Lets say you have two TVs. One TV says "We have Smart Screen 5.0 technology unlike that TV"
Would you say. "Thats a lie. The only reason that other TV doesn't have Smart Screen 5.0 technology is because you didn't offer to sell it to your competitor."
I don't think you should be under any obligation, legal or moral to be forced to licence your competitive advantage to your competitor.
> "We have Smart Screen 5.0 technology unlike that TV"
Slightly offtopic: What drives me crazy is when Company A will say "TV A has FizzBuzz(tm) Technology, TV B does not!" and Company B says "TV B has BuzzFizz(tm) Technology, TV A does not!" When FizzBuzz(tm) and BuzzFizz(tm) are really just the same shit with different trademarks.
It is probably "different" technology enough of the time, in that it does the same thing but in a different way with a different set of patents... but still.
You make FOO.
You also make XXX, which runs on FOO. XXX is very popular.
I make BAR. BAR is very popular, but can't run XXX.
BAR and FOO are competing products.
You say, "FOO is better than BAR because BAR doesn't have XXX."
You don't make a version of XXX that works on BAR.
You can't use the fact that you don't make Office for iOS as a short coming of iOS in advertising. That doesn't make your product better, it just means that you aren't making Office available.
I don't know, I think it's honest. In the eyes of many business users - myself included - the lack of Office is a legitimate shortcoming of the iPad (albeit one that I personally don't care much about).
It would be equally honest and fair for Apple to claim that Windows 8 doesn't have say, iMovie, or Flipboard. Again, some users may not care about those apps but at least it's a legitimate claim, unlike what's mentioned in the article.
It says the iPad doesn't have Office. Well, that's because Microsoft hasn't released a version of Office for iOS.
I don't know the right word for it, but that's not honest either.