> Factually, it is shot on an iPhone. This is no more a lie than when a film says it’s shot on an Arri or if a Sony commercial says it’s shot on an FX3.

That's so disingenuous. The iPhone has a lens, and no one expects to put another lens on it. In fact, I'd wager a large amount that >99.9% of consumers have never even considered that it's possible. Whereas 100% of FX3 customers expect to use a lens.

I could probably make a pretty sweet setup to record a Netflix movie in awesome quality on my iPhone camera and there would be the perfect depth-of-field that comes with the professional gear that Netflix uses. And it would be factually shot on an iPhone.

You are comparing this to makeup? Really? You don't get it. No amount of "well actually"-ing is going to make consumers feel less deceived.

Really? You don’t get it? No amount of “well you need a better lens, so it’s a lie” would get you the same results anyway.

It’s a professional shoot. End of story. It’s factual that it’s shot on an iPhone. If you replaced it with a full frame body, you’d still not achieve this.

If your entire point is that a customer might buy the device and think they can achieve the same results, then why does that not extend to anything else?

I don't have a problem with this Shot on iPhone ad, because it clearly shows what kind of rig is needed behind the scenes to achieve the results, assuming it wasn't doctored and the footage is real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jELeFXNJUOE