Apple debuts new iPad 2 ad: ‘If You Asked’ (with video)

Apple has debuted a new television on U.S. broadcast and cable networks called, “If You Asked.”

If you ask a parent, they might call it intuitive. If you asked a musician, they might call it inspiring. To a doctor, it’s groundbreaking.

To a CEO, it’s powerful. To a teacher, it’s the future. If you ask a child, she might call it “magic.”

And, if you ask us, we’d say it’s just getting started. (graphic, black on white:  iPad 2)

MacDailyNews Take: These are unique, defining, aspirational spots; Apple should continue to explore this style as the campaign continues.

See the first ad in what looks to be a very strong campaign, “We Believe,” here.

Related articles:
Apple debuts new iPad 2 ad; reminds the world what ‘We Believe’ (with video) – April 3, 2011


  1. Loved it! Not a single mention of gigahertz this or megapixel that. It shows you distinct ways in which the device can be used while stirring up an emotional reaction that makes you want the device. Brilliant.

  2. But… but… where are the robots? The spaceships? The cool sound effects??? I don’t want to see what it actually can do!!! I want to see a cool sci-fi space ship and a brief glimpse of the tablet playing a movie!!!!

    1. Not to mention all of that neat stuff is “simulated” in the small print.

      Interestingly, Apple usually puts a “sequences shortened” to make it fit into a short spot, but this time there’s no shortening. According to Apple, everything in this ad is real.

  3. I don’t like it, I find it somewhat boring and dark.  The old ones were fun.  It looks like the new Mac ads, the ones that show how nice it looks, not what it can do.  Those make me want to cringe.

    I do like that they are showing industries that can, and do, use the iPad.  A lot of tech writers don’t see value in it because they won’t look outside their job needs.  iPad is very useful for business; I wish they would show less kid books.  

  4. I’m sure it has something to do with my being an old fart, but I like this commercial also because it doesn’t have shouting, or “regular” people singing. That’s become the de facto standard for many commercials, and it makes me crazy(er).

  5. Brilliant! It’s the underlying, unspoken “Go for your dreams” message and beautiful images that make the whole thing work. There it is presented as more than a product. It’s a way to make your life better and that concept compels people to buy.

  6. Conan the Grammarian, wake up!!! Decent commercial, but two grammar errors right off:
    “If you ask a parent (singular) they (plural) might say…” and “If you ask a musician (singular), they (plural) might say…”
    It’s a ridiculously common mistake, occurring here no doubt because Apple did not want to say “he” (or the more politically correct “he or she”) instead of “they”. Too bad, though.

    1. This is one of the most irritating trends I’ve seen in English language recently — replacing he/she with ‘they’ in singular form. The other one is the spelling of the possessive form of proper names ending in ‘s’ (like “Steve Jobs’ new house” or “Thomas’ English Muffins”). You’ll never see Economist, or New York Times spell it like that (hint: it is not a plural noun to ad an apostrophe at the end; it is a PROPER name, so possessive is Jobs’s house; Thomas’s muffins, etc. Pronounce it properly and you’ll hear two ‘s’ sound, not just one).

      1. Ranks right up there with misuse of it’s. (And that damned autocorrect that is forever inserting the apostrophe.) Here’s what I tell folks: If you don’t know how to use both forms, NEVER use “it’s”. You will at least be correct more often. Of course, that is rather pathetic. As for misspellings, I once wrote an article about misspelled street names in my city. Must have gone over that thing 30 times to make sure it was correct.

    2. The “singular” they is the use of this pronoun, where they is used as a gender-neutral singular rather than plural pronoun. – Wikipedia

      The other option for third person singular would have been “it”. Try not to be so useless in the future.

      1. You quoted Wikipedia, but failed to quote the sentence that follows:

        “The correctness of this usage is disputed”

        Both are followed with the discussion on the subject, which implies that ‘they’ as singular is slowly and, alas, irreversibly penetrating standard modern English, although it is still not quite there yet.

        1. I’m quite OK with “they” being a singular, gender-neutral subject pronoun. But if it is singular, then it should take singular verb forms. This wouldn’t change the Apple ad, since “would” is the same whether singular or plural. But in the sentence “if someone doesn’t know their grammar, they’re an idiot” it needs to be “if someone doesn’t know their grammar, they IS an idiot.” That would be the consistent way to use “they” in the singular, and if it were done that way, I’d have no problem with it. But done the other way (a “singular” pronoun that takes plural verbs) is inconsistent, lazy and confusing. If you want to invent new usage / meanings of words, go for it, but take a goddamn stand, don’t just throw other rules out with the bathwater because you’re too chicken to face the consequences of your invention.

        2. Ah, but why include any evidence to weaken your assertion? And to think that just a few days ago I took to task a poster who accused MDN of improperly using “massive ” to describe the square footage of a new Apple store, as opposed
          to its literal mass. Sounds like we can all also agree that lite and
          tonite shall replace antiquated spelling forms, and efficient constructions such as LOL and STFU should be elevated from the text-messaging of the semi-retarded to their rightful places in
          scholarly works. By golly, the thinking different has begun. Come to think of it, “is begun” has a nicer ring to it. Just ask them musicians.

    3. English, unlike Latin, for instance, is a living language. They, in this context, is quite permissible today. When you were in grade school, in this context, they was the wrong pronoun to use.

      Grow with the language.

    4. Thryll, you woke me up and I respectfully disagree. The English language lacks a third person singular pronoun. This is the way real people, even highly educated people, speak. 🙂

      But don’t get me started about “I” as an object! Now that is a cringe-inducing problem with a perfectly correct and natural sounding solution.

      1. The ‘Think different’ campaign would have been correct (more correct) if it were written “Think: different” (as in “Think: green” or “Think: peaceful” when showing someone a garbage landfill and trying to describe how it will look once they build a golf course on top of it). Obviously, advertisers didn’t like the way that colon looked in the sentence, so they just dropped it for a cleaner visual appearance (damn the grammar).

Reader Feedback

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

Tags: ,