5 ms·

Having read the article with the editor's comments in mind, it looks quite clear to me that they're guilty as charged: There was perfectly adequate disclaiming

• KirinDave 16y ago
  You should reset it to 0 for such shoddy writing. For example, here is the text on the camera section: The EVO has higher resolution cameras front and back (8 megapixel / 1.3 megapixel, vs. 5 megapixel / VGA). Apple claims its low resolution sensor around back is to improve the low light performance, and both manufacturers are using the same "backside illuminated" tech. We'll have to let these duke it out in the wild (we've only seen professionally-produced samples from Apple's camera), but the EVO wins the spec war. Looks like speculative nonsense to me. Anyone who knows anything about digital cameras knows that published megapixel spec wars are almost never valuable (for example, my D700 is out-megapixeled by even some high-end point-and-shoots! But I can tell you which camera can capture the scene more faithfully in any condition, every time). Until the iPhone 4 is in hand and people can evaluate its camera, there is no way to know if the iPhone has a better, worse, or equivalent camera. All we have right now from Apple are slick marketing materials produced by professional photographers, many of which probably had assistants using reflectors or lights to help smooth out the dynamic range. This was an article that shouldn't ever have been published, and clearly was basically a hype piece that slipped through editing during the press blitzkrieg of WWDC.