Talk:False advertising: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
methinks someone hates on Apple a bit too much in the last two paragraphs of the entry. Can anyone support this? |
methinks someone hates on Apple a bit too much in the last two paragraphs of the entry. Can anyone support this? |
||
yes branding is not a part of false advertising but this is unethical because many new companies use unverifiable claims in a language that is ammbiguous e.g., ovomait, energee etc. creating erroneous immpressions |
yes branding is not a part of false advertising but this is unethical because<br /> |
||
many new companies use unverifiable claims in a language that is ammbiguous<br /> |
|||
e.g., ovomait, energee etc. creating erroneous immpressions |
|||
The section on "misleading analogy" is very poorly written and is clearly biased. Perhaps a more general definition of "misleading analogy" with Apple as a brief example (if at all) would be more appropriate. Also, is there research that proves Apple's claims are false? |
The section on "misleading analogy" is very poorly written and is clearly biased. Perhaps a more general definition of "misleading analogy" with Apple as a brief example (if at all) would be more appropriate. Also, is there research that proves Apple's claims are false? |
||
Revision as of 23:29, 6 February 2007
methinks Branding should not be considered as a part of false advertising. When a company (say, Unilever) brands a shampoo with one of its own big brands, it is certifying a certain minimum quality expectation from that shampoo. If a customer is not satisfied (or in the worst case, say she becomes bald), it is Unilever that the customer will sue, and not some unknown manufacturer. This way of doing business is called outsourcing, and it is common all over the world.
methinks someone hates on Apple a bit too much in the last two paragraphs of the entry. Can anyone support this?
yes branding is not a part of false advertising but this is unethical because
many new companies use unverifiable claims in a language that is ammbiguous
e.g., ovomait, energee etc. creating erroneous immpressions
The section on "misleading analogy" is very poorly written and is clearly biased. Perhaps a more general definition of "misleading analogy" with Apple as a brief example (if at all) would be more appropriate. Also, is there research that proves Apple's claims are false?
- I tried a complete rewrite of the "misleading analogies" section, but it could still use a few more examples and a lot of work. I would suggest avoiding any kind of specifics about the actual functionality of Windows vs. Mac, since the article should probably focus more on the technique itself than a (rather controversial) example of it. 71.57.145.167 19:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)