BusinessWeek: ‘I applaud the actions of the Neistat brothers’ | iLounge News

News

BusinessWeek: ‘I applaud the actions of the Neistat brothers’

BusineesWeek’s Alex Salkever has written an article about the recent ‘iPod Dirty Secret’ video by the Neistat brothers, and applauds their actions in the hopes to teach Apple a lesson.

“This situation is hardly unique to Apple. Most computer owners I know say the support they receive, Wintel or Mac, is spotty at best. And to be fair, my experience with support from other PC companies has been on par with my experiences with Apple. Most computer users just seem to shrug and live with it. That’s not a good thing, in my view. Which is why I applaud the actions of the Neistat brothers, Casey and Van, and hope they are taken as a lesson at One Infinite Loop. Here’s a summary of their tale of digital disobedience.”

« Belkin Tunecast Mobile FM Transmitter for $20 at Best Buy

Macworld UK: iPod makes the headlines »

Related Stories

Comments

1

so we applaud vandalism? What should we do for shop lifting… throw a party?

Posted by Randy on December 11, 2003 at 9:07 AM (PDT)

2

Was it actually vandalism? I heard that they simply put up posters with messages on them, not actually damaging property.

I wouldnt agree either with vandalism. I do agree however with standing up against an organisation if something they are doing is simply wrong - if the majority or simply a large portion of their paying customers stop paying them money and go elsewhere, that company then has a very large incentive to win them back - $$$$$ money.

Posted by dmeineck on December 11, 2003 at 9:29 AM (PDT)

3

“Was it actually vandalism? I heard that they simply put up posters with messages on them, not actually damaging property.”

Maybe you should actually watch the video before commenting.

Posted by Chimpee on December 11, 2003 at 9:33 AM (PDT)

4

why do people talk before they know facts?

dmeineck, this is exactly how rumors get started… almost everyone that reads this site has SEEN the video they produced. get with the program, watch the video, then comment.

i think they are, by looking at their past work, a couple kids looking for their “big-break” in all the wrong places.

I have no doubt they have the potential to do something in the line of video editing, I just think they are starting out just a little on the wrong foot.

*They have gotten way more publicity for this stunt than everyone expected…

15 minutes has gone on for almost a month now.

Posted by echostats on December 11, 2003 at 9:53 AM (PDT)

5

Hands up - i should have watched the video then, i admittadly was basing my comments on what i may have read about them - a bad idea on the net.

I still hold my points about the principle of making a stand, but i certainly don’t condone vandalism or using an issue for self means.

Posted by dmeineck on December 11, 2003 at 10:14 AM (PDT)

6

Having just watched the video - my thoughts were confirmed, i wouldnt call that vandalism at all. All they did was spray advertising posters - they didnt damage public property or deface some public monument!

However, it does seem that from the feel of the video they couldnt care less about the problem they experienced with their ipod, if anything they were probably pleased they had a topic they could use to pull such a stunt.

Posted by dmeineck on December 11, 2003 at 10:36 AM (PDT)

7

Defacing Apple’s promotional posters is against the law, it’s called criminal vandalism. Look it up. The poster were Apple’s advertising property. So are saying that some one could go around painting over billboards or store signs and expect to be praised? I think they could expect to be thrown in jail.

Posted by Randy on December 11, 2003 at 11:11 AM (PDT)

8

How is spray painting advertisments not vandalism? So if they were to deface billboards and posters on the sides of buses they wouldn’t be vandals? Here is the relevant NYC law on the matter:
http://home.nyc.gov/html/nograffiti/html/legislation.html

Posted by Atomic Bomb on December 11, 2003 at 11:12 AM (PDT)

9

Hey, there is no need to show me the technicalities of the law on vandalism, my point was (and this is now way off topic) that what they did wasnt exactly serious, ie they didnt permantly damage property (probably damaged apple’s sales, but that isnt vandalism).

These were posters, bits of paper pasted onto fences, walls etc it wasnt exactly hollywood boulevard, the posters themselves looked ugly pasted all over the walls, so they hardly caused an eyesore.

But yes if you want to get technical they were breaking the law, like i break the law here in the uk when i copy my cd and put it onto my ipod - do you want to spend your time looking for the english law on that too so you can send me the link?

Posted by dmeineck on December 11, 2003 at 11:30 AM (PDT)

10

dmeineck, you are truly an idiot.
BTW, I am going to come to your house and spray paint your wallpaper. I mean, wall paper is only paper on a wall, right?

Posted by Max B. on December 11, 2003 at 11:34 AM (PDT)

11

hey max, there is no need to lower the tone, i friendly discussion is blighted when someone comes along and starts insulting people.

wallpaper is what makes up someone’s home, its a lot different to an advert pasted up on a fence, in terms of the personal hurt defacing it would cause.

Any maybe you could say that they werent vandalising, rather elaborating on the product features to let the possible consumer have a fair idea of the goods and bads of the product and its accompanying service.

Posted by dmeineck on December 11, 2003 at 11:41 AM (PDT)

12

“...the posters themselves looked ugly pasted all over the walls…”

Your Honor, yes I did vandalize my neighbor’s car, but let’s be serious here - it’s such an ugly car! I mean, I was doing him a favor!

So now personal taste comes into the mix. BTW, your judgement of what is an eyesore in NYC is not what those in NYC may consider an eyesore.

Posted by Atomic Bomb on December 11, 2003 at 12:10 PM (PDT)

13

Have you people actually read NYC SS10-117a?

“No person shall write, paint or draw any inscription, figure or mark of any type on any public or private building or other structure or any other real or personal property owned…”

Then did you actually PAY ATTENTION to the N Brothers video?

Apple’s iPod posters (along with a whole host of other commercial advertisement posters) are IN VIOLATION OF NYC SS10-117a.  These are posters that have been affixed to public buildings and structures.

Now maybe some of you have never lived or been to NYC but these posters are all over the place. All over and all illegal. 

Before you try to condemn these idiot brothers for a violation of NYC 10-117, you should also cite Apple et al for their original violation.

Personally, the brother’s video is just dumb.  Typical undergrad film student type of work - that mish-mash of a pseudo-angry caucasian disenfranchised youth. 

I could care less that they were unhappy with Apple.

Unhappy with Apple - just like the rest of us.

Posted by Mac-A-Matic on December 11, 2003 at 12:19 PM (PDT)

14

OK ok, i do respect your opinion, but i also respect mine. All my point is about is that all they did was spray messages on posters, it’s not as serious as randy’s original post about comparing it to shoplifting, which is why i posted. But if you want to be anal about it then fine - im sure its a really serious crime to deface a poster and hurts a lot of people, so i wont be insensitive to you as you are clearly upset about it. Damn those neistat brothers - a danger to society! wink

Posted by dmeineck on December 11, 2003 at 12:23 PM (PDT)

15

Amen mac, hopefully no-one here will cite some legal loophole that takes them hours to find, just so they can argue wink

Posted by dmeineck on December 11, 2003 at 12:27 PM (PDT)

16

eh, i don’t think i read in the article that they intended to promote vandalism. instead of stressing over a non-issue, why not actually address what the article is about?

when martin luther tacked his 95 thesis on to All Saints’ Church’s door, people weren’t saying, “man, what a jerk.. that guy totally put a nail on their door without asking.”

not to compare their film to a religious revoloution, but really.. it’s like you guys are purposely trying to get away from the real discussion.

i own an ipod. i love it. i’m glad though that these guys decided to convey their experience with apple and their ipod troubles, even if it might just be a rare anomoly. however infrequent it may be, it shouldn’t be something that people just “shrug and live with,” whether you’re an apple apologist or not.

Posted by eric on December 11, 2003 at 12:31 PM (PDT)

17

Mac-A-Matic: Not from NYC, eh? The posters are not on publicly owned buildings. Those are private buildings. Besides, the law you cite states that “No person shall write, paint or draw…” Posting permitted advertisements is another story. Read the pertinent law:

145.00 of the State Penal Law states that a person is guilty of criminal mischief in the fourth degree when he or she, having no right to do so, intentionally damages property of another person…

Posted by Atomic Bomb on December 11, 2003 at 12:36 PM (PDT)

18

I seriously believe that company’s need to spend more time listening to the consumer, rather than the shareholder. If a consumer has a problem with a product, the company should know about it. The situation the neistat brothers were talking about was serious, ipods are expensive, the consumer should be looked after and not told to buy another after 18 months.

The methods in which they used to go about letting people know the problems is certainly questionnable, but at least they didnt sit back and let it wash over.

Saying that, the way in which the video is made makes u think that all they wanted was publicity, and boy have they got it.

Posted by dmeineck on December 11, 2003 at 12:37 PM (PDT)

19

Atomic - so its legal for someone to put a poster up on private property, but not legal for someone to draw on it - ok that makes sense ok, but its strange when people then say its illegal to then draw on the poster. - Does that poster suddenly become invincible in the eyes of the law, even though it has been stuck up on something else? I’m not being sarcastic, im intrigued.

Posted by dmeineck on December 11, 2003 at 12:41 PM (PDT)

20

When did this place become like Slashdot, where a bunch of geeks that have nothing better to do, sit around and friggin bicker like a bunch of wash women?

The article doesn’t advocate the blatant vandalism, it’s applauding them for the actual video content, NOT the spray painting.  Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick.  Come on people, get past this and let’s get back on track.

I personally don’t agree with the video, agreed, at the time there was no way to replace the battery.  Now there is.  The video, the brothers and this entire thing is now a moot point.  Could we please move on, there really isn’t anything to see here

Posted by Twitch on December 11, 2003 at 12:43 PM (PDT)

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy