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
Also, on the grassy knoll, you can see the outline of a figure that looks exactly like Steve Ballmer.
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!
Making it look as if something was produced with a device even though the device was not used is a fucking LIE.
Useful cut out and keep guide:
If it is on a TV or Cinema screen or even a still photograph it is a lie.
It's not necessarily about dishonesty - it's about practicality. They use simulated pictures in adverts for TV screens because taking photos/videos of TV screens always looks crap - it's nigh-on impossible to get the exposure/colour balance right even if you don't get interference patterns. They use fake food in commercials because real food looks crap on film (especially after it's been under the lights for an hour or two). Making a film/TV program is too bloody time-consuming and expensive to leave anything to chance for the sake of realism when you can fake it reliably and on cue. Interviews get edited because people going 'um' or repeating themselves looks much worse on screen than it does in real life: if they cut away to the interviewer nodding then it's probably to disguise the 'jump' where they cut out the interviewee saying something unintelligible.
With still pictures, you don't even need Photoshop: you've put a spin on it as soon as you've composed the picture and decided when to press the shutter.
"The camera never lies..." should be on the shortlist of most comprehensively inaccurate aphorisms of all time.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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.