Apple iPhone ads succeed where AT&T’s fail

“Apple’s jumping into the battle that sees Verizon Wireless and AT&T flaming each other in advertisements, but unlike AT&T’s recent effort to defend itself, Apple’s new pair of iPhone ads are actually good,” Jared Newman writes for PC World.

“To recap, Verizon fired the first volley with ads that dissed AT&T’s lack of 3G coverage. AT&T sued Verizon, claiming that the maps mislead viewers because areas with slower coverage appeared in white, giving the impression that those areas had no coverage at all. A judge ruled in Verizon’s favor, allowing the company’s ads to keep rolling. So AT&T retaliated with a lame and even childish ad that featured actor Luke Wilson checking off four bullet points in the carrier’s favor,” Newman writes.

Direct link via YouTube here.

Newman writes, “Apple’s ads take a different direction. Instead of flinging mud at Verizon, they demonstrate how the iPhone takes advantage of AT&T’s ability to place calls and use data at the same time… Instead of merely saying why AT&T’s network is superior, as Luke Wilson did in AT&T’s ad, Apple actually shows us how simultaneous voice and data can be useful to iPhone owners.”

Apple iPhone ad: “Did You See My Email?”

Direct link via YouTube here.

Apple iPhone ad: “What Time’s The Movie?”

Direct link via YouTube here.

Full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Carl H.” for the heads up.]


  1. Being able to use the internet while making a call is great as long as your in one of the few areas with 3G coversage so even the Apple commercial is misleading!

    Lets all face it if the iPhone was on Verizon most people would jump off the AT&T;ship!!

  2. AT&T;has increased 3G coverage 5000% since the iPhone was introduced. Verizon’s dirty little secret is that their 3G coverage is great as long as no one is using it — if Verizon gets the iPhone, it will work infinitely slower on Verizon’s network since they simply don’t have the capacity to support it. Having 3G capacity in more areas is utterly worthless if it is so limited in capacity that it works slower than a non-3G connection.

  3. @ Ken,

    Very moot point considering Verizon is not getting the iPhone anytime soon. And consider the strain the iPhone would/will put on Verizon’s network, just like At&t;, you would/will have the same effect. If you think different you obviously have never heard the term “technological bottlenecks”.

    Thank you,

  4. Can anyone confirm that if iPhone was available on verizon, they still couldn’t use voice and data simultaneously?

    It’s my understanding verizon can’t or won’t allow it, so even if they offered the iPhone, that is one glaring weakness that AT&T should be hammering home.

    Let’s face it, why would anyone choose verizon if this is NOT policy but a technical limitation of their network.

    Conversly, did ATT do something extra to their network to accommodate simultaneous voice and data?

  5. “Lets all face it if the iPhone was on Verizon most people would jump off the AT&T;ship!!”

    Bullshit. I’ve used both. They both have problems. The difference is that ATT’s problems are being caused by the iPhone, while Verizon’s problems are being caused by an antiquated network.

    ATT is, as we speak, upgrading/expanding its network (to accommodate iPhone data usage), while Verizon must change out its entire network to enter the 21st Century.

  6. “Can anyone confirm that if iPhone was available on verizon, they still couldn’t use voice and data simultaneously?”

    Its a limitation of CDMA (the technology that powers Verizon’s network). GSM allows simultaneous voice/data connections (ATT’s/Apple’s technology choice).

  7. Don’t feel bad about the misspelling of “Verizon” (Verison, or “coversage,” for that matter)- at least you didn’t perpetuate the continual misspelling of “you’re” (as in you are- ‘your in one of the few areas with 3G coversage’). Then again, most everyone seems to be screwing that one up these days, along with “its vs. it’s.”

  8. @G4,

    At&t;user UMTS/HSDPA 3G/3.5G, Verizon uses CDMA for their 3G network. The difference, the former is faster, the latter is slower. The former is what you would call FM, and the latter is what you would call AM. The former can do many things at once and occasionally keep a decent signal, the latter only does one thing at a time but with a very strong signal ( for the most part). The former is easily expanded up and updated, the latter has to be completely rebuilt over the next few years to be a truly modern (world) network. I hope that helps.

    Considering that I still owe you a heart punch, your welcome.

    PS, for anyone who assumes any of those ideas are wrong or inaccurate in anyway I can be reach at

    Thank You

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.