Apple introduced a thinner iPad Pro on May 7, 2024. In its launch announcement, the company called it its thinnest product yet and emphasized tools for drawing, video and music. The accompanying “Crush!” film tried to show many of those tools fitting into one tablet. The way it showed that idea became the story.
What the film showed
A hydraulic press descends on a crowded platform. It crushes a piano, record player, cameras, books, paint and other objects associated with making or enjoying art. Paint runs down the sides. When the press rises, a new iPad Pro sits where the objects had been. Apple shared the video online alongside the product launch; 9to5Mac listed it among Apple’s launch films.
The intended product message is understandable: a thin tablet can hold tools that once needed separate physical devices. But the film does not show a person drawing, composing or filming. It shows the physical tools being destroyed. That distinction mattered to the people who make their living with them.
Why people objected
The Associated Press reported that actor Hugh Grant described the ad as destruction of human experience, while filmmaker Justine Bateman said it crushed the arts. Their objections concerned the image on screen, rather than the specifications of the iPad Pro. AP also interviewed marketing professor Americus Reed II, who said the execution made the technology appear to crush a nostalgic kind of creative joy.
This reaction took place while many creators were discussing whether generative AI could replace parts of their work, a context AP included in its coverage. The ad itself was for a tablet, not an AI product. Still, a machine flattening instruments and artwork invited an interpretation wider than Apple’s stated product message. That is an explanation of the criticism, not a measured survey of how every viewer understood the film.
What Apple said and changed
On May 9, Apple marketing executive Tor Myhren gave Ad Age an apology. His statement said Apple’s goal was to celebrate how people express themselves through iPad and concluded, “We missed the mark with this video, and we’re sorry.” AP, reporting the Ad Age statement, also said Apple no longer planned to run the spot on television.
That report describes a canceled TV plan. It does not mean the online release never happened or that Apple erased the video from the internet. The distinction matters because the ad had already been shared and discussed online before the apology. The public record here supports the response and the TV decision; it does not provide a reliable figure for any effect on iPad sales.
The earlier LG comparison
Critics also noticed a similar idea in an LG phone ad from 2008. It put instruments, camera parts and paint under a hydraulic press before revealing the phone. Both ads use compression to suggest that one device can do the work of many objects. The resemblance is visible, but the reporting does not establish how Apple’s concept was developed. Calling the later film a copy would go beyond that evidence.
The LG comparison helps isolate what made Apple’s reception different. Apple’s launch positioned the iPad Pro as a tool for creative work, yet its film chose destruction as the visual shorthand for replacing older tools. The sourced reaction shows that some viewers saw a threat to creativity where Apple intended to show capability. Apple’s apology confirms the company judged that gap serious enough to change its TV plan.