Slashdot Mirror
Sony Decides Its Waterproof Xperia Phones Are Not Actually Waterproof
Mark Wilson writes: Sony seems determined on confusing its customers by giving very conflicting advice about its Xperia smartphones. If you're familiar with the range, you'll no doubt be aware of the advertising material that appears to show users taking photos in the rain and even (seemingly) underwater at the pool. Take a look at the picture above and you'd probably assume that a) it depicts someone shooting a video or taking a photo in a swimming pool, and b) you can do the same with your phone. But you'd be wrong (at least on b) because Sony has changed its mind about what waterproof means. Or it doesn't know. It really depends on where you look on the Sony website.
"Fluff" and "Puffery" are one thing. Explicitly showing people doing things the device can not do is plain false advertising.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Just because advertisers have always been depraved abhuman shitweasels, why should we tolerate them being so now? If anything, the fact that a given sector has always been rotten seems like a better argument for extirpating it than for putting up with it.
Been going on since advertising was invented. And if you honestly looked at this phone and said "now I can take my phone snorkling", well, that's a problem at your end.
Actually the problem isn't on my end.
If I pay for of full tank of gas I expect to get a full tank of gas. If I buy a pound of meat then I expect it to be a full pound. If the seller fails to deliver then there is a problem and it is the sellers responsibility to correct that problem.
If I buy a waterproof phone and a non-waterproof phone is delivered then that is no different from me buying a 1TB harddrive and getting a 100GB one.
It could be an honest mistake by the seller and I will be fine with them correcting their failure and deliver the correct item. It could also be fraud in which case it is illegal.
Don't defend Sony, they have been convicted of crimes before and still keep ending up on the wrong side of the law.
Quite, we shouldn't expect anything shown in an ad to be accurate. If we buy a so-called "phone" for $600, and it cannot make phone calls, take pictures, or store music, then that's our fault for just assuming it could on the basis that the ads show it doing all those things. We're the idiots, while the advertisers are find upstanding capitalists that are beyond all criticism and whose integrity must not be besmirched by the likes of us.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Do you know what false advertising is in fact? "A reasonable person must believe it." Catch 22; no reasonable person would believe any advertising so it is hard to get a conviction. Here it might be more cut and dry because they claim an IP68 standard which does mean something. Either way I'd rather have a phone that tries to IP68 than one that doesn't. I've had a S3 Active and I took a lot of underwater video with it but I seated my cover correctly every time. The new Sony have a open USB port that is IP68 or was obviously until a rational engineer told the marketing folks that that they cannot claim X. I honestly have NO IDEA why we need any ports on any phone at all. Sure I love me some 2 batteries but with Qi, NFC, Wifi, Cloud Sync, Chromecast et al. I would be happy having all those things like USB, SIM, SD, and whatever under screw down o-ring bezels.
I don't want a phone I can use underwater. I want a phone that will be fine if I accidentally drop it in water, get pushed into a swimming pool or get drenched in a rainstorm. As long as the common accidents are survivable, I'll be happy.