Apple's ad sinks to such great lows
By Ryan Block 
posted Jan 21st 2006 5:34PM
posted Jan 21st 2006 5:34PM
It has recently come to our attention that Apple Computers' new television commercial for the Intel chip features a shot-for-shot recreation of our video for 'Such Great Heights' made by the same filmmakers responsible for the original. We did not approve this commercialization and are extremely disappointed with both parties that this was executed without our consultation or consent.Was it an illegal move on Josh & Xander's (or Apple's) part to produce this ad? Depends on who ultimately owns the copyright to the original (probably SubPop), but either way it's pretty poor form. Seems like if Apple wants to avoid further criticism and the possibility of litigation -- and snag a little indie cred while they're at it -- they'll pull their ad and make things right. Likelihood of that happening? Slim -- unless they get a call from SubPop's lawyers, anyway.
[Via TUAW]
A small problem with the Apple defenders in this instance. First off, we have a company with a history of ripping things off. (even the mouse was stolen from xerox and then claimed as their own)
Their "dancing silhouette" ad was stolen from a little company in Seattle or somewhere and they then went on to try and sue other companies for ripping of "their ad campaign"
Some here keep saying that Apple probably had no idea that the production team that made the ad had already done a music video exactly like it. A couple of simple questions can show how ignorant these comments are:
1. Has Apple ever worked with these particular people before? Nope.
2. So why did they choose them this time? Did they have any sample materials to provide Apple to convince them that they were the right team for the (lucrative) job? Just a music video.
3. Did Apple see the Such Great Heights video before approving the ad? They probably saw it before even asking the do to make their ad...it was almost certainly the [i]reason[/i] they were asked to do the ad.
4. What are the odds that a company like Apple would randomly choose a production house for an ad that is to feature the inside of a chip fab plant and cleansuited workers looking into each other's eyes without having known that this little company had just done a music video (for a pretty popular song) featuring the exact same content? Closer to zero than I care to examine.
5. People claiming that they've already "sold out" by putting their songs in various commercials need to realize that, because they maintain the rights to that song, they get royalty payments for its use. In the M&M commercial's particular case, Both TPS and Iron & Wine will get royalties. One for the writing credit and one for the performance credit, as the version of "such great heights" on the M&Ms commercial is the one performed by I&W.
6. Is anyone at fault for this in a purely legal sense? It's difficult to claim "parody" status when there is no pun or joke being imposed. Analogies to Rembrant comissioning a painting are not valid in the slightest. A more appropriate analogy: I pay my friend to write a jingle for my new TV show, "Meet Your Maker." I pay him outright for the entire jingle. He wrote it, but he sold it to me, rights and all, so if I want to sell the jingle later, I can do so, and there's nothing my friend can do about it. Well, 2 years later, my friend writes a jingle with the same melody and chords and sells it to microsoft to be their new slogan jingle for Windows 91. It can be argued (and has been successfully argued in past cases) that my copyright has been intentionally violated. Who I should draw my lawsuit against depends on the particulars of the case, but if I own the rights to the jingle, then I can get a court injunction against microsoft to stop them from using my copyrighted work without attribution.
Past cases where a court has ruled in the plaintiff's favor in a situation exactly like this? George Harrison's song "My Sweet Lord" sounded too much like "She's So Fine" and he lost the lawsuit. The Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony" sounded too much like the Rolling Stones song "The Last Time" and they lost the lawsuit. Willie Dickson's song "You Need Love" was copied by Led Zeppelin and changed into their famous "Whole Lotta Love" without Dickson's approval or consent. He went to court and Zep settled for a large, undisclosed sum.
Because in some of those instances, like the Verve's song, a sample was involved, it's reasonable to expect that someone other than the band themselves instigated the actual copying. In fact, it was probably a producer or mixing engineer who found the clip and stuck it in the song. It's even possible that the Verve didn't know where it came from. That they did was not asserted in the lawsuit against them. The producer, not part of the band, was not sued. The company that claimed the copyright for the music, the Verve, was sued.
I PROMISE you that Apple bought the entire rights to that ad. In essence, they purchased a stolen car. Look up what happens when you buy a stolen car if you want to know if Apple can be held liable for this...
Thats a pretty pathetic song. Seems like just the kind of music apple and its customers would be into.
It all depends on who owns the rights to the music vid AND the footage. If the director still owns the footage or music video, he can re-do whatever he wants with the footage. It makes no difference WHATSOEVER. If he want's to cannibalize himself to make an ad, it's his perogative. I personally think it's a little hackish, but hey...it's still legal.
Even Kubrick used footage from things he shot for other films in later films. In those cases It was his footage. He even sold some of it out to other moviemakers to use for establishing shots.
If directors of the music vid didn't have the rights, the directors have very little scruples because they went through the trouble of resetting every shot the same (or used the exact same footage).
The music video is on the iTunes Music Store for purchase. Check it out.
If the postal service was so worried about indie cred and not selling out, why would they allow a cover of the song 'such great heights' (by another SubPop band, Iron & Wine) to appear in an M&Ms commercial all the time?
Apple's ad is better than the music video. I would be pissed too.
What's that you say? Apple is doing something sleazy and underhanded and totally corporate in order to maintain the illusion of indie cred?
This is my surprised face.
I always see this advert on this site :p
Apple should have just licensed the video from sub-pop straight up. It's not like the Postal Service is above selling out. "Such Great Heights" is in a Kaiser Permanente commercial for crying out loud. That Apple went to the original directors and asked them to replicate their work makes it kosher for me. The directors came up with the video and Apple involved them from the beginning. The Postal Service, like most musical acts, probably had close to zero involvement with the video.
The directors, however, should have gave the Service a heads up. I think this is more poor form from them than from Apple. Honestly, though, it's tough for the Postal Service to say they totally got dissed for absolutely no reason:
Postal Service: "Hey we have a song about a relationship. We have a video about manufacturing microprocessors!"
Apple: "Hey, we have a computer with new microprocessors. We have a commercial about manufacturing microprocessors!"
Which makes more sense to you?
(As an aside, I like the Postal Service/Death Cab for Cutie just fine).
Ha! See Apple is evil, I told you all! Besides, they've been lying through their teeth about the proformance of their new Intel based products.
Steve Jobs, at the MacWorld tradeshow, boasted: 'the new iMac [with] Intel processor is two to three times faster than the iMac G5.'
MacWorld magazine has reported http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/index.php that the real proformance increase was around 10-25%
All ripped from slashdot.org http://www.slashdot.org
great free press the postal service is building up here ... but shame on the directors ... I hardly see how this is Apple's fault.
Yeah I have to say I totally agree with everyone who has been dogging on this ad since the get go. I say this with the complete admission that they next laptop I buy will most likely be made by Apple.
Considering how lawsuit happy Stevie-J has been these last few years, I think it is only fair for the tables to be turned on them.
Even before I learned about this angle, I was pretty disappointed in Apple for dogging the very company that has put them in the position to double their market share over the next few years. I think it shows just how much of a class act Otellini is that he didn't walk back on stage after the ad played and crammed that bunny suit right up Steve's pompous ass.
Loyalty to business partners hasn't exactly been a strong suit of Apple's though anyhow. Look at how fast they bailed on Samsung.
It's a freaking commercial, get over it!
I'm sure SubPop and the Postal Service aren't complaining one bit since attention is focused on them and the video itself is featured on iTunes. Sure, Apple could have seen the postal service video, contacted the directors and say they want something like that, but I think the directors are more at fault than anyone. But it's still bad on Apple's part. The postal service suck anyway.
Fishes,
narco.
Wow. OK, for all you non-lawyers out there, this really doesn't have anything to do with which product fits which video better, or if/where the song was previously used. It's about ownership of rights and (intellectual) property.
If you bought a limited edition painting from an artist (say, #2 of 10), you couldn't really be upset if 9 other people bought the other copies of the same work. But if you commissioned the artist to create a logo for your company, then that logo belongs to you, not the artist, and another company cannot buy the same logo from him and use it as their own.
Yeah, so the ad is basically a copy. But there's no copyright to "look and feel" so there's no case. Just because it's similar to the music video doesnt mean that the band has any case against apple.
Look at the Lugz/eminem itunes ad situation from a couple months ago. Lugz obviously didnt sue, and the ad is still on the air. It's because they have no case unless apple took the actual footage from the original work and used it in their commercial.
Ideas cannot be copyrighted, and the idea of a video of a clean room where microprocessors are made isn't something that can be sued over. sucessfully anyways...
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Now, enough already!
think different......i guess not.
first, the original silhouette ipod ad ads were ripped from a seattle radio station..apples excuse: it was the same director..not our problem.
second, the eminem ad that blatantly ripped off a Lugz commercial. apples excuse: no comment
now this, ripping off the Postal Service music video. apples excuse: it was the same director..not our problem.
For a company who relies on their image as being creative, apple really needs to start being creative.
So you guys are accusing Apple of knowing they were ripping off a music video based on what evidence? Sure its the same, but why doesn't anyone start with the two guys who made the video? Isn't it far more reasonable to assume that those two guys just did a remake of a previous work of theirs with more money available from Apple, and in fact Apple was duped by them? Of course not, its far more logical to believe that Apple knows every single indie music video every created and was aware of the rip off.
Who the hell cares? It's called a parody.
This is just some band I've never heard of trying to get free publicity.
Postal Service went to their lawyers and told them to sue Apple.
Postal Services lawyers said no.
They found out later that Apple also hired Postal Services lawyers, too.
i wish we could have a witty name like M$
crapple?
or
aphypocriteple
hmm
You can watch the video of Such Great Heights for free at:
http://video.download.com/3800-11167_53-1100.html?tag=vdl_prefs_watch_tmp
Now I just need to watch the Apple commercial. Any links?
Arg...you will have to cut and paste the link above because the word "now" got included in the link. Someone at Engadget needs to fix that from happening.
If you go to the front page of the iTunes store, one of the "Featured" banners at the top exclusively plugged "The Postal Service - Video Just Added".
Could it be a coincidence that a song released 2 years ago would suddenly see their music video featured in one of the 3 banners of the iTunes store, at the same time there's a "controversy" involving Apple stealing somebody's music video?
Is it possible that the Apple/Josh & Xander are dumb enough to reuse the ad without consulting The Postal Service, or thinking The Postal Service won't find out about it?
Do you think The Postal Service is part of this "ooooh I'm soooo pissed off" publicity stunt? It's a beautiful headline that everyone loves to be furious about - "Corporate America stealing from Poor Creative Starving Artists"
Everyone of you suckers are so ducking fumb.
Who cares
This just gives Apple more attention, although a bit more negative than positive.
if Apple paid the label and the band beforehand it wouldn't have been an issue, it's probably what Jobs should have done. Maybe for some legal reason it's perfectly fine to do what Apple did, but doesn't necessarily make it 'cool'. I can see how the band would be pissed to see their video copied on an ad regardless of the company. But the accusations of 'commercialization' make my cynical eyes roll.
a side by side comparison
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5600934255578934893&q=postal+service
Apple Ad In Question:
http://www.apple.com/intel/ads/
Wow, Engadget actually posting something negative about Apple? Never thought I'd see this happen.
I bought the postal service video on iTunes. They changed it a bit: every instance of the "skyworks" logo has been edited or blurred out. Why is that?
"The directors, however, should have gave the Service a heads up. I think this is more poor form from them than from Apple."
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"
The directors for the original, were hired by Apple. This isn't imitation. And the band should shut up, they have nothing to do with the direction of the video.
So why the noise? Well.. guys like CNET need something to talk about and rinkydink bands like.. eh.. PostalService?.. need to keep this amazing publicity going...
And Apple? They're hands are clean. And the iMacs are fast.
Legally, it doesn't qualify as a parody.
You cannot copyright ideas, but you can copyright the expression of those ideas. A shot for shot remake, if it is indeed the case, would be (ahem) a good case.
This isn't an issue of "look and feel," but rather a principle called "likelihood of confusion." While I'm not making a judgment over whether a jury would find that the commercial is either easily confused with the video or more likely, find that a reasonable person would think the band was somehow associated with or endorsed the product, but it would not be a frivolous suit in the eyes of a court if it was filed.
Check out Lyons v. Morris Costumes for an example. As an aside, even parodies can have legal consequences - Vanna White v. Samsung.
Mike: You're making the assumption that the directors own the intellectual property of the work. If so, then yes, the band's just complaining and there's no legal problem.
However, it doesn't matter if the band had anything to do with the direction of the video. If they hired the directors and as a result of the contract own the rights to the video, they'd have a case. Heck, if you just moved here from Antarctica and were given the exclusive rights, then you'd have a case against Apple and the directors. Your involvement in making the film doesn't mean anything in that case.
The Apple ad was featured on apple.com until just recently, the ad has since disappeared from Apples website. You can still see the ad in Steve Jobs' Macword Keynote Speech: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf06/ the ad is in the last quarter of the speech... It's unfortunate that the guys who made both the video and the ad used the same footage, it may not be illegal but it does lack originality...
The stench of irony is overwhelming....ipod proponents crying Creative copied/stole design features for the Vision M and now saying Apple's ad that is unarguably a replica of another's work is the greatest form of flattery. WTF?
This is probably the worst thing I had read about Apple and it is the biggest blow on my trust on Apple since I had ever known about them with their boisterous launch of the original iMac. This is not a new product. This is not a new service. This is just a new ad, a frame-for-frame rip-off of a music video by the Postal Service.
Every frame, from the moment the woman looks up to her colleague, to the moment the chip is in the picture, is exactly the same - same motion, same compositions, same colors, almost the same music - with the exception that the chip now writes Intel (with a more crisp image), and the actor is stripped out of her emotion, which hinted a love relationship in the original music video. It is easy to conclude that
With this stripped-down movie and without a word, it sounds like Apple is declaring that its cold white designs had triumphed emotion.
Apple is doing something that violated design ethics. If it's any other companies I won't care, I will just laugh. But Apple is a company that likes to emphasize on its own brilliant designs.
It is not that I like Postal Service or I hate Apple to make me stand on the side of the Postal Service. That the video directors actually had the guts to duplicate their work is another story, and shows that their creativity and design ethics are both near zero.
On the other side, shame on Apple which specifically asked these video directors to make a duplicate for its own new products. This is a giant blow to its corporate image, when it heralds its products for creative professionals. How can a company that sells video editing software have an ad that is a rip off of someone else's video? With such logic, is it true that a 'creative' giant can rip off less famous artists without being unethical about it? What is so creative about Apple when it rips off someone else's video (not to mention its slogan disses all other computer companies) in such a public manner?
Usually, it can be forgiven by saying that the designers of the products are not responsible for the marketing of them, since two departments are usually not very related in corporations. But Apple is different: Steve Jobs is the Chief DESIGN Officer of Apple. How he can release such video without noticing that it is a rip is a mystery to me.
The comments on this issue in those sites such as Engadget or TUAW are horrible to read. Despite the zombie-like group of zealots with their arrogant attitudes argued how Apple is still right, it is of no help: No matter how designed the products are, they dont make their users creative designers, they just make a bunch of arrogant socialites who uses iPod has the symbol of their social status.
If Apple does not apologize publicly for Such Great Mistake, I, as a creative professional, will be every bit disgusted when using an Apple - with the horror of using a hypocritical machine that one day may rip any designers' work - not to mention that I am already annoyed as hell by the incinerator fans of the PowerMac G5s.
I find it quite amusing that a few weeks ago Apple fanboys were going crying foul in regards to how the Creative Vision: M "copied" the ipod. Now that Apple has "copied" someone themselves it's no big deal. You can't have it both ways.
Devil's (i.e. Apple) advocate.
I think Postal and Subpop should keep yelling (but not sue), welcome the free publicity, and sell a lot of videos on Itunes.
If I was Apple and they did have the gall to sue, I would pull them from itunes quicker then you can say Death Cab for Cutie.
I'm without an opinion about the ad, whether or not it should have been made, who owns the IP, etc. But the notion that Steve Jobs personally approved stealing the video is preposterous. Sure, it's possible I guess. But you have to understand what people like Jobs -- people of such great heights, as it were -- are like: He probably had never heard of the song "Such Great Heights", or The Postal Service, or the US postal service or even a 10 cent stamp for that matter.
Actually, I'm more bothered by the fact that the commercial comes across as more of an apology for an earlier, much better ad... remember "Bunnies" from a few years back? Where Apple toasted the Intel guys in their bunny suits?
As far as Apple ripping off a music video... well, frankly, I could care less about that.
As a graphic designer who once had a logo "stolen" (copied, parodied, appropriated...whatever) by EMI Records Germany... I know this might hurt, but there is no case. Even if the band owns the copyright. And a shot-by-shot recreation does not constitute an illegal use of the original. It doesn't matter if it's a parody or an hommage or a rip-off. The idea cannot be protected. Period.
Now, if I were part of the band I'd make a big stink, too, publicity is everything. Good for them.
Um potential legal issues aside, its just a really lazy and un-original way of making an ad.
Surely if your trying to make a new product stand out and look sophisticated, you need a unique and clever ad to do it?
Rehashing a music video and taking a cheap shot at pcs with a half hearted attempt at wit doesnt really seem to do the job.
And for the record Im not bothered about the whole Mac vs PC debate.
If someone hired Rembrandt to paint a really nice painting and I was so impressed with it that I then hired Rembrandt to create me a painting in the same style, exactly whom is it that is getting ripped off???
Besides, tell everyone what SubPop got Johnny:
Well SubPop got front page rotation on the iTunes music store for their video, which folks could then download for $1.99 and SubPop got a nice chunk out of that. And of course folks were then free to go download a couple tracks as well and SubPop got a taste of that action too. Plus scads of other collateral attention to their label for having found the video artists first.
All that for something that was not "Shot for shot" a rip off. If SubPop has any angst on the deal its probably because their 8" wafers were dramatically smaller than Apple/Intel's 12" wafers. :-)
I think that really, Apple is great. The directors are the same, but there is a small detail. The Postal Service dosen't really have the "Rights" to the video. They didn't produce, direct, or design it. Most likely the full team from the video helped Apple. I would consider the commercial a Parody of the music video. According to something I read about Weird Al along time ago, you have the right to parody any video or song without permission.
Oh by the way, has anyone else noticed there have been at least TWO versions of the Intel ad that Apple has put up on their web site?
5706223 Jan 12 01:26 intel20060110_h.640.mov
5032206 Jan 21 15:51 intel20060117_h.640.mov
I can't tell any difference between them from watching them. Maybe Apple took the subliminals out of the second one? ;-)
re: 21
wow... really similar.
Something weird is going on here - the postal service video is now advertised on one of the top 3 panels of the US itunes site and is also available for sale on other sites.
Just wondering if this isn't a planned 'dispute' to get free advertising for both the pop group and apple?
Whatever the case I can't believe there's a real dispute raging between the 2 if apple are promoting the video so heavily
Kudos to Ryan for the post's title.
Do you think anyone at Apple realized they used a (soft)porn star in the ad? She's gone mainstream, but she's certainly (yes, I am sure and not blushing)a Skinemax babe.
http://imdb.com/name/nm0488561/
1 other thing - itunes gave away a free track from Death Cab for Cutie's latest album 'Plans' last year and it also offers an exclusive song with the album unavailable on the cd.
NB the Postal Service and Death Cab for cutie share the same singer
Well I think you're all missing the point here. THE AD AGENCY IS TO BLAME.
Twice now, Apple's ad agency (TBWA Chiat/Day) has shown concepts to Apple that have been 'done before' - in advertising that means 'it's kind of like' something you've seen before and is usually enough to kill it before it even gets out of the door. In this case these ideas are 'exactly like' something that's been done before. If the ad agency presents work and sells it to Apple as an original idea without saying anything about where they might have gotten the 'inspiration' for the ad that's really unethical. But then, we are talking about advertising.
someones gotta shoot apple in the foot
That's not entirely true.
It's important to note that copyright and trademark are different things. Copyright protects expression, while trademark protects symbolic information.
"Likelihood of confusion" is trademark doctrine, not copyright. So while the video itself is undoubtedly a protected work under copyright, the confusion factors would only come into play if they were dealing with a registered mark (i.e., the band's word mark, logo, etc).
That doesn't seem to be the case here.
The test for copyright infringement is whether - and to what extent - elements were copied from the protected work, subject to fair use and other exceptions. So, if the band and/or label were the exclusive holders of the copyright, it's possible there was infringement - but that would not rest on a likelihood of confusion analysis.
The postal service loves the free publicity... it needs all the publicity it can get... thanks to email, fedex, and brown... I think that's the real reason this is a stink... the directing duo knew what they were doing... Apple probably didn't.
...
OK, enough with the bashing already.
Apple screwed up; but here's the thing: the ad agency is responsible, and should be held liable for the background work. They should know better, and their "creative directors" and account managers should be fired. They should have done due diligence like any agency.
Apple=evil company because of sketchy copyright is massive extrapolation at best.
Their products are solid; their marketing partners need lessons in chasing down copyright. That's akin to Apple suing Microsoft because some of their ad vendors use stock photography of PowerBooks for chrissake (Yes, there are many examples. Do a search.)
Please.
I guess they make the right move. Forget the lawsuits, negotiate with Apple. Immediately, their video show up on the front page of the Apple Music Store for millions to buy, instead of some crowded courtroom for 12 people to see for free.
These folks are probably millionaires by the end of this quarter, with a steady stream of revenue as long as Apple sells Intel Mac. Wow, smart move, very smart.
Postal Service should be so lucky to get the attention. I've never heard of them and now I have. That is good PR. I'm sure they'll play it to the hilt - laughing all the way at their good fortune.
Apple probably just made this lame band's career.
It surprises me that so many of the commenters assume Apple knew about the duplication before the release of the ad, and use that as justification for bashing the company or Steve Jobs. I find it hard to believe Apple (or Jobs) would have knowing bought the inevitable negative publicity. Of course I don't know for sure, but I would guess that there's an ad agency or production company employee on the hot seat right now for not making it known up the chain that the preexisting "duplicate" was out there. It makes the directors look cheap, too. But Apple? I can't believe they'd do it intentionally, particularly post-Eminem. And if I'm right, would a class company slam their ad agency in public? No. Good grief, the cynicism is potent.
I just saw the Postal Service video featured at the top of the iTunes homepage. Looks to me like an olive branch by Apple.
...and by the way, I still found the ad on Apple's site, at http://www.apple.com/intel/ads/
Echo_, man (~#17), "crapple". That's so awesome!!
M$ and crApple. I laughed so hard I snorted out the 'V' I was drinking! Now I have to mop my keyboard.
You rule, man.
so what? obviously, since both videos take place in a microprocessor lab, they are going to be majorly similar. microprocessor labs do the same thing.
that said, i think that nobody is really going to confuse the two outside of our nerd circles. They are two different things that have two different messages. You could say that two commercials with people walking in NYC and say one rips off another, but the fact that they are in the same place makes them automatically similar.
Apple is a cheap company that relies on stupid fanboys and ignorant people. As said by Sarah, Macs are all about hype. For the price of a new Intel Mac you can get a much more powerful PC that's actually compatible with software and games unlike Macs...
sweet - tons of free publicity for both Apple and the Postal Service due to all the drama.
Chalk up another win for apple shareholders
Forget the legalities, which we could argue over all day without knowing the facts, its very bad form on the part of the ad agencies and the directors to duplicate others (or even their own) work for apple.
But since you can't copyright designs and ideas i'v thinking of seting up a website which looks just like engadget, to flog my cd thats going to have a cover suspiciously similar to Sgt. Peppers.
Then i'm going to sell an advert to apple that looks exactly like something someone else has already done all the design work on. Easy money!
Can somebody please confirm that it is Keifer Sutherland doing the voiceover.....I have a massive bet with my wife.
Apple always lagged behind in technology. But I don't think they can hold up this long by hype alone.
THE KEY: Apple leaps beyond in "user experience." They're years ahead of the curve. From the moment you open their box, you know it's an Apple.
And RD, I agreed with you about the offensive nature of this commercial. It won't help them sell more Mac. Most new buyers don't know the difference between PowerPC and Intel chips. Stand around an Apple store, listen to customer/sale rep conversations and you'll know what I mean.
#29 - nail on the head.
Rivendale: I keep hearing people say things like that. What is a "much more powerful PC" for $1299? Please consider that for the price you also get a 17" LCD and a Core Duo processor, as well as the form factor; Apple could reduce the price of their iMac quite a bit if they decided to ship a vanilla tower, so some of the price has to account for form factor.
Or in other words, some people will pay Porsche because it looks like a Porsche; if you want to discount the form factor, where can you get a similarly powerful 1.83GHz dual processor system with 17" widescreen LCD for $1k? A comparable (not identical, but similar) system from HP is $1,213.48 such that you can do everything an iMac can do (DVD recording, movie making, photo organization, etc), but still lacking a few software titles to make up the $86 difference. On one hand the HP is slightly more powerful, but the iMac has a more compact form factor.
wow, you people amaze me, and i wonder how some of you can have involvement in the creative world with so little understanding of how it works.
apple did nothing wrong here, at all, and Ben G. of the postal service (whose music i do enjoy, btw) is acting like an ass.
The Postal Service supplied ONLY the music for the video. please note that their music makes ZERO appearance in the ad.
the directors of the video created it all, and they also chose to make the apple ad. basically all you whiners on here are crying about the directors stealing their own idea and technique from THEMSELVES. seriously, that sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it?
get over it. it makes no sense, and engadget should be ashamed with the article title which it totally unfair. "apple hires directors who make ad with their own original idea" somehow means apple sinks to such great lows"? wtf?
fyi mike d ~ iron and wine covered the postal service for such great heights but thanks for playing the sell out card better luck next time.
It's called parallelism.
This reminds me a lot of Tiger Direct lawsuit against Apple. I'm Sure the postal service is not complaining that the amount of people who know they exist has increase 1000% They'd make more money off publicity than suing apple. By the way guy from comment #50, Its not intel boxes they're taling about its Wintel, Apple may currently be less less than dell, but in another month they will pass them again, in a few years I'll bet dell goes out of buisness from lack of people buying $400 "dull little boxes" to have spyware steal their credit card info, viruses infest their computer and worms erase their data. If apple computers are wortyh nothing for engineering, Micro$soft WIndows computer are worth nothing. period.
This reminds me a lot of Tiger Direct lawsuit against Apple. I'm Sure the postal service is not complaining that the amount of people who know they exist has increase 1000% They'd make more money off publicity than suing apple. By the way guy from comment #50, Its not intel boxes they're taling about its Wintel, Apple may currently be less less than dell, but in another month they will pass them again, in a few years I'll bet dell goes out of buisness from lack of people buying $400 "dull little boxes" to have spyware steal their credit card info, viruses infest their computer and worms erase their data. If apple computers are wortyh nothing for engineering, Micro$soft WIndows computer are worth nothing. period.
This is no 'lame' band. This is Death Cab for Cutie's side project. They have sold over a million albums and are very popular with young adults. Stop saying this is some lame 'no one ever heard of' band. They are popular around here and most of my friends love their album. I admit it is good publicity, but trust me, just because MTV or VH1 doesn't play them often does not mean they are not popular.
i dont know where selling out came from. the postal service son 'the dream of eve and chan' or whatever is used for a car commerical...i think the covers are fine. but i guess music videos and commericals are an entirely different matter. especially if they coined the idea. with iron and wine, they get cuts from that you know.
To all you people who keep saying that the Postal Service is some punny little band who needs this for publicity, or that this is the highlight of their year. Just know that they have sold over 500,000 copies of their album. Which for an indie band is amazing.
correction logan.
this is ben gibbards' side project not DCFC's. The Postal Service is made up of Ben Gibbard and DNTEL(don't remember his name but that is what he calls himself).
How is this a rip off exactly?
Would apple inteiontly rip off some lame band's music video? They've had 6 months to come up with an idea and I think if they knew they could make a differnet ad. Its a great ad for apple though.
By the way this is a video of a microprocessor being made
any similarities are because all chips are made almost the same way.
Well... what can i say... I totally agree with kid in the fact that Apple did an incredibly unethical design desition, and i think is a poor move to copy others work and brag about it. I'm a graphic designer, not that is of any importance, but i think it was a low blow and completly unethical... but...
Saying that "I will never buy an apple product because they lie" - "I will feel bad using their product because they are copying" - "Apple must go down and PC forever" - "Everyone who supports X against Y is a stupid sheep" are in my case also the wrong idea.
If we are going to stop buying products because we do not like some company desition that is actually not of the interest of a product we would not buy anything... Lets not be blind of these faults and obviously complain about it, however these things are productivity tools, just that.
I use a mac and windows on daily basis because i have to. I like OSX better for my own reasons, i like some of the freedom in windows enviropment. But i won't stop using them just because the companies ethics because i will have to do things without a computer at all...
Microsoft has done some pretty evil things, in mexico they are doing some terrible things under the water and most of us know many of them... Apple has done other big corporation desitions to change standards just as microsoft has. Creative has some of the worst support that i know eclipsed by sony's products, Nissan has a pretty poor security measures in the low cost models. But hey, those are tools for work, nothing else. If you like X product cool, if not do not buy it unless you have to...
Every corporation, with no exceptions, is to make money, and if you belive anything else about being a warm company, a family company, a friendly one... that is just corporate image and publicty. Is not like they are pure evil, is that they are just companies. Use what you need and what you feel like using...
sorry for the long post and crappy english.
For all of you dogging The Postal Service, what do you listen to? Staind? Nickelback? I would sincerely like to know. Their album is one of the best of the last couple years. Look for a few reviews online if you'd like to get some more feedback on a great band. They don't suck just because you haven't heard of them - listen to their album instead of your mtv bullshit before dogging them.
Damn, I wanted to be comment #50... Funny which issues work everyone up.
My 2 are that I don't feel the ad really "works", regardless the issue at hand. And as far as the issue of the spot being a parody, I personally believe that for it to be a genuine parody, the source being parodied must be more mainstream... I wish I could know what the "real" thought was behind copying the video for this commercial. I liked a lot of the theories presented here.
"The Postal Service, like most musical acts, probably had close to zero involvement with the video. "
You sir, don't know shit.
Usually the band itself are the people who foot the bill for the music video.
1. outside of a few sites, this is not a story
2. there is no 'legal' basis for copyright theft here.
3. advertising agencies don't do anything without the explicit consent of the client (trust me...sigh..)
4. the comparison video seems to show Apples original ad vs selected/edited shots from a music video (longer)
5. Mac vs PC is really Big business vs you the consumer - Gates, Jobs = same difference - get a religion if you want to accept a God without reservation.
6. You are now reading #6, get a life.... and get me one too while you are at it.....:>
Stu
ok, so here's the deal, i did a little researching about "skyworks" and the footage for the music video was filmed at their wafer manufacturing plant:
http://www.skyworksinc.com/fab_video_400_325.asp
so im guessing that the apple commercial was filmed at the intel wafer plant?!?
either way its still retarded. i am ashamed to ever consider buying a mac, or even respect apple as a corporation. people say that microsoft is bad(maybe true in some situations), but apple is disgraceful. for a company thats trying to push the industry forward, they should stop acting childishly
"Think Plagiarism"
This is classic Steve. While both being brilliant and creative genius, he is also arrogant and hypocritical.
Apple and Steve will drop you so fast your head will spin if they feel betrayed; but they will use and burn other companies in far worse ways than they would ever tolerate.
Apple and Steve will say nothing about embarrassing similarities in their commercials; but if you do the same they will scream bloody terror in the form of lashing statements and lawsuits.
Publicity Stunt!
No its not illegal even if improper since the US government can not hold IP (secrets yes but not copyright or intellectual property) anything made for or by the government that is not secret is PUBLIC DOMAIN on inseption to the best of my knowledge and the USPO is officially a part of the government so any commercials it makes should be public domain.
Chris Taylor
They just added the music video on the music store....hahaha thats funny
wah wah wah. so over it.
i think the real issue here is that they used Moby as the music. *gag*
I think Apple should just include the lyrics to "Such Great Heights" in their add. The lyrics kind of go with what Apple and Intel are doing..."I have to speculate that god himself did make us into corresponding shapes, like puzzle pieces from the grave"
It would work - Apple gets a cool song for their commercial, Postal Service gets money and more popularity.
so, heres a thought...
1. rumors were out there that apple did drastically change coarse at the last minute and changed a large part of the keynote (deciding last minute to show one or both if the intel boxes).
2. apple likes to demo new commercials for new announcements.
3. that intel commercial has a sub par ending, bad even, surprisingly abrupt and poor by apples standards...
4. intel said they never saw the commercial, there's no reason apple wouldn't have shown that...that usually comes along with hasty production...
is that b-roll footage from the same shoot? could it be? i cant even tell of those are different actors and shots or post production change ups...
somebody within apple or chiat-day or wherever called those directors for a reason, they knew they wanted that and they could turn around that imagery really fast.
it's a sub par commercial and a crappy thing to do, it will be interesting to see if the rest of the intel push resembles this direction in any way...
I love how passionately
This is the dumbest god damn thing I've ever seen people get so worked up about.
M$ and crApple. I laughed so hard I snorted out the 'V' I was drinking! Now I have to mop my keyboard.
You rule, man.
what can i say i use an amd box
and to the apple fanboys if dell/microsoft/whoever
i know all of you would be like "there they go stealing others ideas"
so STFU
Lets be honest. If they went to a producer/ director and said I want to see something like this for our new commercial and the producer/ director said well lets just use this the how the hell is it low by Apple you morons. They just know that it looks like what they want. I doubt very serious seeing as they have lawyers that make more then probably every person on this forum that they purposely did something illegal on purpose. 2 is all of the sites I visit say that they are using a higher performance rating software then what they are using so their numbers of 2 to 5 times faster are probably true just not for the normal user. And if all of you don't think that PC's (windows computers) do not lie about their benchmarks or at least inflate them in a way that the normal user would never see the performance they say that the computer gets you need to see a head doctor. I love Apple I am a programmer and at work I use Windows every day and I can not stand XP even though to give windows credit it is the best they have ever done. OSX though is leaps and bounds past anything Windows has and their next release will kill Vista also which has already from betas shown that they are just stealing OSX technology like normal. I am a gamer so if you are a game I understand not going to a MAC, but do not dis what you are ignorant of My G5 still will benchmark and out run almost any Win PC and its 3 and a half years old. Oh and for the record I have never felt lied or betrayed by Apple which is why I have a Macbook Pro on order.
I believe they call this appropriation in the art world.
Artists have a reputation of being hyper sensitive about things. It's true, we are. I think that these complaints are silly.
Many artists carry a theme or idea through in their work, this might have been the case for this director as well. I've never heard of the postal service really though.
Now I have.
The Postal who?
Whatever. I've heard of Apple. `Never heard of these SubPop Postal whatsits. I'll be buying an Apple computer. I won't be purchasing anything from this band.
End of controversy, as far as I'm concerned.
This will all be old news after Steve announces he is the new CEO of Disney-Pixar. He will rename the merged company Dix'R (pronounced DICKS ARE) and happily hock Hollywood content the rest of his life.
Andy Grove will be coaxed out of retirement to run Apple and the company will later merge with Intel after BillyG is done destroying Apple's market share.
And Mac will exist only as MINE, the Macintosh version of WINE.
Historians will look back and credit this moment, Apple's blatant theft of indie street cred, as the butterfly that was the cusp of Apple's fatal fall.
This style of film, looks more like THX 1138 most likely where the "original" idea came from. Look at this site for an example. http://blog.industrialbrand.com/archives/2006/01/apples_intel.html#trackbacks
So even though, Postal Service is bitching, maybe the guy who designed the ad needs to go watch some different movies.
Seriously, you guys who don't know who The Postal Service are should really listen to them. And Death Cab For Cutie for that matter. Both really great bands. And there's no possible way you haven't heard the song in question, it's been in all kinds of commercials.