iPhone, Wii guests on stage at this year's Oscars
By Ryan Block 
posted February 25th 2008 12:17AM
posted February 25th 2008 12:17AM
posted February 25th 2008 12:17AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Lies! You can't flip the video playback in the iPhone unless its a Quicktime movie on the internet!
i believe you have confused us with someone who cares...
I guess if you are non technical, the iPhone is a great device.
You know you have a big TV when the Wii tennis players are bigger than you.
Jon Stewart is funny because he hates President Bush.
I see what you did there.
Everybody's funny.
Above me is one of the most hilarious comment/reply's EVER.
Great work guys, absolutely hilarious.
Engadget is a place to discuss gadgets not politics.
It's funny how everyone thinks Bford is pro-bush when he is just pointing out Jon Stewards lack of talent. If Jon Stewart has a smidgen of Colbert's funny, he would be watchable...
Or maybe we can just discuss both?...
Stewart produces and writes for Colbert...
Engadgetics!
I missed that part, who was the girl that was playing with him? Anyone famous?
Is it anybody? Is it anybody? Nah, it's nobody. Throw ya stones!
Seriously, anyone? I'm curious too.
It was the girl who sang the August Rush song, Jamia Simone Nash.
it was the girl who sang one of the nominated songs. i could do more research here but i'm lazy.
I wonder how much Apple and Nintendo coughed up for this.
The money they used to make those great products.
Am I the only one that gets physically sick whenever tv shows or events shove a product in your face as a form of subliminal advertising, like you're some kind of infant or idiot and woun't notice?
Yes, Legend, you are. :P
Wii is a fun product that I am sure everyone at the Oscars enjoyed seeing. And on that huge screen, playing right in front it, would have been a very impressive sight. Wii Tennis wasn't so much product placement as it was a game of tennis for all to enjoy. Why do people have to be so cynical about these kind of things?!
@ LEGENDZ28
Then don't watch it.
>> Broadcasters have every right to put as much advertising as they like in their programming.
>> You have every right as a viewer to chose not to watch.
Quit complaining. ABC is a company that needs to make money, they don't just put out programming for free out of the goodness of their hearts.
Why don't you a9.com it?
Actually Kyran he isn't (no smiley face)
I too get an uneasy feeling when product placement is so fricken obvious that it comes off as awkward and crude - like some kids hour cigarette commercial from the 1950s.
@legend... I didn't take it as blatant advertising. It was more a take on pop culture, as the iPhone and the Wii are pretty popular in a lot of settings. Even non-techie friends of mine talk about the Wii and people with iPhone, amongst other items that dominate the current market.
"I didn't take it as blatant advertising. It was more a take on pop culture, as the iPhone and the Wii are pretty popular in a lot of settings. Even non-techie friends of mine talk about the Wii and people with iPhone, amongst other items that dominate the current market."
um, no.
I'm sure your fanboy instincts make you say that, but those of us who study advertising know full well that products DO NOT just appear during an event like the Oscars, where the going rate for a 30-second ad is a shift-load of cash, for of some BS reason like some "take on pop culture".
From the dresses the stars wear, to any logo or product you see, there were lots of cash to change hands to get that face time. You just cant put this stuff on screen without the permission of the company that made it.
This wasn't product placement. I don't think apple would have paid him to make fun of cell phone users and watching movies on them. It was such a joke, the fact he said he was watching "Lawrence of Arabia," which is one of the widest movies ever made, you probably couldn't see anything. I think he was clearly making fun of our society now. I don't know a single person who would run out and buy an iPhone now because his "advertising" message was "my phone screen is so small I can't make out the characters in the movie I'm trying to watch"... yeah I really want an iPhone now. If it was an apple product placement, i'm sure they would have come up with a better idea than taking a stab at its product and users.
Fred:
Except that this was not a positive mention of the iPhone. He was clearly making fun of the experience of watching movies on it. He was invoking this David Lynch video that made the rounds in film circles a few months ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0
No, there's no such thing as bad publicity, but if Apple were *paying* for this, you don't think they would have expected a little more positive of a message?
Sorry Fred, I'm with Starry and Jeff on this one (and thanks to both for mentioning the negative jab on the iPhone watching movies).
Jon Stewart is a comic and was going for laughs, not money.
The gowns and clothing the stars wore was product placement, though... which everyone knows that.
You guys can't be this blind. It doesn't matter what John Stewart is saying about the phone because actions speak so much louder than words. The fact is, the Wii and iPhone are on stage at the Academy Awards. The message is clear. These objects are very popular and recognized by the rich and famous. It would ludicrous to give Apple and Nintendo that sort of publicity for free. They aren't short of ideas for skits.
You guys can't be this blind. It doesn't matter what John Stewart is saying about the phone because actions speak so much louder than words. The fact is, the Wii and iPhone are on stage at the Academy Awards. The message is clear. These objects are very popular and recognized by the rich and famous. It would ludicrous to give Apple and Nintendo that sort of publicity for free. They aren't short of ideas for skits.
I didnt see the Wii part, I didnt really watch the show like that, but I did notice the iPhone product placement. At first you couldnt tell what phone he was playing with, but when he turned it to the side, the camera zoomed in so you could see the apple logo..pretty obvious to me. I would assume they paid a little more than they would for a regular commercial. people expect commercials and use commercial breaks for bathroom trips and such. product placements like that are more gorrilla style marketing and would be more saught after for events like the oscars and the super bowl.
Why wasn't he playing an xbox360? doesn't he know the game ownership tie ratio is 7.63?? lol
i was wondering how long till engadget made a comment about this :P
and by ryan's timestamp, id put it at 45 mins :P
bit slow eh ryan? lol. jk.
The girl was the one singing in the August Rush right?
And the Wii Tennis was great, your right, you know your TV is the right size when your characters are as big as you are
wheres the video?
I want to play Wii tennis on the giant screen.
I think you mean, "Engadget, I understand the decision you made not to post ABC's Oscar broadcast, thus avoiding a costly and unncessary lawsuit." Copyright law: learn it, love it, live it.
@Ryan Block: Copyright law: Break it early and often; otherwise, how will we know when it works?
It's on Gizmodo, where they have balls.
Go to gizmodo, where they have balls in their mouth.
They should have used a Zune or a Blackberry or Palm or HTC or LG, but I can see why they didn't. None of them are real breakthrough devices. Just another wannabe devices.
Um, what, pray tell, is a Palm a "wannabe" of? It essentially invented/defined the entire handheld product category back in 1996.
So how is that an argument they should've used them? Or... should I have said "I see what you did there" for the second time in this post which would just be tacky really.
@craig: and never changed again...
@ Carig
Palm didnt invent nor define the entire handheld category, Apple came out with the Newton in 1993 - a full 3 years before Palm.
If anything Apple is responsible for much or the inventing and defining. What they were able to do was push it into mass market - but thats more of a result of Palms compatibility with PCs than anything else.
By the way the only reason Palm is even around anymore is because of the smart people at Handspring - they actually innovated and combined the Palm OS with a cell phone. Palm later bought out Handspring and their Treo cell phone and guess what - haven't done much with it since.
I can have much respect for Palm when they have basically given up in the marketplace. Handspring made it clear that there were some very smart and imaginative people working on the Palm platform - the fact that nothing has come from Palm since shows how poorly the company is run.
@Craig
Do a little bit of research first will you. The Newton was light years ahead of its time. Which some say was the cause of its demise. Too much technology for the time. People could not assimilate to a new type of computing platform, specially that advanced.