Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Advertising Cellphones

Nokia Apologizes For Misleading Lumia 920 Ad 233

Posted by timothy from the white-van-requires-2-year-activation dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nokia Apologizes For Misleading Lumia 920 Ad More

Nokia Apologizes For Misleading Lumia 920 Ad

Comments Filter:

  • The damage is already done (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kergan ( 780543 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @07:49AM (#41246335)

    A better option would have been to avoid publishing misleading ads...

    • Re:The damage is already done (Score:5, Funny)

      by kiriath ( 2670145 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @07:51AM (#41246355)

      OR -

      Give away a free DSLR with every phone. I'd probably buy it then.

      • Well, there already are digital cameras with Android. Just add a cell phone transmitter module to an Android-powered DSLR, et voilà - your wish is granted!

      • OR -

        Give away a free DSLR with every phone. I'd probably buy it then.

        I dunno. Cell phones are more expensive than many DSLR's these days, until you get into the pro range. I think I'd rather pay for the dslr than a cell phone with windows mobile just to get a paperweight and a dslr.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dupple ( 1016592 )

      A better option would have been stating when the phone was available and on which carrier. The ad is just more Nokia getting it wrong.

      Yesterday could've been a great day for them. But trouble comes in threes it seems.

      • Meanwhile in Executive land (Score:5, Funny)

        by dna_(c)(tm)(r) ( 618003 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @08:26AM (#41246825)

        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!

    • Re:The damage is already done (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @08:07AM (#41246589)

      A better option would have been to avoid publishing misleading ads...

      You are quite right, but as a former Nokia shareholder (got out earlier this year at a big loss) I can assure you that Nokia got into its current woeful state by running out of "better options" some years ago.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Nokia's woes (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 06, 2012 @01:59PM (#41251913)

        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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Missing.Matter ( 1845576 )
      It's misleading in the same way that Apple's Siri ads or iPhone ads are: show real capabilities of a technology in an augmented or enhanced manner. As the video posted from the 920 shows, the phone is indeed capable of what they claim. Maybe not as good as the larger prototype they claim they were using in the video, but nonetheless very good. Just as Siri doesn't get right every time [youtube.com] with instantaneous response, and iPhone isn't lightening fast [youtube.com] like in the ads.

      • It's misleading in the same way that Apple's Siri ads or iPhone ads are: show real capabilities of a technology in an augmented or enhanced manner. As the video posted from the 920 shows, the phone is indeed capable of what they claim. Maybe not as good as the larger prototype they claim they were using in the video, but nonetheless very good.

        Wat? They don't claim they were using a "larger prototype", they simply confess that it's not a 920 at all. Compare that to this:

        Just as Siri doesn't get right every time [youtube.com] with instantaneous response, and iPhone isn't lightening fast [youtube.com] like in the ads.

        But Siri does get it right some of the time, and with a fast enough network connection (like, say, it's connecting to a local server), it could be that fast. Those ads are Siri, albeit Siri at its absolute, unlikely-to-actually-occur-in-reality best. Here, Nokia's not even using a 920 at all. It's not just misleading as in a "shown under optimal conditions" way, but misleading in a "doesn't actually exist at all" way.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Missing.Matter ( 1845576 )

          They don't claim they were using a "larger prototype", they simply confess that it's not a 920 at all.

          I think maybe I read it wrong. They said the images were shot with a prototype and scaled down.

          Those ads are Siri, albeit Siri at its absolute, unlikely-to-actually-occur-in-reality best.... Here, Nokia's not even using a 920 at all. It's ... misleading in a "doesn't actually exist at all" way.

          How is "unlikely-to-actually-occur-in-reality best" much different or generally less misleading compared to "doesn't actually exist at all"? Nokia 920 has optical image stabilization that improves image quality. This is demonstrated. It's probably not as great as a DSLR but it does what they say. Siri is an AI that responds to voice commands. It doesn't perform exactly like the video but it does what they say. App

          • Re:The damage is already done (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Wovel ( 964431 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @09:21AM (#41247533) Homepage

            You don't see the difference between showing a product in the best available light versus showing video from a professional camera and claiming it came from the phone?

            You really don't? Ou think that is in any way equivalent. The Siri ads are like the HTC ads where everyone in the band is using a phone. Could the phone do that? Sure. Would it take optimal conditions that are unlikely to exist on earth today? Sure. The Nokia ad was a lie. He phone could never do that because it wasn't done with the phone.

            • No, the phone does do that, but not as well. Just like Siri does respond to voice commands as depicted, but not as well. Just as the iPhone does work over 3G but not at the speeds depicted. I really don't see how "The phone could potentially work like this in ideal conditions that don't exist and will never exist" is not a lie. If ideal conditions will never exist, then the phone *can't* work like that. With Siri you often have to wait many seconds for the response to come back, or you have to annunciate ve

          • How is "unlikely-to-actually-occur-in-reality best" much different or generally less misleading compared to "doesn't actually exist at all"? Nokia 920 has optical image stabilization that improves image quality. This is demonstrated.

            No, it's not. As Nokia admits, the 920 doesn't have the image stabilization yet. It hasn't been demonstrated, because they haven't even gotten a working prototype. Instead, they faked it.

            Siri is an AI that responds to voice commands. It doesn't perform exactly like the video but it does what they say. Apple shows iPhone downloading at faster than network speeds over 3G. Of course it doesn't do it just like that, much slower in fact, but it does what they say.

            Again, no... Siri does do what the video says and performs exactly like that, under optimal conditions. If you took an iPhone 4S and had a perfectly silent room with a trained speaker, and an 802.11n connection to a local server to do the decoding and searching, you could get the same results. It certainly doesn't perform l

            • No, it's not. As Nokia admits, the 920 doesn't have the image stabilization yet. It hasn't been demonstrated, because they haven't even gotten a working prototype.

              Sure about that?
              Comparison with SGS3 [youtube.com]
              OIS and low light demonstration [youtube.com]
              OIS demonstration [youtu.be]

              If you took an iPhone 4S and had a perfectly silent room with a trained speaker, and an 802.11n connection to a local server to do the decoding and searching, you could get the same results.

              If you need that many qualifiers to bring the idealized version to reality, then no, it's not the same. And what about the 3G commercial you seem to be completely bypassing, which is showing a 3G connection working 3x faster than possible? How is that not lying.

              Look, I don't even think what Apple is doing in their ads is bad. I think it's fine. They're depicting the function of their product in an idealized setting

              • No, it's not. As Nokia admits, the 920 doesn't have the image stabilization yet. It hasn't been demonstrated, because they haven't even gotten a working prototype.

                Sure about that?

                From their apology:

                Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but we should have posted a disclaimer stating this was a representation of OIS only. This was not shot with a Lumia 920. At least, not yet. We apologize for the confusion we created.

                That seems to be an admission that it's not yet in product, but I'll concede that maybe they have some sort of prototype. Why didn't they use that, then?

                If you took an iPhone 4S and had a perfectly silent room with a trained speaker, and an 802.11n connection to a local server to do the decoding and searching, you could get the same results.

                If you need that many qualifiers to bring the idealized version to reality, then no, it's not the same. And what about the 3G commercial you seem to be completely bypassing, which is showing a 3G connection working 3x faster than possible? How is that not lying.

                I'm not sure which commercial you're talking about. Got a link?

                Look, I don't even think what Apple is doing in their ads is bad. I think it's fine. They're depicting the function of their product in an idealized setting in a dramatized way to demonstrate its capabilities. I get that. I'm fine with that. But I don't see how that is substantially different than depicting the capabilities of OIS in an idealized, dramatized way to demonstrate the capabilities of OIS on the 920.

                Critical differ

              • And what about the 3G commercial you seem to be completely bypassing, which is showing a 3G connection working 3x faster than possible? How is that not lying.

                Ah, found the one you're talking about. There was no mention of "3x faster". Just "really fast" [telegraph.co.uk]. I suppose someone could sit there with a stop watch and time the commercial to complain that sequences were sped up, but then you'd think they'd notice the disclaimer. I also think that someone would be busy complaining about the Jura coffee machine that can pull a thousand shots of espresso in 15 seconds [youtube.com], no?

            • Re:The damage is already done (Score:4, Informative)

              by 21mhz ( 443080 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @10:27AM (#41248535) Journal

              No, it's not. As Nokia admits, the 920 doesn't have the image stabilization yet. It hasn't been demonstrated, because they haven't even gotten a working prototype.

              There is another video [youtu.be] that explicitly claims to be demonstrating OIS on Lumia 920.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Dr Max ( 1696200 )
      Oh how naive you are. If only you knew the thousands of tricks advertisments companies do when they make adds (from paint as chocolate to fake scientific institutions); you would never buy another marketed product again. I don't think they ever claimed it was taken by the 920, the whole add was very brief on details (i think all it said was "this add used optical image stabilization", and it probably did).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 )

      A better option would have been to avoid publishing misleading ads...

      Like it being PureView, which is only in the 808.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      Let's see, 5 sentences hyping the new product, A long sentence of setup with a bit of hype tossed in, and 2 sentences of apology that minimizes the act they are apologizing for. Then a video hyping the new product.

    • Many ads for TVs and smartphones like the iPhone show simulated images. However the disclaimer is in the ad usually in small print. That's all Nokia had to do was to put in this disclaimer.

    • Why? Its so much easier to just apologize and be regretful if / when you ever get caught.

  • surprise... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @07:52AM (#41246381) Homepage Journal

    Advertisement is full of lies. Who'd have thought? Colour me shocked. Shocked, I say!

    • Re:surprise... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ledow ( 319597 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @08:18AM (#41246727) Homepage

      Well, in most civilised countries in the world, advertisements CAN'T lie. That's pretty much the problem.

      The other side of the coin is whether people THINK something that the advert IMPLIES but doesn't actually say. If you're stupid enough to fall for those tricks, then you really will believe that advertising lies all the time.

      That's not to say that lies don't happen. It's just an entirely different kind of "lie" to what the average person would think.

      Watching the shopping channels is entertainment on a dull night for no other reason than spotting the holes and flaws in the truths they tell (Do it - assume they are 100% true and then see how they can say those things without telling a lie, it's quite fun to do. Do the same with magicians, psychics, etc. and notice the same tricks happening).

      Last night on QVC: "This ceramic frying pan can cook at a hotter heat than any metal pan on the market". Well, yes. It probably can. But I wouldn't EVER cook at those temperatures and surely my gas stovetop or, indeed, my frying pan would melt trying to do that before I need worry about buying a ceramic one".

      "This pan wipes clean with one swipe" - yes, it does. Because you've got hot, fresh, watery/oily sauce that you poured onto it just a second ago and a huge tough man scraping a heavy, clean, damp dishcloth over after scraping off the sauce with a metal implement.

      "While the traditional non-stick pan is much harder to clean" - no, because the over-smiley female presenter is hardly pushing, with a dry, small, flimsy dishcloth (and no metal implement) on a pre-dried stain of (presumably) the same sauce that probably has been cooked on and dried for hours.

      Completely truthful. Absolutely 100% misleading. There's a difference.

      • I am a huge fan of the old car wax commercial (DD-27?) where the guy says, "I'm going to pour hydrochloric acid on this car...But wait, I'm first going to pour ammonia on it [audience gasp at 2 toxic chemicals being poured on the shiny car surface!]" Uh, Hi, high school chemistry calling...HCl + NH3 = your paint job is going to be fine.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by ledow ( 319597 )

          And, of course, the real questions are "what dilution?", "for how long?" and "where?"

          Household vinegar is acidic (down to pH 2.4 or even lower). It just matters what dilution you have it in. Do you know what I use to clean the windscreen wipers on my car? Vinegar. I've never once worried about the paint job underneath them melting off because of vinegar.

          If I wipe it off (or wash it away, or whatever) quick, I could pour just about anything on there.

          And if I do it on a nice, waxed, plain part not near an

    • Re:surprise... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 06, 2012 @08:19AM (#41246745)

      at least this one has a fit girl on a bike in it. Always a fine sight. I did enjoy the ad from that standpoint.
      Disclaimer: i'm one of those cyclists who sometimes slow down in order to not overtake a woman on a bike... if that makes me a dirty old man, so be it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Gilmoure ( 18428 )

      It's better to be talked about than not talked about.

  • Say it ain't so... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @07:54AM (#41246403)

    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?

    • And that the fashion photographer wasn't actually a fashion photographer but a professional skydiver? Say it ain't so!

      If the phone can actually do image stabilisation and it's not much worse than what's shown in the ad (regardless of how the ad was produced) then I don't see how this is misleading beyond the fact that it's an advertisement, and thus by definition intentionally misleading. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and advertising...

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by azalin ( 67640 )
        I'd say they got the image stabilization done a few years ago. I remember shooting videos with an N82 from horseback, which turned out rather nicely. Hardware was never their biggest problem...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 21mhz ( 443080 )

        If the phone can actually do image stabilisation and it's not much worse than what's shown in the ad (regardless of how the ad was produced) then I don't see how this is misleading beyond the fact that it's an advertisement, and thus by definition intentionally misleading. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and advertising...

        There are professional standards, even in advertising. Companies get reprimanded for misleading ads all the time.

        The only honourable way out of this for Nokia is to redo the ad with a real Lumia 920. Cherry-pick the best working software snapshot out of a dosen latest, find the best working phone prototype, tweak parameters, but it has to be the real thing. Either they are really confident that actual PureView performance will match the pro-grade video, or this is beyond stupid.

        • Either they are really confident that actual PureView performance will match the pro-grade video, or this is beyond stupid.

          This is Elop, so it's hard to say. It's certainly an effective way to further erode any trust in the Nokia brand. Now, whether that's intentional or not...

          :-P

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > I'd been planning on buying a can of Red Bull, sprouting wings, and flying to Holland next week

      Big difference. The claim of "sprouting wings" is so over top that anybody should know that this is just an advertising slogan.
      Only a total moron would drink Red Bull and wait for wings to pop out.

      Making it look as if something was produced with a device even though the device was not used is a fucking LIE.
      Here most people will think that the camera really is that good.

      • Re:Say it ain't so... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @09:50AM (#41247971)

        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.

      • > I'd been planning on buying a can of Red Bull, sprouting wings, and flying to Holland next week

        Big difference. The claim of "sprouting wings" is so over top that anybody should know that this is just an advertising slogan.
        Only a total moron would drink Red Bull and wait for wings to pop out.

        You'd think that would be the case, but then there's this idiot who sued Pepsi for breach of contract, fraud, misleading advertising, etc, for refusing to award him a Harrier Jet [wikipedia.org] which was shown in their TV ad as being available for 7,000,000 Pepsi Points. IIRC a "just kidding" disclaimer was added to the commercial after this joker tried collecting, long before the case went to court, where the judge thankfully rejected all claims.

        What's even more pathetic is that it wasn't just the one idiot, he managed t

    • "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?"

      Next you'll tell me Google faked its Google Glass demo:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh-liQDE3cM [youtube.com]

  • Too bad... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The camera shots are fake as well [pcgerms.com] as the videos...

  • Contrast this with the demo for Google Glass (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Contrast this with the demo for Google Glass -- done live, with multiple people, skydiving.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7TB8b2t3QE

  • Outline (Score:5, Funny)

    by puddingebola ( 2036796 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @08:16AM (#41246695) Journal
    Also, on the grassy knoll, you can see the outline of a figure that looks exactly like Steve Ballmer.

  • great job (Score:4)

    by slashmydots ( 2189826 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @08:16AM (#41246699)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fatphil ( 181876 )
      When why would they do something that caused their shareprice to lose 16% in a day?
      http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NOA3.DE&t=5d&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=
      They clearly want to be bought by somebody
      • Actually, their said so many numbers and ugly, non-round digits in their share price really ruined their company's artistic image so they drove it down.

  • We apologize if your intelligence was insulted... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by QilessQi ( 2044624 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @08:17AM (#41246713)

    ...by such an obvious fake. We promise that in the future, the misleading ads won't be *nearly* as easy to debunk.

  • Unless the commercial explicitly says something like "shot with a real Lumia 920", I really don't see this as a bad sin. If they could use other tools to show the consumer what the OIS feature is about, that's fine. There's a lot of stuff that is "faked" in advertisements anyway.

    • Unless the commercial explicitly says something like "shot with a real Lumia 920", I really don't see this as a bad sin.

      I think the expectation is to do the reverse - I've seen other phone adverts that has "Sequences shortened" or words to that effect at the bottom of the screen, because the phone can't actually do all the things shown in the length of the advert. The main complaint I have seen about this Nokia advert is that they did not disclose that they weren't using the phone when the implication is that they were.

      • I haven't looked at the commercial or what the Lumia 920 can actually do. If they could reproduce the results of the Optical Image Stabilization feature closely enough with different gear, it's fine for me. However if the commercial shows things which are too far from what the phone can actually do, then I consider that lying.

  • Not any more fake than all the other ads. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by csumpi ( 2258986 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @08:23AM (#41246793)
    In auto commercials, cars are 3d renders.

    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.

    ...the list goes on.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        I remember watching an interview with someone who did a beer commercial. They said that unfortunately they couldn't spend the whole day drinking beer so had to be drinking something that looked the same, because they would be taking shots over and over again.

  • People looking for something to be angry about (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zeromous ( 668365 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @08:27AM (#41246839) Homepage

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by caseih ( 160668 )

      My favorite is the ads for TVs that talk about the crisp, clear, and vibrant color while showing you that TV showing said crisp, clear vibrant color video, all shown on your own inferior TV. Yeah, I can really see the difference in that video. That's so amazing!

      • I always get a kick out of this too! SEE THE SHARP YELLOWS ON OUR NEW SHARP QUATTRO (up the saturation and put it on a white background with an authoritative nerd-shill)

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @08:38AM (#41246981)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Since no one else seemed to have posted a link to the video, here it is [youtube.com].
  • ...provided they actually tell us. For instance, the promo shots of Nikon cameras are shot using medium format cameras, something Nikon doesn't even make. The best tool for the job, I say. They key is not lying about it. While they could have been clearer, they didn't explicitly say that it was shot with the phone.

  • What's wrong with actual footage? Seriously, is that so hard to do? Truck companies figured that one out a while back, show a picture of a truck doing something really notable and than in the fine print in the bottom you put "actual demonstration". Makes it all the more impressive.

  • We're sorry. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by residieu ( 577863 ) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @09:15AM (#41247455)
    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.

  • Using non-genuine techniques and materials in advertisements to make products more appealing!? What is the world coming to! Why can't Nokia be more like fast food industry, where all vegetables rolling across the screen are as fresh and dew-covered as the ones we get in our burgers; or more like the deodorant industry, which clearly demonstrates the female-attracting effects of a man on a horse; or beer commercials where anything is possible! For shame Nokia, for shame!

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close