketing couches the whole thing is a bit misleading. And the 64-bit Boxx beat the G5 by like two weeks (but again, not a home desktop).

So the condition where PCs are faster is basically when the Mac and PC are turned off. So yeah, I guess it must be a false statement. Not that I am so concerned with who is 20% faster (though, being 120% faster on 3d rendering than the dual Xeon is pretty nice), it just means that the Mac hardware is competitive, so you can have the best OS and not feel ashamed that the hardware doesn't measure up.

Close Name:algr Posts: 296 Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Subject: Ferrari's "faster then turtle" claim?

Apple's claim that the Power Mac G5 was the world's fastest G5 was not true in all instances

Under this standard of comparison, would you be allowed to say that a Ferrari is faster then a turtle? After all, the car can only outrun a turtle in races held above water.

(Or is it tortoises that swim? I forget.)

Comment on this Article


You cannot edit your comments.   You cannot delete your comments.

Comments are currently closed. Please email the author instead.


Recent Headlines - Updated November 8th

Sat, 7:58 PM
News - Apple TV 3.0.1 Update Fixes Missing Content Bug
Fri, 7:45 PM
Rumor - Taiwan Leak Shows Verizon UTMS/CDMA iPhone for Q3 2010
6:40 PM
News - iPhone Moves Into RadioShack
6:30 PM
News - Apple to Open Stunning Paris Apple Store in Le Louvre on Saturday
5:43 PM
Free on iTunes - Dictionary, Dictionary, Dictionary, And More
4:09 PM
John Martellaro's Blog - Particle Debris (week ending 11/6) Failure IS an Option
3:32 PM
Games - The Latest App Store Games: Gravity Sling, RocketBird, Ground Effect, Checkers!
2:25 PM
Games - Star Soccer 2010 for Mac Puts Gamers in Role of Up-and-Coming Player
2:15 PM
How-To - The Mysteries of Rosetta Housekeeping
1:33 PM
News - iPhone Game Developer Sued for Collecting User’s Cell Numbers
1:17 PM
Games - Warhammer Online Expands Trial Play Option
11:19 AM
Rumor - Apple May Be Bringing RFID to the iPhone

The Mac Observer Reader Specials

  • TypeStyler For Mac OS X is Now Shipping! Download The Free Fully Functional 60 Day Tryout at www.typestyler.com
  • RamJet Memory: Mac Pro 8-core 8GB Kit $199.99, 4GB Kits $109.99! Sale on MacBook and MacBook Pro 8GB kits $549.99! New MacBook DDR3 2GB for $49.99. iMac and Mac mini 4GB Kits for $79.99! 1TB SATA Hard Drives for $109.99! Click here
  • OWC: Mercury On-The-Go FW800+USB2 up to 1.0TB. Bus Powered, no external power supply needed. Macworld ‘Editor’s Choice’, CNET ‘Very Good’ Starting from $99.97, 500GB $159.99. Click here
  • Poker Mac If you're using a Mac, then you've gotta check out Full Tilt Poker for Mac. This Full Tilt Poker bonus code does the unthinkable, it actually rewards!
  • For the latest Apple products use Ciao, a price comparison website, to find laptops like MacBook Air. Then find the best prices on MP3 players and use our comparison tool to evaluate mobile phones like the Apple iPhone.

  • Laptop Hardware Provided by TechRestore - Overnight Mac & iPod Repairs.
  • __________
  • Buy Stuff, Support TMO!
  • Podcast: Mac Geek Gab
  • Podcast: Apple Weekly Report
  • TMO on Twitter!