One of the most valuable companies in the world, Apple, recently found itself in hot water over a new marketing campaign intended to showcase the power and versatility of the iPad Pro. In an ad launched last week by CEO Tim Cook, the tablet is depicted crushing various creative objects like musical instruments, books, and craft materials using an industrial hydraulic press.
However, rather than generating buzz for its latest device, the commercial met with swift and vocal criticism online from viewers who argued it promoted the destruction of art and culture. Prominent figures like actor Hugh Grant and director Justine Bateman publicly slammed the ad on social media platforms for representing the crushing of human experiences by Silicon Valley technology.
Within days, Apple was forced to issue an apology, an unusual move for the typically image-conscious company. In a statement, Apple’s VP of marketing communications Tor Myhren acknowledged the commercial “missed the mark” in celebrating how users express themselves through the iPad. The executive expressed regret that the ad’s intention to highlight the tablet’s creative capabilities backfired so badly.
For Apple, the misstep was particularly ill-timed given ongoing debates about Big Tech’s impact on society and concerns from artists over intellectual property issues. As the iPad has increasingly encroached on domains like photography, music, and video previously controlled by “old media,” some see its proliferation as a threat rather than enabler of creativity. This ad reignited such criticisms by portraying iPad use as mutually exclusive from traditional art forms.
The controversy is a lesson for Apple on understanding how technology is perceived differently depending on perspective. While it aimed to position the iPad as a tool empowering all kinds of expression, the crushing imagery understandably upset some who view tech giants with skepticism. In an era when users demand brands take social responsibility, vague or tone-deaf messaging can seriously damage public opinion.
Going forward, Apple will need to exercise more sensitivity in representing complex relationships between people, culture, and technology. Rather than assuming the iPad only augments creativity, it must acknowledge legitimate anxieties about the impact of screens and datafication on analog skills and experiences. By acknowledging multiple viewpoints, perhaps its role in culture could have been framed in a more balanced, thoughtful way.
For now, Apple seems to have learned from the backlash. But as new products continue reshaping industries, related debates will likely intensify. The company and its peers must find nuanced ways to showcase innovations while addressing realistic concerns—or risk further pratfalls in the court of public perception. Moving dialogue forward in an honest, inclusive manner could help technology maximize benefits for all.
