3 geeks track down a stolen iPhone and confront - the thief.
Checking out the comment thread ... this was semi-interesting :
Yeah. Let's get that useful app out of the store because it MIGHT be improperly used.
Yeah, I'm a bit worried someone is going to get shot using this feature, and then there will be lawsuits against Apple, and it will be turned off.
It's main purpose I think is to help you find lost phones, but not track down and retrieve them by force.
I fear this feature is going to get removed real fast because someone is going to get injured, then sue Apple.
Yeah. Let's get that useful app out of the store because it MIGHT be improperly used.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
So.... viral marketing for apple?
That was my first thought.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Never underestimate the group courage of the average Western cinema fan.TPRJones wrote:Well, this is the iPhone we are talking about here. The chances of any randomly selected iPhone user bing a total pussy is close to 95%.
If Apple wanted to do some marketing, I think even they're bright enough not to spotlight vigilantism. Apple's full of pussies, too.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
One app to find the iPhone, another app that tells the nearest shotgun store.Malcolm wrote:Never underestimate the group courage of the average Western cinema fan.TPRJones wrote:Well, this is the iPhone we are talking about here. The chances of any randomly selected iPhone user bing a total pussy is close to 95%.
If Apple wanted to do some marketing, I think even they're bright enough not to spotlight vigilantism. Apple's full of pussies, too.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
If Apple wanted to do some marketing, I think even they're bright enough not to spotlight vigilantism.
Actually, while that is true if you're talking about legit advertising, it's not true regarding new advertising methods.
Remember the recent car commercials that were so controversial that they'd hit the web with labels like "unauthorized Toyota commercial" or something like that? The description would say "This is a commercial that was not approved by Toyota." Then the video would show something controversial involving nudity, animal cruelty, etc.
Considering the backlash against some viral campaigns, ad campaigns that can be denied are the future.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
How many regular commercials contained things that if emulated could get you hurt or killed, yet had no warnings? LOTS.
One could argue that the app itself would put you in harm's way more often than not.
So who cares about a commercial detailing how it's used?
One could argue that the app itself would put you in harm's way more often than not.
So who cares about a commercial detailing how it's used?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
How many of those commercials were masquerading as otherwise legit, independent media & intentionally misled the intended market?Leisher wrote:How many regular commercials contained things that if emulated could get you hurt or killed, yet had no warnings? LOTS.
If this is unorthodox marketing & it's traced back to Apple, I'll retract my statement. Otherwise, they could've easily just left the phone at a corner table in a coffee shop & forgot about it or some shyte. There's millions of scenarios to show off your find-my-iPhone app that might not involve bodily harm to those that emulate it. Fuckers as lawyer-happy as Jobs & Co. know this & I don't think they allow it to occur.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
If this is unorthodox marketing & it's traced back to Apple, I'll retract my statement. Otherwise, they could've easily just left the phone at a corner table in a coffee shop & forgot about it or some shyte. There's millions of scenarios to show off your find-my-iPhone app that might not involve bodily harm to those that emulate it. Fuckers as lawyer-happy as Jobs & Co. know this & I don't think they allow it to occur.
Absolutely true, but you're missing the point. This isn't a campaign being run during the Super Bowl. This would be an example of viral marketing. (And we're still not 100% sure that is actual is an ad.)
The rules are different here. Those others ads I talked about were internet only as well.
Nobody would read a viral marketing campaign where a guy forgot his phone at a truck stop and during his quest to find it there was no conflict. Nobody would give a shit.
However, add in a bar, seedy people, minorities, a high tech chase through a city, etc. and it gets people's attention.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
I have a question: if it's impossible to tell the difference between a created viral ad and an actual story on an actual blog, does it really make a difference which one it is?
Of course it does.
For the companies creating viral ads, it would mean that they now have marketing that can be sold as fact.
For the public, it simply means another way that our opinions and knowledge of actual human nature, natural events, etc. will be manipulated.
Want an example of how that would be bad? See: the MSM & Man-made Global Warming.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
I understand the difference between good and bad, but that's not what I'm asking.
I'm saying that when comparing a good story about one man's adventure with the iPhone versus a manufactured good story about one man's adventure with the iPhone that is done so well as to be identical to what the real thing would be, either way the end result is the same. Some people will believe and enjoy the good story, some people will not believe it. Some people will let it color their purchasing decisions, other's won't.
When dealing with something that can't be verified after the fact, there is no measurable difference of any sort between reality and falsehood so well told as to perfectly mimic reality. So as long as it's not something ongoing, or something that is somehow important, what does it matter if it was true or not?
(Which invalidates your example, btw, in the sense that you gave an example of something important. Whether or not three geeks really chased down a stolen iPhone is not what I would term in any way important, and thus not comparable to the reality - or falsehood - of Anthropocentric Global Warming)
I'm saying that when comparing a good story about one man's adventure with the iPhone versus a manufactured good story about one man's adventure with the iPhone that is done so well as to be identical to what the real thing would be, either way the end result is the same. Some people will believe and enjoy the good story, some people will not believe it. Some people will let it color their purchasing decisions, other's won't.
When dealing with something that can't be verified after the fact, there is no measurable difference of any sort between reality and falsehood so well told as to perfectly mimic reality. So as long as it's not something ongoing, or something that is somehow important, what does it matter if it was true or not?
(Which invalidates your example, btw, in the sense that you gave an example of something important. Whether or not three geeks really chased down a stolen iPhone is not what I would term in any way important, and thus not comparable to the reality - or falsehood - of Anthropocentric Global Warming)
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
I'm saying that when comparing a good story about one man's adventure with the iPhone versus a manufactured good story about one man's adventure with the iPhone that is done so well as to be identical to what the real thing would be, either way the end result is the same. Some people will believe and enjoy the good story, some people will not believe it. Some people will let it color their purchasing decisions, other's won't.
When dealing with something that can't be verified after the fact, there is no measurable difference of any sort between reality and falsehood so well told as to perfectly mimic reality. So as long as it's not something ongoing, or something that is somehow important, what does it matter if it was true or not?
Malcolm was pointing out the legalities of writing a story that could inspire others to put themselves in harm's way. I simply pointed out that a new trend in online advertising is being able to deny approving a campaign.
Personally, I don't think the story is any more dangerous that other commercials (again, we haven't proven that this story is a commercial), Malcolm seems to disagree.
Thus, if the story is false and it is a viral marketing campaign, Malcolm wants to know if Apple would be liable if someone was inspired by it and got hurt in the process of emulating it.
If the story is true, it's a non-issue. UNLESS, Apple used the story for this viral marketing campaign, and again, Malcolm's question would probably still be about their liability.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
