They missed the opportunity of, instead of destroying everything, "compressing" it all in an iPad to show "all the things that you can fit inside that tiny device" or something like that. The destruction seemed pointless.
You show the frame of an ipad, without the insides or the glass on front. But it's actually giant.
A person playing a gameboy puts it into this frame. An artist puts their color pallette in, too. Many people come out, putting more and more into this frame.
A robotic arm puts a sheet of glass ontop of it, but you can still see the contents.
An animation plays from bottom to top, displaying the iPad UI and covering up the items previously visible. In the spots where the individual items were, the iPad UI shows matching apps now.
What? They are quite literally compressing those things in the video. And if you apply compressive force to a bunch of objects using a massive press, the objects would obviously get destroyed.
The metaphor is compression, the visual is crushing. An actual destructive action doesn't work as a metaphor for an imagined conserving action, the connotations of each are almost entirely at odds with each other. The best reason to do it is probably to make the audience deeply uncomfortable, which works if you're making a movie but is maybe not so good for ads.
But they are metaphorically compressing them. If you put a grand piano under a hydraulic press, it doesn't turn into an iPad at the end like it does in the ad.
Compressing in software terms means it doesn't get destroyed. Just compacted. You can uncompress it and it gets restored, maybe with a small loss.
In the ad, the furniture etc was completely destroyed.
If you're being serious, I guess that shows how this could have passed review without anyone going "hang on, is this ad really saying what we want it to be saying...?"
