Slippery web designers at Apple hide court ordered apology perpetually below the fold

Apple was recently ordered by a UK court to publicly display a notice that Samsung did not copy the iPad with their Galaxy tablet to undo the damage they've done by making that accusation. And like a scolded child, they're scuffling their feet and mumbling "sorry" to the ground.

It's no surprise that their apology is at the bottom of the page, or that you need to scroll to see it. What's sneaky about it is that the large image of the iPad on their homepage resizes automatically to force that text to always appear below the fold when you load the page. Apple's webmasters have written in code to figure out how tall your browser window is, then make the site's design just big enough to push the apology out of your view and make you scroll to see it. [via Reddit] Thanks, Majd!


  1. Someone at Apple must really want to spend a week in jail for contempt. Mess up the notice once, ok, but twice with a script making sure that most visitors will never see it… I doubt the court is going to be very happy.

      1. The text on the homepage links to the official notice. Previously they included a couple paragraphs after the notice that changed the meaning of the text to appear to endorse the iPad, including a quote from the judge saying Samsung’s tablet was “not as cool” as Apple’s.

          1. It’s not on, but it is on and, which do not have the notice. They added it after the original notice, but a few days before they were required to change the notice. 

            Apple’s behavior with this order has been childish, this looks like an innocent case of responsive design to keep the hero unit prominent.

          2. In this case, the iPad Mini. I think Apple should delay the marketing push until after Samsung is satisfied.

          3. It didn’t appear until two days after the judge’s order, which was also some days before the iPad Mini launch, which I’m sure is what Apple is going to invoke (hide behind).

    1. Speaking of Apple, Inc. websites, what I find truly bizarre is that, if you use their search function on the main U.S. website, you’ll find 465 results for Steve Jobs, but absolutely none whatsoever for Steve Wozniak.

      You know, Apple’s co-founder. 

      The inventor of both the original Apple I and especially the Apple II, which initially made Apple Co. a billion dollar plus company. 

      And it was the Apple I, and particularly the Apple II, which provided Steve Jobs the opportunity to market and sell a real, ground-breaking product. 

      And yet, not one single reference to or search result for “the Woz,” without whom there would never have been an Apple, Inc.

      Truly amazing. Or, Orwellian.

      1. Sheesh. You must like your the conspiracy theories. Think it might have anything to do with the fact that Woz stopped working there (in any manner beyond an honorary title) in 1987, years before the apple website even launched? Meanwhile, Steve Jobs was at the helm of the company for 13 years as Apple experienced their unprecedented incredible growth. He was delivering keynotes, product launches, store openings, etc. Of course he’s mentioned more.

        Woz is awesome. He’s a hilarious guy who seems to just love living (see: organizing local polo matches on Segway scooters). He was absolutely vital to Apple’s early success. But who cares if he’s mentioned on their website–Apples trying to sell current products. They’re not a history museum.

  2. I would have said it’s just good, clean, Applesque design, but none of their other product pages do this sneaky resizing, not even the main ipad page.

    1. Well it did it before the notice was there.

      And on all the other international sites.

      Not convinced this was intentional tbh. There’s plenty of anecdotes pointing out the same thing on the Reddit thread, but obviously this isn’t as sensationalist :)

      1. There’s also the issue (not mentioned here yet surprisingly) that no longer auto redirects to the UK site.

        1. Which is also covered in the Reddit thread. And the dominating experience matches my own, that .com never redirected to the UK site if you’re in the UK – it never has for me anyway. I actually wish it did, as I only tend to notice I’m not on the right site once I hit a price tag.

      2. It may not have been intentional, but surely Apple should have acted to make sure that their apology was displayed prominently. The PCC is working towards apologies being published with due prominence. The courts should do the same.

        1. I wouldn’t really expect many major consumer manufacturers to stick prominent apologies on prime sales real estate – they’re going to minimise it as much as humanly possible, why wouldn’t they? From what I gather the order asked that it be on their homepage, in at least 11 point font – I don’t really see it being in their interest to damage their sales more than they need to.

          I know it’s touted as though they’re taking the piss, but really they’re just attempting to minimise any damage, as would any company. To do otherwise would actually be against the law in the UK, as the company would be acting against the interests of its share holders. So it creates a bit of a legal conundrum I imagine :)

          1. The interests of shareholders? You seem to have a very narrow view of what that might be. I believe a much wider long term view is legally admissible where the interests of shareholders are not opposed to those of consumers. 

          2. I was mostly jesting (about the legal conundrum). But still – from what I can see they’re complying, so my point was that they’re hardly likely to make it any more obvious than it needs to be.

    1. I am not to certain what a shoeing is but if it is like what is done to a horse then I can say I know I don’t want one.

      But the judgement, the order, it is met, the judge will say nothing for that reason. It may well be shuffled and mumbled as Dean sez ( I think they even scuffed their shoes a bit kicking at pebbles ), but the judge can’t be mom and demand it be made again but this time mean it, because language on paper.

        1. They didn’t comply with the order initially, they merely publicized it, because the cool, they favoured that judgements wording even though they lost and then appealed. 

          But no wrong was done there regarding their not posting the notice you see now because they were given leave to appeal any aspect of the order and sought and received a suspension of the order while they needlessly had their asses kicked on appeal and tried to weasel out of the initial decision and the inevitable High Courts decision on the Community registration by pursuing infringement claims and seeking injunction against Samsung/it’s buddies  in other EU member states. 

          That’s why Apple, in addition to the text ordered by the original decision, has to have up there the judgement of the appeal and specifically acknowledge that no injunction exists, because they tried that and lost.

          Now they have complied, and agreed not to pursue Samsung, at least in the EU, and the notice is posted accordingly. It’s just that a bunch of people think it is or should be or contains an apology when that’s not what was up.

          So really a different judge has ordered what teh first judge ordered, and then some. But that is all Apple’s doing with aiming the weapon at their own feet.

    1. Name a multinational corporation that isn’t.  What did Apple do, burn your village?

      I find the naïveté of the whole anti-apple sentiment amusing. I’m sure there are many levels of sliminess for corporations, but Apple certainly isn’t at the depth of BP, nor even Samsung.

      1. I’m not sure that “we’re just like every other company” is the image Apple is trying to present. 

        They’ve been advertising themselves as a different, more decent, more free-thinking company for years and this kind of behavior is directly at odds with that. Going back to their “I’m a Mac! I’m a PC!” commercials, I think this is the kind of behavior I’d expect from the anxious, slightly underhanded PC, not from the smart, confident Mac.

        1. I agree that this is a disaster from marketing perspective.  But hopefully no one is buying $500+ product from marketing alone.  A lot of their products are actually great (I certainly wouldn’t be using Mac OS if it didn’t have Unix underpinnings).

          But then there’s Bose. :(

          1. I agree, Apple does make very good products. For a variety of reasons I don’t own any myself, but I can definitely see how someone could reasonably choose an Apple product over their competitors’. And I certainly don’t want to begrudge them their success.

            On the other hand, I do want to scold them for this behavior. It undermines their credibility and the integrity of the legal system. In Apple’s case, it also tarnishes their carefully-crafted brand image. To me, that deserves a generous helping of scorn.

            On a side note, it’s interesting you mentioned Bose. I have one of their old Acoustic Wave CD players (the slightly horse-shoe-shaped model that fits on a book case). It was always kinda disappointing as a stereo system, but for the last 6 years it’s been a great set of speakers for my gaming PC.

      2. it’s not that apple is evil or evil-er than other MNCs, it’s that their PR sells them as the eternal white hats in all things technological.
        then when they get caught with their pants down, defenders waving it away with”everybody does it” makes apple seem twice as evil as anyone else for lying about being the good guys in the first place.

        the moral of the story is:  don’t write a good guy check your asshole self can’t cash.

          1. all proper scorn to microsoft, and so on, but which corporation seems like a smug asshole?
            the mac vs. pc campaign alone, with its twee music and gross appeal to image-consciousness, made me ashamed to own a mac.

            i don’t think there’s a company out there, aside from google and its war on “evil,” who has annoyed me quite as much.

            someone brought up BP.  they had an adorable raft of tv ads that quit running as soon as the disaster hit.
            –they acted horribly, but they weren’t smug grandaddy hipsters about it.  they were proper slimy corporate creeps, who shifted blame and ruined lives… but they really did have a lesser evil image before that, and were less evil than shell, exxon, or texaco at the time.  as soon as their ‘good’ credit went away, no more adorable, lego-esque ads.  smart move.

            apple believes in its own self-image far too much to be contrite in the face of litigation (as they have shown twice).  these are much smaller stakes than BP, but the principle is the same.  you cannot bestow enlightenment if you are unable to submit yourself humbly.

          2. and were less evil than shell, exxon, or texaco at the time.

            Actually, I don’t see how an oil company claiming to be”beyond petroleum” is all that different from the Apple ads in terms of corporate sliminess.

          3. @wysinwyg:disqus you quoted me right after I JUST SAID BP WAS SLIMY:
            “they were proper slimy corporate creeps, who shifted blame and ruined lives… but they really did have a lesser evil image before that,”
            BP had a more positive employee and environmental rating leading up to the disaster.  it is why i used to go there instead of (genocidal) shell or (envirocidal) exxon for example.
            why don’t people have reading comprehension?
            that’s my question.

        1. ” it’s that their PR sells them as the eternal white hats in all things technological.”

          Could you show a couple examples of that?

          1. no.  but do you own a tv?  the framing of their corporate image is self-evident in their ads.  it’s an image.  did you read what i wrote?

          2. okay, fine.  you are blind– but your speech to text program sure does make some interesting spelling mistakes ;)

          3. And duly un-flagged by a moderator. 

            Cub, you’re the one using exaggerated, vague language (“the eternal white hats in all things technological”) and displaying an obsession with cultural status-flags (“smug grandaddy hipsters”) to describe your dislike for Apple’s advertising. It’s not trolling for someone to ask you to back your arguments up with plain-spoken, verifiable statements. If you find yourself unable to do so, maybe that’s a sign that you need to stop and think more clearly about what you’re saying. 

          4. trying to make me re-type the words i already used to explicitly mention specific ad campaigns?
            yeahh, that’s pretty trollish if you ask me.

            your reading comprehension problems are you own, troll.

  3. This whole drama is hilarious. 

    They added a touch of responsive design to lay out the page based on the viewport size (the text, iPad, and video thumbs are vertical on a phone). 

    Then, they added the notice to the footer, the haters noticed and are freaking out. 

    1. To scoff at a high and noble competitor like Samsung who has always played fair and level…. How dare they. (/sarcasm)

  4. I’d have to read the judgment before passing judgment.  Because unless the court order says something to the effect of, “display at the top of main webpage” then Apple can do what it wants, in order to comply.  The COURT needs to 

  5. I look at this as more greed driven but ultimately frivolous patent/copyright infringement complaining. Some slick attorney or PR person at Apple thought it was good business to malign a competitor to gain an advantage and it backfired on them. Cry me a river Apple! Maybe if you made a better product, you wouldn’t need to resort to slander and lawsuits to compete.

      1. The hate is because Apple feels they have to sue their competitors, instead of letting the market decide which product is better.

        The whole business about them owning the rounded rectangle shape is absurd, and the patent wars only demonstrate that if you get lawyers involved, then lawyers will make out like bandits to the detriment of everyone else.

        Whatever happened to free enterprise, if there ever was such a thing?

        1. I’m on the same side of the argument that the patent litigation racket is one of the darkest side of technology (another is labor and environmental issues).  The less lawyers are involved in the development of products, the better it is for the consumers – that’s for certain.

          However, why is it JUST Apple?  Nokia was one of the first mobile companies to start a major patent litigation against another company (Apple), which may have started this entire trend.  As far as Apple being a “patent troll” goes, you’ve got to read the details of Honeywell lawsuit against Nest or if you want to address a real troll, check Intellectual Ventures, which is funded by former Microsoft executives.

          About the only thing I can find reasonable that so many people openly hate only Apple is its products’ popularity, which I find absurd.

          1.  It’s not “just Apple” but in case it’s escaped your attention, this post is about Apple, not Nokia or Honeywell or Microsoft…

          2. “Maybe if you made a better product, you wouldn’t need to resort to slander and lawsuits to compete.”

            I was inferring your stance from this.  This isn’t a formal argument, so let’s cut the crap.

          3. Pssssh? Cut the crap you say? How about you explaining how a post about Apple doing X means the poster believes it is “JUST” Apple? You have an argue fail.

            Why do they need to include everyone else or pin a disclaimer on their assessment to protect your fee-fees when the post being discussed is about Apple? 

        2. “The whole business about them owning the rounded rectangle shape is absurd”

          What’s absurd is that you can look at the products that Samsung copied (this is documented by Samsung, FYI) and only see basic shapes.

          A TV is also a rectangle with rounded corners but I don’t think anyone’s claiming it’s like an iPhone.

          If you can’t see the striking design similarities then so be it, but I assure you that’s an issue with your cognition and nothing more.

          1. Free enterprise is a notion that is sadly lacking from the world of enterprise. If it were free, the lawyers would not be involved.

          2. You say that as though reasonable human beings actually are sad that the free market does not exist. . . as though people actually bemoan the lost opportunity of suffering under the tyranny of the corporations without any limitation whatsoever.

            You think maybe that the might of concentrated capital would not fail to exploit slaves who were addicted to company-provided heroin at age four just so that they could bring Ye Shiny Techo-Bauble to market at the cheapest cost?

            And after all, if the logic of the market demands that you kill not only your competitors, but put public hits out on those consumers who dare think they can play outside of your salesroom floor, that’s fair game too (especially if you own all the salesroom floors), right?

            Boo friggin’ whoo!

        3.  did they sue you?

          Then try to maybe not get so personally incensed about it. I’m sure Samsung is an angel of a company, and that the developers of droid are actually living saints.

      2. I didn’t say anything about “hate”, Carnac, nor did I say they made crappy products. I said that if they made better products, maybe they wouldn’t have to resort to slander, lawsuits and other underhanded tactics to compete. Thanks for coming by though. I’m sure your Apple check is in the mail.

        1. See my reply above.  And while you don’t say anything about “hate”, be honest – do you hate it or not?  Does Apple make good products or not? Just say it.

          I’m not expecting anyone to be entirely objective here. I’m sure there are many reasons people hate Apple – but hating something for its popularity is ridiculous, which seems to be the motivation for many haters. Samsung certainly uses underhanded tactics to compete in many markets, including bribery of government officials, leveraging monopolistic control over markets, you name it – it’s a dirty world out there. I wish it wasn’t, but Apple isn’t very special in that sense, nor do I expect it to be a magical company either (and what kind of idiot would NOT put positive corporate spin for marketing purpose?).

          I happen to like many of Apple products, but that is because they fit my taste and need – I’m sure there is a bit of trust in brand as well from experience, but it’s certainly not in the territory of fanboy-ism. I also happen to have a history of bad experiences with Samsung products, so that could be my motivation for personally not trusting their products. That’s all.

          1. Oh you’re totally deep in fanboy territory when you need to claim margaretpoa hates and singularly criticizes Apple on those terms alone via supposition based on the absence of context only you know about that margaretpoa didn’t include.

            But that’s how you define opinion and I’m cool with that. Not arguing with you, just commenting your post with my opinion. 

            Personally I think Apple has great products but conducts itself poorly in many instances… I just can’t seem to think of anyone else that does that because..? if only someone could tell me what to think… I don’t want to be unfair.

            I think it best if someone could follow any post of my opinion re-contextualized in such a way to remind me that X is always way worse than Y, so that the last word is that Y is always better than X. So I’m never being unfair when I only share my opinion of Y. That would comfort me and Y immensely.

          2. Good for you! But you’ve ventured far from neutral when you start hurling baseless accusations and assigning unsupportable motives. Though it’s none of your damned business what I like or don’t like, I am a PC desktop user but have a Mac laptop. I also like Samsung products. The difference is, I don’t care what you think of these companies so I’m not going to defend them by getting all apocalyptic when somebody disses them in my eyes. Big deal. I don’t hate Apple at all and I sure as heck don’t “hate them for their popularity”, just because I object to their seemingly sue happy legal department. Take a valium.

      3. A psychodynamic perspective: Steve Jobs is smarter, richer, famous, and a whole lot better looking than the large segment of humanity that comprises Apple haters. (And of course renowned for being a jerk.)

        All of this triggers a kind of post-traumatic middle-school syndrome in said segment, resulting in their replaying never-healed traumas of adolescent envy and hatred towards the popular kids.

        The fact that Jobs is now (in addition to all of the above) dead is irrelevant to the intrinsic irrationality of the response.

        1. A psychodynamic perspective: Steve Jobs is smarter, richer, famous, and a whole lot better looking than the large segment of humanity that comprises Apple lovers. (And of course renowned for being a jerk.)

          All of this triggers a kind of post-traumatic middle-school syndrome in said segment, resulting in their pathetically trying to join Steve’s herd by shrieking and waving their arms around every time someone criticizes Apple.

          It works both ways.

    1. You do realize Samsung has an entire ad campaign aimed at maligning Apple’s products, right? You know, the same products that made almost all of Samsung’s current smartphones and tablets possible.

          1. Oh, yeah, sorry. When you said maligning Apple’s products, I didn’t realize you actually meant maligning fanboys…

          2. it’s a funny thought that Samsung would say that Apple users are the assholes. Love it when ad’s turn things upside down to make a sale.

          3. @boingboing-580eafb56868c6d0047b3e1fb4c11a6c:disqus you could be right.. I wasn’t really speaking to that. Just pointing out that the ad wasn’t maligning the product so much as the people. I personally don’t really know anyone who has stood in line for an Apple product.

  6. Apple are scumbags which is why I’m never going to buy their crap. I use an iMac at work but would be just as effective using a windows box. I’ve said it many times here before, but IMO they make excellent computers and thats it. Their phones work well, provided you aren’t interested in tinkering with it beyond the limitations which apple imposes on it. Their business practices are shameful yet I’m not surprised there are already apologists lining up to give reasons why whatever they do is OK. I’ll test this tomorrow on my monstrous 27″ iMac screen and if the apology is not visible that will be telling.

    1. The more you know about most companies, the less you’ll like them.

      About the only reason why so many people hate Apple is that they are more visible than others.

      It’s not going to matter – I’ve gone through the same thing during IE vs Firefox thing, and I’ll tell you from experience that all this emotional investment isn’t going to pay off.

    2. “I’ll test this tomorrow on my monstrous 27″ iMac screen and if the apology is not visible that will be telling.”

      The point of responsive design is that it’s responsive.

      1. Responsive necessarily implies responsive to someones’s desires. 
        Responsiveness is not an absolute.

    3. yeah, i use mac computers but don’t want an iphone. they’re a pretty awful company for many reasons (unless you’re a stockholder, i guess), but this is what any market dominator would become.

      and unfortunately, apple is the only competitor in the “user-friendly unix” space. for most apple fans the unix part is incidental or at best a vague bragging point, but it’s key for me. if they ever move to something iOS-like for their computer OS, i’ll be done with apple. if someone else offers a comparably tuned and user-friendly linux, i will be done with apple and happily pay even more of a premium to whoever does it. i’d miss some things about the iWork suite (keynote is the only slide-composition software that isn’t infuriating to use), but i could deal with that.

      i have to admit, an iPad also looks pretty tempting, but i’m very hesitant for lock-in reasons. although perhaps hypocritically i didn’t have this problem with a kindle. maybe it’s because i don’t think of my e-ink kindle as a general-purpose computer, or at least a practically usable one.

  7. Yah, I don’t believe Samsung would do ANYTHING like this too. Seriously, you want to point how one conglomerate is being unfair to ANOTHER conglomerate? 

    1. You forget that this isn’t just about two large companies, it’s about a company arrogantly believing that the legal system doesn’t apply to them. If Apple is able to tell judges to bugger off, why should anyone else abide by laws?

      1. You think Apple is an arrogant scofflaw corporation?  You may want to check out the checkered history of Samsung which will make Standard Oil proud.

        1. NO! I insist the Republicans did it first! That’s why we can do it and you can’t criticize us for it. They even did it more often, on a larger scale, so we’re innocent. So be quiet.

        2. How is the bad behaviour of company B relevant to the question of whether or not company A’s behaviour is bad?

          1. Just putting things into proper context.  It doesn’t make Company A’s bad behavior good, says the tin of my argument.

            Person A kills Person B. My opinion about Person A and B would change if this was in middle of a nearby shopping mall or a battlefield, or if B was a civilian or a combatant.

          2. ?? Demanding that the context change to match the point you want to make is not the same thing as putting it into the proper context. 

            That’s why it is fail.

          3. And neither is omitting the circumstances to up to match your point. But we can refer to common sense unless there is something glaringly wrong about what we are talking about.

            Funk Daddy, the attempt to shoehorn this into a formal argument itself is a failure already. I cringe each time people try to bring up logic into the argument when there is already a disagreement about the premises – you’ll never reach an agreement that way.

            Opinions don’t work that way either.

          4. And you make singular, funny use of the word “fail”. I’m pretty sure I know how you apply it.

            See where this is going? Nowhere.

          5. Just so it’s clear, you’re very obviously stating your allegiance to side B with your examples.

  8. They’re creating their own Streisand Effect.  What’s puzzling is that following the media attention that was given to their first failure at posting the apology (e.g. #1 read article on the BBC) they’d do something to just draw attention to it again.  I can’t decide if it’s all on purpose or if the team responsible is so stupid as to do the opposite of what they intend.

    1. I would warrant that the first error was calculated because while the error did mean they had not complied with an order and drew much publicity, the only thing most of that publicity meant was mass proliferation of the only part of the judgement Apple wanted people to see, that one of the judges that ruled against them stated that the Samsung Galaxy was “not as cool” as the iPad. 

      So what if they had to pay some lawyers again and an appeals court had to waste time and money getting them to do it right, 

      you can’t buy a court opinion that favours you so much that you lost the case from a marketing firm

  9. Considering their consistent behavior with sosumi (System 7 sound, and the class name of the legal disclaimer block on all their web pages), this is not entirely unexpected.  However, if they really wanted to protect themselves, they could have at least pushed this code change to all versions of their site and called it an “unintended consequence of a previously made design and user interaction decision”.  Having it up on one site only is just asking for a legal judgement against them.

    1. … and they went on record as saying “It will take us 14 days” and the judge went on record as saying he didn’t believe it can take that long to get right, and just do it now.  What a surprise that a “sloppy” job was the result.

  10. I rotated my main computers’ screen to portrait mode (I don’t use Apple computers (save my employer’s phone) so my hardware CAN do this), then went to the supplied link. 

    I then stretched FF down to see how much, before giving up, the javascript code would resize the image of iPad Mini so that not-including-the-notice part of the home page would keep filling the visible browser’s page. 

    At the point where the page stops resizing images and rearranging itself to keep filling your browser, the resulting visible page is some 1550 pixels high, and you still can’t see the legal notice without scrolling down the page…  I have a screencap.

    Apple’s largest monitor, the 27in Thunderbolt, has a vertical resolution of 1,440 pixels – AKA as WQHD.  No, you can’t rotate it – rotating monitors doesn’t fit Apple’s model of how people must use computers.

    A quick check of a computer hardware supplier shows that consumer monitors top out at 1,440 pixels, vertically.

    Even a WQXGA monitor, at 2,560×1,600 in landscape mode, wouldn’t quite be enough to read the notice without scrolling.

    You’d need a QSXGA monitor at 2,560×2,048 (excuse me while I wipe the drool off my face), to see the notice without scrolling.  The only monitor of that size I found in the short time I looked, is a Totoku ME 551i2 21.3in medical display intended for radiology.

    But I’m sure that Apple only did this because of the esthetics of the homepage.  Sure.

    1. Dude did you buy an Apple monitor expecting it to rotate and get really angry or something?  Just so you know, most monitors don’t rotate – damn  all those companies dictating how we use things!

      And you really didn’t need to do this much research.  The page was designed so that the footer stayed below the fold.  It’s responsive, and so should apply to all standard resolutions – that’s the point.

      Also it was up before the apology, so ye, there’s that.

      1.  The children at the school I work at scoff at your notion of rotating screens being rare. Although they no longer care much, many of our Dell screens rotate and there was much hilarity ensuing when they were first installed.

        1. I don’t know if I’d go as far as to say ‘rare’, but it’s not so commonplace to be angry at Apple for not providing the feature. I did have a rortating monitor at work once. Think I rotated it once, for fun.

          1. If you’re a designer and you do a lot of work in portrait layout, a pair of monitors set to portrait and landscape is really, really useful. I also own an orientable Dell and I’m slightly flabbergasted that Apple, apparently the choice of designers (like me), does not allow orientation to maximise screen real estate in portrait mode.

            I suppose they know best.

          2. Well I don’t think it’s a statement of them knowing best – with any product you weigh up the pros and cons of a solution based on the target audience. As a designer you of course know this.

            I see the odd benefit to it, but for what it’s worth I’m a designer and its not a feature I’ve ever desired. Maybe if i ever designed content or interactions for portrait monitors it’d become a more imperative need.
            But as it stands I imagine it would create quite a stress point in an iMac, given that it would rotate the entire computer – and I think it’s safe to say that it’s a niche requirement.

    2. Ah. The irony or ignorance and prejudice jumping to conclusions.

      Monitors that can be rotated and detected by the OS first appeared for Macs, back in the 80s. They have never been manufactured by Apple but they have ALWAYS been supported by Mac OS (then called just System, now OS X).

      Of course, all the comment is just an exercise in either ignorance or needless anti-apple propaganda, as the code is pretty self-explaining and the behaviour is pretty clear. No need to “test” where it works. It’s been the same for all european Apple sites since the iPad Mini was launched (before the notice was posted).

    3. “No, you can’t rotate it – rotating monitors doesn’t fit Apple’s model of how people must use computers.”

      I assure you, Apple also doesn’t want you to use your computer to complain that you can’t get what you don’t want from a company you clearly have deep personal loathing for.

      But someone made a product at a price point that worked for you. Rejoice.

    4. While the Thunderbolt display cannot be physically rotated on it stock stand, a VESA mount adaptor is available for it.  The OS X Thunderbolt Display preferences does in fact have a popup menu allowing optional rotation of the raster in 90 degree increments.  This may be a standard OS X feature that works with any monitor. I couldn’t say.

  11. {Sigh}

    And why, may I ask, do you think it was the designer’s decision to hide it below the fold? Because designers are the inherently slimy ones? This is a textbook PR/Marketing decision. I can tell you from personal experience that no one asked a web designer’s opinion about where to put the apology, nor would their opinion on the matter carry any weight at all.

    Since when did Boing Boing decide designers are the sleazy ones?

    1. the story is also about how the designers accomplished this- I doubt the turtleneck wearing pie charts had any other technical direction past “hide it”, and then just chose their favorite out of what the designers came up with. 

    2. Since when did Boing Boing decide designers are the sleazy ones?

      There is no Boing Boing; there are editors with their own opinions. And the one that you’re addressing is our web developer.

      1. Then either Dean is unaware of who makes this kind of decision inside a corporation, or he knowingly assigned blame to the wrong party for some unexplained reason.

  12. Boy everyone’s going nuts all over the Internet about this. I usually scroll to the bottom of the page, it is not a magic incantation you know. If you actually go to the site, it is easily viewable; the page is about 1 2/3 screen heights and the announcement is at the bottom where everyone will see it who is reading what is on the page. Yes it is in light grey but so is the rest of their body copy and the font size is large. If Samsung is mad the court should tell apple to keep the text where it is and use ordinary not large bold font, but use dark grey or black. Doesn’t seem obviously malicious.

  13. BS. This isn’t malicious. This is obeying the letter of the court order while protecting the company’s best interests.

    But of course, this is Boing Boing, so Apple’s automatically evil. I forgot.

    1. I don’t find the entire site to be “anti-apple”, and I find many of the critiques to be fair.  I know that Cory is motivated by open-source movement (which I do agree to large extent as a Linux fan), so that’s the reason why he “sides” against Apple issues, but others have positive opinions about their products.

      1. There was a time when BB caught a fair bit of flak for touting the latest greatest anything that came from Apple whether it was a new add-on for a gadget or a rumor about a hint of a sideways comment some Apple higherup apparently said about a cool upcoming feature, according to some drunken blogger in Croatia.

        Those times have now passed, it seems. They burned up their grace period, and now are picked on like any other company.

        And I for one love this. No company should be above reproach when they act up. The more they are in the public eye, the more they should be called out when they play silly buggers.

    2. “protecting the company’s best interests.”

      I don’t think that means what you think it means. It is in Apple’s best interests to comply with the court’s order and be seen to comply with the court’s order, so that the court doesn’t issue more orders and fines. Hiding an apology now may have some short-term benefits, but that comes with a high risk of larger medium or long-term costs. A smart company operates in such a way as to avoid Governmental/Judicial action, ideally by acting so that as small a group as possible ask for such remedies.

      1. I’m no lawyer, but I think that fining Apple for putting a court-ordered legal notice on their site in a place where people have to scroll to see it would be an incredibly hard thing to prove malicious intent. “We find you guilty of barely inconveniencing people who want to read legal notices.” Really?

        1. It’s not there for people who want to read legal notices. It was supposed to be there so that the normal people visiting the site can see it and no longer be mislead by the misfacts earlier posted by Apple.

          People often don’t scroll down so see anything that may be off screen. Especially on a homepage like that where all the navigation is up top in view and the reader is just going to click through to the next page (that doesn’t even have the notice).

          So this can be taken as a way to make it so that a large portion of people don’t see what they were ordered to show.

        1. You mean criticism isn’t necessarily hate and could even be useful for the subject or insightful for it’s market?

          C’mon! If you didn’t know Jobs has been canonized I’ll forgive your assumption.

          1.  Did you know that hate is always criticism. Even if you think it’s funny? Go fire something from your canon.

          2. Nonsense. Hate is not always criticism. It is often visceral and without basis in analysis. It is also quite often unintelligible. Thereby it cannot be criticism in every instance, criticism requires certain properties that hate does not.

        2. I trust that the next time a British court stands up to the libelous comments of some “journalist”, and boingboing twists the facts to comport to its belief in the illegitimacy of libel law, you’ll be standing up for the bewigged blokes of “Carter-Fuck”?

      1. I’m being facetious, of course. My comment was more geared against the virulent comments here rather than the articles themselves.

      2. I don’t have a Nexus. Can boingboing reliably crash its browser? mobileSafari can’t escape the wrath of Discus!

  14. hmmmm corp acts like corp. sneaky and childish with their first notice, and limiting impact with the second through bottom page placement – but without explicit directions to place at top or center I’m not sure what anyone would otherwise expect.

    there isn’t a “fold” (good grief how I hate that print hangover term) – designing so the product(s) takes advantage of immediately view-able real estate is fair game.

    they make lovely products and this sort of patent shenanigans, for me, devalues the brand.

  15. This whole thing is silly. Beyond a public scolding of Apple, what will it accomplish? How many people are out there saying, “Oh, Apple says Samsung copied them.. I’d better go to Apple and buy an iPad… oh, wait, Apple’s website said Samsung DIDN’T copy them.. I think I will buy that Samsung tablet after all!”

    There are haters on both sides who will never buy the other product. There are people looking to buy a less expensive product. There are people (read Upper Management) who basically want an iPad because it is the things to have. There are people who will do the research and pick out what bests suits their needs, and who cares if someone copied it…

    Not sure most people care to support Apple due to lost revenue from supposed copiers, either. I couldn’t care less if Apple makes 1.9 kajillion dollars instead of 2.0 kajillion because of Samsung.

    1. Samsung has a sizable retail market, of retailers. Nevermind what it could do to consumer sales, if a distribution or retail firm concluded that Apple may have a case, or would not make the accusation if it didn’t think so, or if they only heard the accusation, then they may conclude that buying  a truckload or twenty of Samsung Galaxy could be a bad investment, if Apple won, they’d potentially be left with unsupported, unsalable product. 

      Oh sure, there’d be remedies, but even these cost, and the whole situation can be avoided by not buying Samsung.

      Samsung might get stung via the consumer because of the accusation and all, but if the consumer that liked them anyway or never heard the accusation could not even get a Galaxy? That’d hurt.

        1.  no, you really seem to be a super disinterested hipster equivocator both dropping barbs and commenting on the ascerbic nature of the conversation. I too am confused.

  16. Speaking of questionable scripts, the first time I tried to view this Boingboing article my browser was redirected to one of those annoying “You have just won an iPad Mini” scam websites.

    Granted, I followed a link from the RSS feed on my iGoogle page instead of the BB homepage so it’s possible the issue is there.  Still probably worth the site admins looking into.

    1. This has been happening to me on random sites all over the internets. My guess would be malware, but I haven’t been able to find anything suspicious on my machine …

      1. My impression was that it was deliberate browser hijacking by a rogue advertisement.

        Something the admin needs to be aware of if it’s taking readers away from the website before they get a chance to read what they came for.

        I hate to think I’ll have to start blocking ads on Boingboing.

  17. No one said Apple had to issue a groveling apology on what was a faulty judgement in UK court.  Even judges are human and make mistakes.

    1. well, to be fair, if companies are expected to pay money to Apple for faulty judgements by the patent office, then I guess we should expect them to apologize on faulty judgements by the UK court. Even the people who work at the patent office are human and make mistakes…

      1. That’s what the courts are for to determine patent validity be it Apple or someone else.  Even if wrong the courts edicts have to be observed.  In this case Apple’s acknowledgement (and not apology which they were not required to do) was perfect, well the second try I guess.  

        The only thing wrong with the first one was the inclusion of comments from the judge about Apple devices being cooler than Samsung’s and opposing edicts from other countries.  Can’t blame Apple for trying though and they weren’t told they couldn’t, but it seems more like something Google & Samsung would do.

  18. I decided to open up the Apple UK site on my monitors.  On a 1920×1080 monitor (landscape mode), I had to scroll to see to see the notice .  On a 2560×1600 monitor, I had to scroll.  My 1080×1920 monitor (or portrait mode of a 1920×1080 if you prefer) did show the notice without scrolling.

    1. Yes.. but why is scrolling evil? It’s not buried in a disused basement lavatory behind a locked door..

      1. Why? Look at the SPECS! Look at the Specs! Apple makes you pay a premium for “design”, whatever the hell that is. It’s all marketing garbage!

        1.  Yeah, that’s why my MacBook Pro has already lasted twice as long as my last two Lenovo’s combined. And my Dell, and my Sony. I’ve saved money by not having to replace JUNK after a year of hard use.

          1.  A year? My HP dv6000 has been running plugged in 24/7 since 2007… and the only thing I’ve needed to do is get the dust-bunnies cleaned out (once) and upgraded the RAM to 4g

        2. Specs are so last century. Mature technologies aren’t measured by specs except where it can clearly be translated to an experienced benefit. Let’s try the specs game:
          what are the specs of the efficiency of a trackpad? what are the specs for the smoothness of scrolling? what are the specs for the usability of the interface for a blind person?

          Do you choose other things by purely by specs? Such as a friend, a wife/husband, pair of jeans etc.

          No we don’t because we realise that most of the things in our lives cannot be reduced to simple numbers. And when people build things for us, they use what’s called ‘design’, and that’s why Apple is successful. Because they realise that for most consumers doing something efficiently and elegantly is better than being able to say, ‘hey, it’s doesn’t work that well, but my chip has more Ghz than yours’.

  19. Uhm, excuse me if I misinterpreted or am somehow missing something…..I STILL DO NOT SEE AN APOLOGY? I see a couple paragraphs that recount the events that transpired and that’s it? I clicked the link, can anyone show me what I am missing? 

    1. They don’t have to apologize, they only have to publicize that they were incorrectly claiming an infringement by Samsung and broadcast the judgement. 

      I doubt a judge could find that they were deliberately poisoning Samsungs well, which if it were found would mean compensation and maybe an apology, but probably just compensation.

    2. The judge did not demand an apology but a public acknowledgement of earlier judgements. 

      You can find the judgement here In point 85. the judge states that Apple has to publicly acknowledge the ruling because Apple’s legal campaign has created customer uncertainty with regard to Samsung products. In point 87. the judge proposes literally what Apple should have stated. 

      Apple has lawyers at its side, needs to be at the gym in 26 minutes.

  20. Brings to mind when I worked on a 1900 (paid recorded service) system for our state road authority. Laws required that the advertisement for the phone number had to include an disclaimer in at least four point type which would be unreadable on a roadside traffic sign, so we used a font which could actually be read at a distance, because it was the right thing to do.

        1. Print. 4pt would be considered too small for small print, based on my fun work experience in labelling agrichemicals.

          On a road-sign, way less usable.

  21. This draws significantly more attention to their apology than merely posting it in a normal position would have done.

  22. Hang on, you don’t scroll a web page?  I went to the Apple UK site, and there was the apology as clear as day (see pic). Then I reread the initial post, and it’s just about you having to scroll down, of all things. Jesus Christ.

  23. I could give a rat’s ass about Apple. But I don’t think this was entirely malevolent intent.

    If you’ve been keeping abreast with the latest in web technologies and web design methods, you my have heard about a thing called “Responsive Design”, where the page automatically resizes its geometry “in response” (see that?) to the client’s browser / windowsize. It’s pretty neat. Uses lots of cool tech that chokes most version of IE. 

    Anyways — I find it FAR more plausible that they are implementing responsive design, since they are hip and with all the new technologies (that’s their whole shtick, right?), and that part of the their current page design is to use RD to always make that iPad masthead view full.

    Sure, I wouldn’t put it past them to do a dick move like what the OP described, but I find it far more likely that that is just a perk of their choice to use RD on their site anyways. (That said, they could have, of course, included the Notpology above the fold, I suppose.)

    1. I thought the same thing, but if you pull up the .UK site and the .COM site they are different.  It is only responsive in the UK.

  24.  I see nothing wrong with it.  They added scrollbar support.  Right Dean? 
    I’m not used to seeing legal disclaimers featured more prominently than that.  Disclaimers are always below the fold, are they not?  Should it have its own Facebook page? 

    Could this be considered a kind of Streisand effect? 
    By now people have heard about this disclaimer that had never known about apple’s claim to all modern design. 
    The judge should be very satisfied. 

  25. Apple is not a fashionable technology company — it’s a fashion company selling well made, well integrated technology products. Look at Jon Ive’s background, for instance.

    Personally, I don’t see what the issue is. If someone forced me to make an apology, I will do my best to minimize the extent of my apology, especially if I didn’t mean it. Besides they complied with what the judge ordered, did they not, down to the font size? If the judge had wanted it displayed something more prominently, he should have mentioned the exact location and such.

    1. If someone forced me to make an apology, I will do my best to minimize the extent of my apology, especially if I didn’t mean it.

      Not really a fair comparison.  As a corporate entity, Apple is unable to feel contrition and so literally can’t “mean it” when it comes to any kind of apology.  But that’s why the “apology” is kind of irrelevant here.  A fairer comparison:  What if you lied about something for your own gain and then got called out on the lie?  Would you “minimize the extent” of owning up to having lied? 

  26. For a while, I struggled to understand why people feel personally betrayed by Apple. Then, I realized it’s just an absolutely hilarious manifestation of emotional capital. 

    1. I’ve used apples since 1983, almost exclusively. I have no idea what people get so worked up about. Like I want them using my computer or something, or I care what they use (so long as it’s not my computer, I’m indifferent)

  27. Honestly, this whole conversation is bewildering. Why I should be concerned with this corporate duel is beyond me, especially since it doesn’t seem to affect anything beyond the courtroom. This is almost the definition of a tempest in a teapot.

  28. This article is not true. On my huge Dell monitor the iPad mini resizes until it has about a 7.12 inch screen diagonal and then stops resizing. If I visit the page with my browser window set beyond what I have to guess is “life size” for the iPad mini, I can see the apology.

    1. There are people who will never be able to see it. It has nothing to do with monitor size, and more to do with eyelids.

  29. It’s true — you really can’t say anything even remotely critical of Apple without touching off a shitstorm of fanboys, each falling over himself to insist “I’m not a fanboy, I just like their products!”

Comments are closed.