Apple eventually apologized for the 'Crush' ad and removed it from their YouTube page, while Samsung kept its video up as a celebration of creativity.
Samsung and Apple engaged in a marketing battle following the release of Apple's controversial 'Crush' ad for iPad Pro.
Samsung has a history of creating ads directly attacking Apple, such as mocking Apple fanboys and featuring an iPhone user with a notch haircut.
Samsung responded with its own video titled 'UnCrush', which shows a woman playing notes on her Galaxy Tab S9 and Galaxy AI after destruction caused by Apple's ad.
Samsung and Apple, two tech giants in the industry, have been engaging in a marketing battle following the release of Apple's new iPad Pro ad. The ad, titled 'Crush,' features various objects being crushed under the weight of a giant iPad Pro. Samsung responded with its own video titled 'UnCrush,' which shows a woman playing notes on her Galaxy Tab S9 and Galaxy AI in the aftermath of destruction caused by Apple's ad.
The Samsung ad, created by BBH USA and directed by Zen Pace, was released as a response to Apple's controversial 'Crush' ad. The iPad Pro had previously faced criticism for removing in-box charging adapters from their devices, leading to less effective marketing attempts from Samsung.
Apple eventually apologized for the 'Crush' ad and removed it from their YouTube page. However, Samsung kept its video up on X platform as a celebration of creativity that cannot be crushed.
Samsung has a history of creating ads directly attacking Apple. In 2011, they mocked Apple fanboys waiting in line for new iPhones and in 2017, they featured an iPhone user with a notch haircut similar to the notch at the top of the iPhone screen.
The marketing departments of both companies have used creative strategies to gain an edge over each other. Samsung's marketing team argued that their ads 'drove Apple crazy,' but it seemed to run out of gas after deleting ads about iPhones dropping in-box charging adapters. Apple, on the other hand, has focused on showcasing the sleek design and innovative features of their products.
Samsung responded with a video titled ‘UnCrush’ on X platform featuring a woman playing notes on her Galaxy Tab S9 and Galaxy AI
Samsung UnCrush video was created by BBH USA and directed by Zen Pace
Apple had previously faced criticism for removing in-box charging adapters from their iPhones, leading to less effective marketing attempts from Samsung
Samsung released a 43-second ad on Wednesday as a response to Apple’s ‘Crush’ ad.
The Samsung ad, created by BBH USA, shows a woman playing guitar in the aftermath of what looks like destruction.
The onscreen line at the end reads ‘Creativity cannot be crushed’.
Estefanio Holtz, executive creative director at BBH USA, described it as a celebration of all creative souls.
Olga Suvorova, VP of mobile experience marketing at Samsung Electronics America, stated that creativity is core to Samsung’s brand and communities.
Apple apologized for the ‘Crush’ ad two days after its release.
Samsung has previously created ads directly attacking Apple, such as one from 2011 mocking Apple fanboys and another from 2017 featuring an iPhone user with a notch haircut.
Accuracy
The Samsung ad shows a woman playing guitar in the aftermath of what looks like destruction.
The onscreen line at the end reads ‘Creativity cannot be crushed.’
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(95%)
The author makes several statements that are not fallacies but rather descriptions of events and the intentions of Samsung and Apple. However, there is an instance of an appeal to authority when the author states 'Apple apologized in an exclusive statement to Ad Age two days after the spot's release.' This statement implies that because Ad Age reported on the apology, it must be true. Additionally, there are instances of inflammatory rhetoric used by both Samsung and Apple, but these do not constitute logical fallacies as they are valid expressions of their respective brands' positions.
“Apple apologized in an exclusive statement to Ad Age two days after the spot's release.”
Apple’s 'Crush' commercial for the new iPad Pro received widespread rejection due to its terrible quality.
Apple had previously faced criticism for removing in-box charging adapters from their iPhones, leading to less effective marketing attempts from Samsung.
Generative A.I. often uses existing work online without compensation to ‘train’ the software and create results that appear humanoid or creative.
Samsung responded with a video titled 'UnCrush' on X platform featuring a woman playing notes on her Galaxy Tab S9 and Galaxy AI.
Accuracy
Apple's 'Crush' commercial for the new iPad Pro received widespread rejection due to its terrible quality.
The commercial opens with a hydraulic press destroying various analog artifacts, including a turntable, metronome, trumpet, and Angry Bird.
Apple has shown interest in generative artificial intelligence (A.I.) for creative purposes.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains emotional manipulation through the author's strong language and opinionated tone towards the iPad ad. The author also engages in selective reporting by focusing on the negative aspects of generative A.I. without mentioning its potential benefits or contextualizing it within the broader technological landscape.
It was more like, ‘Our bad.’ Which to me is nearly as offensive as the ad itself.
The commercial for the new iPad Pro hit a much tougher mark by being both terrible and honest about Apple’s vision of the future.
The least that should happen is an equivalent to the Bill of Rights, governing the release of A.I. content in the wild.
People who didn’t care about this issue, it actually sparked something in them, some deep revulsion. In the background of one shot, there’s a framed photograph being destroyed, and I can’t stop thinking about it.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting Dan Ives and Matt Zoller Seitz. He also uses inflammatory rhetoric in describing the iPad ad as 'terrible and honest about Apple's vision of the future'. However, these are not fallacies as they do not directly affect the author's assertions.
][author] The commercial for the new iPad Pro hit a much tougher mark by being both terrible and honest about Apple’s vision of the future.[[//],
Bias
(80%)
The author expresses a clear disdain for Apple's new iPad Pro commercial and the use of generative A.I., implying that it is a violation of art and artists' intellectual labor. This can be considered as an expression of ideological bias.
And everybody whose art, or writing, or music was used to trained the so-called generative A.I. should be compensated by these companies.
Apple’s 'Crush' commercial, unveiled last week and no longer scheduled to air on TV in America because people just truly, madly, deeply hated it, constitutes something larger than a miss, or a flub. Contrary to the walkback last week by Apple marketing communications vice president Tor Myhren ‘We missed the mark with this video, and we’re sorry’, the commercial for the new iPad Pro hit a much tougher mark by being both terrible and honest about Apple’s vision of the future.
I have a painting of my mother hanging on the wall behind me right now. Artists have photographs and drawings in their workspace for a reason. For inspiration. It might be a picture made by another artist, it might be a photo of their family, their children. So Apple’s making sure that even the tokens and mementos feeding the artists’ work gets crushed?
The least that should happen is an equivalent to the Bill of Rights, governing the release of A.I. content in the wild. Any image or music or piece of writing generated with help from A.I. software should be clearly marked as such.
Apple CEO Tim Cook's X post on the 'Crush' ad for the new iPad Pro has been viewed around 53 million times
The in-house produced promo is still on Apple’s YouTube page despite backlash
Apple marketing kingpin Tor Myhren apologized for missing the mark with the ad
Accuracy
500,000 people have watched the 'Crush' ad on YouTube since its release on Tuesday
Deception
(30%)
The author expresses editorializing and pontification by stating 'Well, maybe not that sorry' and 'That Apple ad...is a problem. Not in hip-hop ‘bad meaning good’ problem. But a problem problem.' These statements are the author's opinions and not facts.
Well, maybe not that sorry
That Apple ad...is a problem. Not in hip-hop ‘bad meaning good’ problem. But a problem problem.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(90%)
The author expresses a clear disapproval of the Apple ad and quotes several individuals who share the same sentiment. The author does not make any statements that demonstrate bias towards a specific political party, religion, ideology or monetary gain.
] Apple execs are facing a backlash from almost everyone else.[/
That Apple ad...is a problem. Not in hip-hop ‘bad meaning good’ problem. But a problem problem.[
Well versed anti-AI activist, former Family Ties star and filmmaker Bateman was even more blunt:
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25450390/videoframe_33450.png)
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9617411/GoLcDRC.jpg)
