Slashdot Mirror
Nokia Apologizes For Misleading Lumia 920 Ad
hypnosec writes "During Nokia's press event for the launch of its flagship Windows Phone 8 smartphone — the Lumia 920 — the Finnish company made available some promotional materials wherein there was a video showcasing PureView's main feature: optical image stabilization (OIS) but, it turns out these ads were faked following which Nokia has issued an official apology. In the video was 'a reflection that revealed the footage wasn't shot on a Lumia 920, but a regular camera inside a white van.' If we go to 0:27 of the video, a reflection of a white van keeping pace with the girl is seen whereby a person is holding a DSLR camera. Fast forward to 0:48 of the video and you will clearly see the shadow of a DSLR hooked to the swing. In its apology through a blog post Nokia confirms that the video 'was not shot with a Lumia 920.'"
A better option would have been to avoid publishing misleading ads...
Advertisement is full of lies. Who'd have thought? Colour me shocked. Shocked, I say!
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Next you'll be saying that that HTC (?) ad with the fashion photographer jumping out of the plane and doing a photo shoot in free-fall wasn't entirely shot on a smartphone?
What next? I'd been planning on buying a can of Red Bull, sprouting wings, and flying to Holland next week: should I change my travel plans?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
The camera shots are fake as well as the videos...
Contrast this with the demo for Google Glass -- done live, with multiple people, skydiving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7TB8b2t3QE
Also, on the grassy knoll, you can see the outline of a figure that looks exactly like Steve Ballmer.
I know when I'm looking for a high end phone, I look for stuck up douchebags saying customers are wrong about wanting an SD slot as that would ruin their artistic vision and who create a fake ad for no reason about a fake feature then "accidentally" release it. I think maybe they're purposely trying to not get bought out by any other company by looking like assholes.
...by such an obvious fake. We promise that in the future, the misleading ads won't be *nearly* as easy to debunk.
Koans and fables for the software engineer
No, that will never work. There is only one girl in the ad, whereas at least three people will buy the a Lumia 20 phone. Heck, maybe even 4 people will buy it. They can't all get the same girl.
In auto commercials, cars are 3d renders.
...the list goes on.
Apple's siri commercials are simulated experiences.
Cereal boxes and chocolate bars are made larger in those ads.
Screen images are simulated.
Can you hear me now is not actually talking on his cell phone.
OR instead you could point out how well Mr. Elop has done turning the ancient dinosaur Nokia into the nimble, most successful Windows phone company, making him a very deserving (of a humongous bonus that is) CEO. He can even take a nice picture of that fat check - shaking with excitement but nonetheless rock solid stabilized - and upload it to Bing (via Facebook). Oooh, the joy!
Why on earth did anyone expect any of this commercial was shot with an actual Lumina?
Does anyone realize how impractical this is, or even how bad it would look on your HDTV?
Nokia's only mistake here is not putting "Not actual footage. This is a simulation of actual results" disclaimer on the split screen parts.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Apologies after you've already been caught shouldn't really count . ''I told the judge how sorry I was for robbing that bank, but he still gave me twenty years!". Here's a thought, how about not lying in the first place? Does the phone's camera really suck that badly that you had to fake your ad? Whose decision to use the dslr was this really??
And often food in commercials is faked and not suitable for eating (because of paint, being raw inside etc). Often chocolate is just brown paint, strawberries are painted to have more vidi colors, icecream can be made of "mashed potato covered in motor oil" etc. Commercials have long history of being full of lies and often even reviews of products are fake.
We're very deeply sorry that we got caught. We did not intend anyone to know about this deception. In the future, we promise to do a better job at hiding our dishonest activities so that we do not get caught again.
We take them down by complaining about them and not buying their products.
Not by going "everyone does that, oh no, what can we do about it".
Why did Nokia end up in this mess?
They had Symbian which made them a lot of money but was getting stale with UX. So Nokia started making a new Linux-based OS, which was called Maemo. Then, for some unknown reason they partnered with Intel and Maemo became Meego.
Meego was getting delayed.
Meanwhile Nokia did publish a Maemo phone, the N900. This was quite an OK phone, and got good reviews. Nokia was back on track.
Enter Stephen Elop as the new CEO. First thing the Microsoft alumni does is destroy the revenue stream from Symbian phones with his burning platform speech. Next thing he does is destroy any hope of any future by killing Meego.
Third thing he does is announce a partnership with Microsoft which means the in-house software development essentially has to cease. At this point Nokia has been beaten to a comatose state. Talent is bleeding out of the company.
Questions: Why did Nokia self-destruct its future? Who did Paul Allen meet in Helsinki on his boat, was this where the deal to trash Nokia was made? What is Shell chairman Jorma Ollila's (ex-Nokia CEO, Nokia chairman of the board) role in all this?
We know the result of all this: Nokia is nearly dead, ready to be given the final rites by Microsoft, which will devour Nokia's patents. Nearly all mobile operating systems are on the hands of a few North American companies. Strategically this makes a lot of sense to the USA, as it is showing a tendency to snoop on everyone's private data regardless of who and where they are. What better way to do this than to control the OS in a device which is with each person almost all the time.
This makes me think the decision to destroy Nokia was in some way dictated by US interests. Why the Finnish government accepted all this is beyond me - they must have gotten something valuable in return.
So what did the Finns get?
One thing I guess they got was a promise to become a big player in the content industry (games) area. Just look at the hype around Rovio and their Angry Birds. I doubt the rise of content industry in a narrow sector would be enough to offset the loss of an entire strategically important R&D cluster. Therefore I think this was not enough.
But what more could it be? Promise to become a member of NATO without "officially" becoming a member of NATO?
Maybe instead of a carrot, a stick was used. But what was the stick?
I am appalled that the Finnish government with the industry movers and shakers have basically eaten popcorn and watched the show without doing anything. Not so many years ago a lot of tax money was constantly funneled into Nokia's research projects. It was the pride of the whole nation, and this was mirrored in the behaviour of the government and the industry. Now the same clowns are watching a whole high-tech cluster vaporize in thin air without doing ANYTHING.
And lo and behold, Samsung will be next.