What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
33 Comments
- streak, on 09/07/2008, -8/+43Buried Inaccurate. If Apple's ads were "flat out lies," the company would get dinged for false advertising, but Apple's ads are not lies. The prices Apple displays are clearly earmarked with an asterisk that leads to a description of the prerequisites for obtaining the $199 and $299 prices, which includes a *new* 2-year contract.
What's really "suspicious" is that you thought it would appear suspicious to us that you were near a Best Buy. Maybe "suspicious" isn't the right word. Weird is more like it. - joeycerone, on 09/07/2008, -2/+23This is standard practice for cell phone ads. When was the last time a phone was advertised at the full price. Go look in the newspaper, every cell phone has an asterisk by it denoting it requires a 2-year plan.
This case is not any different. - inactive, on 09/07/2008, -1/+18This articles assumes that people are idiots or have never bought cell phones with service contracts. The people buying the phone will be told that they have to sign up for a two year contract. It's not like they are going to be able to leave the store without activating. And I'm getting a little sick and tired of the iPhone's service contract being included in the price. That just smacks of biased Anti-Apple FUD. How often do you see the service contracts of other cell phones being included in their sale price?
Buried for being inaccurate flame bait. - noupsell, on 09/07/2008, -1/+15good luck even finding someone in a rural best buy mobile dept that actually knows how to activate one and not f' up your contract in the process
- Gosroth, on 09/07/2008, -1/+8digg me down or whatever but I totally knew about the unactivated cost like right around the time the 3g was released. it was always publically known that the iphone 3g would be subsidised
- thedragon4453, on 09/07/2008, -2/+7Indeed. Has this guy never picked up a paper in the States? I've never seen an ad for a full priced un-activated phone.
But hey, this way they can bitch about Apple. - energyblue, on 09/07/2008, -2/+5"...the company would get dinged for false advertising, but Apple's ads are not lies."
They did in the UK. But not on price. - andy2na, on 09/08/2008, -1/+3digg in the current status:
75% stories about palin
10% stories about the new ipod nano
14% retarded stories like this
1% actually worth reading - lucasftw, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2that's not an apple ad. that's a best buy ad. sure, the "half the price" thing apple has is pretty much bs as well, but they can get away with it because they are selling the phone, at&t is selling the service. either way, buried as inaccurate.
- andy2na, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2ymmv, 3g is actually very responsive in my area and was more than twice as fast as edge.
- batmanz, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2I do hope people are realizing that I'm using sarcasm.
...then again, there are a lot of Apple fanboys on digg. - alansky, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2Tp whoever posted this story: Get a life, t*rdbrain!
- MarkusX, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1(Read FAST, because this comment is gonna get buried soon by Apple fanboys)
This is the second time around that I read about Apple engaging in false advertising with the iPhone and the author (I don't know if it was the same guy) gets his ass kicked by the massive Apple fanboy community.
I, for one, agree with the author!
It IS INDEED false advertising if you don't advertise the complete product.
If the hardware is inseparable from the service contract when you attempt to buy it, then the complete product is BOTH TOGETHER.
If the company is only advertising the price of a PART of the product but makes it sound like the price refers to the complete product, the ad is MISLEADING and that is called FALSE ADVERTISING.
Apple fanboys, DON'T ***** around with technicalities like "the hardware is half price, so it's not a lie", while Apple's INTENTION of the ad is CLEARLY to make you BELIEVE that you only have to spend half the money in order to get an iPhone (which is NOT TRUE).
You do NOT spend half the money. Summing up both, the "half-priced" phone and the "higher-priced" service plan, makes you pay $100 or so more than with the old iPhone. For many people the 3G doesn't even work most of the time anyways, so there is no guaranteed benefit there either.
Not only is it NOT HALF the price, but it is ABOUT THE SAME price as the old, or actually a little MORE.
THE FACT, THAT EVERY PROVIDER DOES IT, DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT !!!
It's false advertising, period. - 4phun, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2Moron Alert!
- solidus636, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1As hot as that chick is.....GTFO.
- jakem1, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Yeah right. Have fun on your Flashless, javaless internet.
By the way, you may want to check your facts. There's a lot more to the internet than than the web and its standards. - hangman16, on 09/08/2008, -1/+2This article sucks. It claims the new iPhone isn't half the price of the original because a 2 year contract is required now in order to get the subsidy. The article fails to mention that a 2 year contract was required for the original iPhone as well with NO subsidy offered. So yes, the phone is half the price now because both required contracts for service.
Hasn't the author ever seen an ad for a cell phone? Since when do they highlight anything other than the subsidized price? - JasonCox, on 09/08/2008, -2/+3You're more than likely a geek like the rest of us; 99% of the world isn't like us however.
- hangman16, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1"Also, I don't buy into the idea that there was no subsidy on the original iPhone."
When you bought the original iPhone you paid a flat rate. You made no promise to activate and agree to a contract once you bought it and it wasn't activated in store - therefore it had no subsidy. AT&T would never have agreed to subsidize the phone with this system - that would make no business sense.
Whether you bought the phone and didn't activate it, bought the phone and signed a 2 year plan, or bought the phone and qualified for a pre-paid plan you paid the same price for the original iPhone. - Avian00, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Well actually the price is appalling. "The Internet in your Pocket" is not worth this much money. I know this is my opinion, and clearly people (such as yourself) disagree with me. But frankly, the price is WAY out of balance when you consider it costs pretty much the same as home broadband, and they completely restrict it to a single device (the one tethering app was removed, presumably on request of AT&T). They will never get my money for a device like this until the ongoing price for the plan goes WAY down.
- razmig, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1As an Ex-Apple Employee, I can tell you what I told every customer who wasn't eligible for the subsidized price.
Twice as Fast, Half the Price, Half the Time.
(when you don't have 3G coverage, which is more often than you think, and when you aren't eligible for an upgrade) - wukillabee, on 09/08/2008, -1/+2fanboy alert, i wonder what hed be saying if this were microsoft
- dcharti, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Oh no, Apple's selling subsidized phones like every other manufacturer + carrier partnership that's been in the industry for a decade. Break out the tar 'n feathers boys, we got us some work to do.
- knowmonger, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1You're right on, man. :)
- PrometheusBorn, on 09/08/2008, -2/+2Really? This really on the front page?
Come on, like this hasn't been pointed out since the day the pricing scheme came out for the 3G.
$2000 for a cell phone plan? Wow, I'm so shocked to see 2 years of fees added up for me. I thought it was only $80 a month. /s
I never cared for a full cell phone plan until the iPhone came out. I was the odd ball because I thought it was a waste of money spending $1000/year on a cell phone plan when all it did was let me talk on the phone. Now, that I easily get my money's worth with all the stuff I can do on the iPhone.
Buried for a piece of crap article capitalizing on 'Write about Apple and attract readers' phenomena. - knowmonger, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1Apple drained all my trust in the last few weeks.... :(
- krisrm, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1This just in: "Apple Ads Reported Inaccurate!"
What the hell is wrong with everyone? Why are we so slow? - josephbloseph, on 09/08/2008, -0/+0As I recall, the current iPhone requires a slightly more expensive minimum contract than the original, making it more expensive over the course of the full contract. Also, I don't buy into the idea that there was no subsidy on the original iPhone. Most phones are more expensive without contracts (even the ones not available without contract have a higher price somewhere on paper), and even if you cannot find this subsidy anywhere, any ETF is hypothetically supposed to recoup a subsidy from breaking a contract. Everyone knows that this is a load of crap, but on paper, that is what these subsidies and fees are.
- awkwardnovice, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1Horrible, inaccurate article.
- Wiazflia, on 09/08/2008, -1/+0buried for making me look stupid because I read it.
- inactive, on 09/08/2008, -3/+1I'm glad other people are noticing this. Apple's 3G ads look especially fake, they show a hand demoing a few features claiming the iPhone is fast, and all the stuff runs much slower on the actual phone. I make sure to point out the real phone is slower whenever the ad comes on TV and I'm with someone I haven't told yet
- Galaxylander, on 09/08/2008, -4/+1They said "All parts of the internet." which is actually true for the most part, Flash isn't a 'part' of the internet, it's downloaded, it's not needed to browse the internet, neither is Java, but for some stupid reason, because Apple didn't include 2 non standard 'parts of the internet.'
- batmanz, on 09/07/2008, -13/+6What a surprise. When has Apple ever stretched the truth? I'm so so shocked.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is