Filmmakers, musicians, writers and other artists began whining about that ad above for the Apple iPad Pro from almost the second it was released. As Sonny and Cher warble one of their lesser efforts, “All I Ever Need is You,” a hydraulic press crushes musical instruments, cameras, a framed picture, paint cans, record albums and other stuff in a colorful explosion of chaos.
“The destruction of the human experience. Courtesy of Silicon Valley,” tweeted actor Hugh Grant. “Who needs human life and everything that makes it worth living? Dive into this digital simulacrum and give us your soul. Sincerely, Apple,” added “Men in Black” screenwriter Ed Solomon. There were lots more metaphorical squeals of indignation and alarm on social media, as
“creative people” accused Apple of gloating over how Big Tech is co-opting the traditional tools of art and on the verge of eliminating the human creativity with artificial intelligence.
So, naturally, as is the norm these days, Apple “assumed the position” and groveled an apology. Pledging that Apple would never run the ad on TV again, Tor Myhren, the company’s vice president of marketing communications, said, “Creativity is in our DNA at Apple, and it’s incredibly important to us to design products that empower creatives all over the world.” The statement continued, “Our goal is to always celebrate the myriad of ways users express themselves and bring their ideas to life through iPad. We missed the mark with this video, and we’re sorry.”
Seriously?
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Oh, lots of things: Is there anything unethical about that ad? Do its critics have a legitimate point? Should Apple have caved to their complaints? Was that apology sincere?
Perhaps you can discern where I stand on all of this. Nonetheless, I am willing to be persuaded that I am wrong.
The ad itself is art. It’s visually interesting and provocative. The message also is clear as a bell, with the lyrics of the song spelling it out for everyone. The message is also not to be taken literally, which is also a feature of much art. The critics are wildly hypocritical, artists who object to art when it hits too close to home, so they advocate censorship.
The whimsical spectacle is called “advertising.” Advertising is by its nature hyperbolic.
Apple’s grovel was more unethical than the complaints: like Joe Biden’s surrender to Jew-haters, such craven capitulations only encourage bullies, power-abusers and censors. At the same time, the apology was insincere, a #8 on the Apology Scale: “A forced apology for a rightful or legitimate act, in capitulation to bullying, fear, threats, desperation or other coercion.”
Or not. Althouse, whose post about the episode spins off into a typical Ann-ish tangent about the destruction of musical instruments as an art form (and gets a C+ grade from me for missing Jimmy Durante’s contribution to the genre, as he was destroying pianos decades before Jimmy Hendrix and Jerry Lee Lewis trashed their instruments), notes, “Apple has achieved its goal in making the ad viral, so paid TV ads are no longer needed.”
She also ends up where I am (this post was written last night before hers was, but I didn’t post it) “What ghastly prudes are out and about in social media these days? And what are these moral scolds creating (other than repression)?”
Again, however, feel free to disagree…
Ethics Alarms 
I cannot think of anything remotely unethical about the ad.
As a s-t-r-e-t-c-h, it could have been wanton destruction – but – it is all computer-generated crushing! No actual instruments (that could have been, say, donated to starving orphans) were harmed in the filming of that ad.
It might also be mildly trite, as videos of real things being crushed is a popular genre of internet video (there are hypnotic videos of giant metal gears at junkyards that eat anything thrown their way if one were interested).
I come down to having no idea whatsoever where the critics take issue with the ad. I can only assume they would similarly traumatized watching a fruit smoothie being made.
Wild E. Coyote meets art: Piano Falling From 30 Feet in Slow Motion (youtube.com)
Is there anything unethical about that ad?
I don’t think there’s anything unethical about the ad.
Do its critics have a legitimate point?
I think the critics are being absurd, it’s an advertisement, it’s actually quite creative and I’ll bet you that it wasn’t filmed with an iPad.
Should Apple have caved to their complaints?
Hell No! Apple should have completely ignored them and continue to run the ad. Ads are designed to drum up attention for their product and this ad does just that and the critics are feeding right into it. F’ing imbecile snowflakes gotta try to find something to bitch about with everything.
Was that apology sincere?
No, they were pandering to the snowflakes. Either way, Apple wins. The ad as done it’s job and with the absurd controversary it will continue to do its job to get attention for their product.
Great job Apple!!!
I guess I’m being incredibly dense today, but why on earth would that ad make me want to buy their product? Isn’t that the point of advertising? If I were an Apple shareholder, I’d be plenty upset that their ad seems intended to tweak artists (it worked), without a compensating upside that would generate a positive response from other people. Finding the ad inoffensive, in other words, is insufficient. It has to sell the product, and I can think of no way in which this exercise in faux destruction would do so. Of course, I think that about half the ads I see…
But why would the people who hate the product and what it stands for care if the ad is ineffective? Would they WANT that to be the as Apple uses?
Since I’m not in the market for the device, and wouldn’t buy anything from Apple. I have no idea what the psychology of Apple’s market is. Obnoxious ads “work” by making people aware of the product, and nothing else. I find all of those “stinky down THERE” ads now assaulting me absolutely disgusting, but I do know that crotch-odor products are now for sale.
I hate those ads with a passion and find it an interesting development in advertising, along with the recent change of using what appears to be blood in feminine product commercials instead of innocuous blue fluid.
I’d imagine it is related to feminism (in that I could see my annoying woke sister arguing that hiding the truth about periods is dehumanizing or something) but still find it repulsive and indicative of society’s degeneracy.
I am not sure. Is the ad conveying that all of human creativity can be compressed into a computer device? Seems so, ¿no?
What is missing from the criticism is that a human needs to be involved in the device’s computer/creative output; otherwise, it is no more interesting than a doorstop. To those critics that AI is infecting everything I would say, “well, yeah – autocorrect on computers and cellphone, word suggestions and editing software have been around since the late 1980s but society hasn’t crumbled. If you want to use a typewriter to write great American novel, no one is stopping you.”
Musicians and sound engineers have been using computers to record music since at least the mid-1970s, but the musicians still need to produce the music/songs. AI can only take it so far. Protools and other recording apps have been used since the mid-1990s but no one been prevented from using analog tape machines (assuming the tapes are available). Home Depot, Lowe’s, Texas Art Supply (wonderful store1!), Office Depot and other stores still sell paints, drawing supplies, paper or canvas, and other art supplies but no one has been prevented from buying stuff at those stores and making cool art.
jvb
My only disagreement with Jack: nothing by Cher is a “lesser effort”.
It is one of the better ads I have seen lately. It makes the point and is entertaining. It is taking all those things and squishing them into the iPad. All you need is the iPad. Effective measure, unlike the many ads whose product can’t be determined without reading the screen at the end (maybe at the bottom).
You have to be a complete coward to apologize for that ad.
Then again, I thought Cadillac was a weenie for apologizing for the ELR ad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNzXze5Yza8
Interesting commercial. No idea why they felt the need to apologize for it, unless they’re apologizing for our society being better than Europe’s? Hah.
The French were offended and demanded and apology. It was obviously picking on the French.
You inadvertently suggested a reason they MIGHT legitimately want to apologize for the add. They dominate in the creative realm, which appears to be the group of people they pissed off. Although I highly doubt the complainers represent more than a tiny fraction of their actual user base. Pissing off your core supporters trying to gain new ones is a poor trade. I doubt they actually did piss off more than a tiny fraction of humorless scolds, but I can kind of see it from that angle at least.
Wanted to add: Kind of like Bud Light’s marketing director dismissing the importance of their current customers, pissing them off, and causing a horrendous crash in their market share.
Computers make mediocre artists marketable. I hate auto-tuned voices.
Nothing unethical about the ad nor the complaints. To each is own. The complaints are no different than when critics offer an opinion on a person’s performance.
The apology is unethical based on Jack’s scale but I really don’t see any language as being ethical or unethical if the language reflects an actual belief. What lies in the hearts of men I do not know but if you espouse an idea then own it and any apology solely to get out of trouble would be unethical.
I wanted to dislike the commercial, but I watched it, and it’s pretty darn good. Very clever, and the music works perfectly. I’d have volunteered any of my metronomes to be destroyed. There’s nothing more annoying than trying to learn a piece with a metronome. All right, maybe Marc Elias is more annoying.
I liked the ad. Fun to watch. I liked watching Gallagher smashing watermelons too.
The squish ball at the end was a nice touch. Reminds me of the silliness of my children.
It’s unethical for complainers to squish the enjoyment out of life, the universe and everything.
I thought it was a very clever ad that highlighted the versatility of the iPad – features that I use on a daily basis.
At risk of ‘outing’ myself, here’s what I posted on the Financial Times’ article regarding this topic:
https://www.ft.com/content/1f7314d7-577c-4263-a69f-b11757d85b4d
“Whatever you say or do, regardless of your intentions, someone will be offended by your actions.” Having looked in the usual places (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_eponymous_laws), I was unable to find a named version of this law.
Therefore, I deem it to be the “Law of the Perpetually Offended.”
I like throwing my voice and breaking guitars
‘Cause it doesn’t remind me of anything
-Audio Slave/Doesn’t Remind Me
It was an ad. It’s obvious that the point of the ad was that the Ipad can do everything that all those separate things can do. The only unethical part of this debacle is Apple apologizing to the people who either don’t get the ad or misrepresent it (if they are purposely misrepresenting it, that would be unethical as well).