Apple has debuted a new iPhone print ad in a national (U.S.) campaign that seems to play off the “Jesus Phone” or “God Phone” sobriquet that some have used to refer to iPhone. The advertisement features an image that’s more than a little reminiscent of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel fresco, “The Creation of Adam,” along with the tagline, “Touching is believing.”
If we follow Michelangelo’s positioning of Adam on the left and God on the right, the iPhone was created directly by and/or is God’s phone (as if He needed a phone).
Here’s the back cover of the August 2007 issue of Details Magazine:
God Phone.
Love the minimal approach.
LOL, i thought this said:
Apple Debuts New iPhone, i almost S**T my pants, just bought mine
… like Adam touching the hand of God.
It’s like running your fingers over the luscious curves of a woman you can make sweet love to.
“Print Ad?” Print?
How quaint.
If that ad doesn’t make you drool, your already dead.
I had a youthful glow once.
The iPhone ad is nice. I like the minimalist approach and the caption. The image, however, doesn’t do it for me.
MDN Take: Priceless.
@blacklisted
It’s their forum. They can do as they please with your post or anyone else’s post. That’s life. If you want a forum where no one will delete your posts, start your own.
I am starting to think it might be a good idea for MDN to set up iPhone Daily News because although it’s pretty interesting to hear Apple are kicking ass with the iPhone I am getting withdrawal symptoms from the regular Mac News.
Print? That’s the one with ink, right?
This ad has run on the back cover of the NYT magazine for the last two weeks. Old news.
A.
This Ad only means something to those who “believe”
It totally would have been better with E.T.’s glowing finger touching it with the headline “ET iPhone home”
British Mac Head,
Hint: if you’re not interested in an article, don’t click it. Certainly don’t comment on it, you bloody idiot.
Andy,
First time I’ve seen it, since the NYT is a red rag I avoid like the plague. MDN’s interpretation of the ad is worth it.
I dunno about the god thing.
I think it’s more like the monolith from 2001, and we Apple fan boys are the monkeys…
@whomever…how annoying !
Guys, you have it wrong. They were actually referring to another version of my fresco, which you can see here:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/thinkfilm/theten/
It’s nice being called the God Phone and all that, I have a more important question: will it blend?
http://www.willitblend.com/videos.aspx?type=unsafe&video=iphone
Touching is believing but tasting is committing. Swallowing is voluntary.
The Michelangelo reference is a bit of a reach.
Touch me…touch me.
..sorry, I don’t see it ..in fact I think you might be reaching ..no, wait a minute ..you are reaching. In fact, I’ve seen you reach and you are definitely reaching. I’ve even seen you stretch …I’ve seen you drop somebodys article down and twist lime over it. I’ve seen you squash, rip and burn the eyes out of slimey analysts. I’ve seen you sharpen your teeth on a guilty mans reputation …swallow and shat the man right out onto the floor and now …well, now you’re reaching.
I think that if the Michelangelo reference was intentional then the phone would be on the opposite side, with man’s hand touching it.
It’s a nice and possible interpretation but I wouldn’t be so confident about it.
I’m going to have to agree with KenC. If it weren’t for the author’s commentary or MDNs take I don’t think it would make me think of the Sistine Chapel at all. The arm isn’t at the same angle, the hand and fingers aren’t in the same position. Michelangelo’s fresco makes it look like God is stretching to reach Adam, yearning even. This looks nothing like that. The only thing the ad has in common with the fresco is that someone is touching something, although you could argue thats not even a similarity because in the painting they aren’t even touching, they are just very close. If they wanted this to be a Michelangelo reference I think they would have made it much stronger.
That is one sweet phone.
PainfulTruth said: “British Mac Head,
Hint: if you’re not interested in an article, don’t click it. Certainly don’t comment on it, you bloody idiot.
Andy,
First time I’ve seen it, since the NYT is a red rag I avoid like the plague. MDN’s interpretation of the ad is worth it.”
=========================================
PT, I think it can be argued that your parents didn’t teach you any manners. No, I’m sure your parents didn’t teach you any manners.
NYT a red rag, yeah that’s a real good one. I’m sure you get your truthiness from Faux Spews.