<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: iPhone in Canada for Christmas?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/10/28/iphone-in-canada-for-christmas/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/10/28/iphone-in-canada-for-christmas/</link>
	<description>... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:47:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mathew</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/10/28/iphone-in-canada-for-christmas/comment-page-1/#comment-335469</link>
		<dc:creator>Mathew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:36:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/10/28/iphone-in-canada-for-christmas/#comment-335469</guid>
		<description>I agree, Tod. There are just too many little flaws in the ad for it to be real.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, Tod. There are just too many little flaws in the ad for it to be real.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tod Maffin</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/10/28/iphone-in-canada-for-christmas/comment-page-1/#comment-335468</link>
		<dc:creator>Tod Maffin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/10/28/iphone-in-canada-for-christmas/#comment-335468</guid>
		<description>I have my doubts about this.

First, the small green text is in a horrible font. In a CTA subhead like that, most ad people will avoid (C) and TM symbols unless absolutely necessary. The ones in this ad really stick out.

Second, the last line of the small print says you don&#039;t find out what the data plan will cost until later. I somehow doubt Rogers is stupid enough to sell an expensive phone (with a mandatory three-year term) without disclosing how much the data would cost.

Finally, I&#039;ve never known Rogers to split up its logo like that (red circle and text). It&#039;s generally considered to be a no-no in advertising practice.

This just looks like a fake Photoshop mockup to me. I stand by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.todmaffin.com/blog/iphonecanada&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my original post&lt;/a&gt; on this.

That said, I HOPE it&#039;s true, because I really want to move out of 1.0.2 without bricking my phone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have my doubts about this.</p>
<p>First, the small green text is in a horrible font. In a CTA subhead like that, most ad people will avoid (C) and TM symbols unless absolutely necessary. The ones in this ad really stick out.</p>
<p>Second, the last line of the small print says you don&#8217;t find out what the data plan will cost until later. I somehow doubt Rogers is stupid enough to sell an expensive phone (with a mandatory three-year term) without disclosing how much the data would cost.</p>
<p>Finally, I&#8217;ve never known Rogers to split up its logo like that (red circle and text). It&#8217;s generally considered to be a no-no in advertising practice.</p>
<p>This just looks like a fake Photoshop mockup to me. I stand by <a href="http://www.todmaffin.com/blog/iphonecanada" rel="nofollow">my original post</a> on this.</p>
<p>That said, I HOPE it&#8217;s true, because I really want to move out of 1.0.2 without bricking my phone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
