15 ms·

Ah man, I immediately thought of another recent case of a smartphone manufacturer faking their phone's camera shots[0] (turns out TFA links to it as well). Jus

Ah man, I immediately thought of another recent case of a smartphone manufacturer faking their phone's camera shots[0] (turns out TFA links to it as well). Just a single instance of this kind of fraud is enough for me to write off a brand forever, frankly. If you're lying to my face before I even bought your product, who knows how much else you're lying about. Zero trust for companies like this. [0] https://www.diyphotography.net/huawei-passes-off-dslr-photos-as-smartphone-camera-photos-again/ https://www.diyphotography.net/huawei-passes-off-dslr-photos...

bryanlarsen 8y ago
You'd write off an entire massive company for the mistakes of Hauwei Egypt or Samsung Malaysia? It's not like this is central company policy, it's the people localizing the marketing.
- ancorevard 8y ago
  They reflect company values and culture. If this was the first incident, then I would tend to agree with you. But this is just one of a long string of similar incidents that together form a pattern that reflect on the company values.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    >> They reflect company values and culture. If it was from Samsung. This could have come down to a single decision by a very low-level person, or likely a contractor. Samsung's marketing execs dropped the ball in not supervising the campaign properly, but I'm not ready to fault Samsung generally because of a dozen poorly-managed publicity shots. Instead, I judge them by how they react to this mistake. Do they pull the photos or not?
    - wpietri 8y ago
      This sort of thinking on brands is always a puzzle to me. Samsung certainly takes credit for every good thing done by their employees and contractors. Why does a radically different standard apply when they do something bad? Even if it made sense in some light, it's still a bad approach, because it means people with power and money are never held accountable for things that happen on their watch.
      - sandworm101 8y ago
        We hold them to account by not purchasing their products. But we call out the mistake for what it is: underhanded marketing. It isn't like they installed spyware or were handing personal data to foreign governments.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        > But we call out the mistake for what it is: underhanded marketing. Let's call it for what it really is, then: lying in your face, at scale. > We hold them to account by not purchasing their products. Totally agreed. That's one of few ways to send them feedback directly. Other ways would include lawsuits or voting for regulation change. Given that signal here is roughly proportional to amount of lost market share, complaints in this thread are a fully legit, if indirect way, of getting more people to maybe buy less of their products.
      - 2muchcoffeeman 8y ago
        I’ve read the same kind of ‘logic’ applies to lots of situations. People will judge a company or restaurant or whatever more favourably if they correct a mistake to their satisfaction, rather than not making mistakes at all. It’s makes me wonder how many companies are hacking this. Don’t worry about quality past a certain point. Say everything works 95% of the time. After that, just offer a generous returns policy, eg just replace the whole thing. Probability that 2 things are broken is very small, and you just made the customer think you’re better than you are, and it’s cheaper than improving QC. Everyone perceives you to be better than the company with no mistakes. Profit.
        dnr 8y ago
        It works at a job too: you get more attention rushing in as the hero to fight fires on a system that's blowing up than you do building it so it just works and scales better in the first place.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      Do we know how they reacted to the previous incidents?
- jessriedel 8y ago
  It seems sufficient to write off any trust you might have in that brand's name on account of the name only. That is, if Samsung's governance can't keep its employees or subsidiaries from lying with its name attached in the past, there's no reason to think they'd be able to do it in the future. This also incentivizes Samsung to police its underlings. Of course, you might have other reasons to like Samsung's stuff (reviews, prior experience), and you might also be stuck trusting no one because all large companies have similar issues (so you're forced to buy from untrusted brands).
- amatecha 8y ago
  I mean, it was Samsung Brazil last time: https://www.diyphotography.net/samsung-busted-tweeting-stock-photos-to-promote-galaxy-a8-camera/ https://www.diyphotography.net/samsung-busted-tweeting-stock... But, yes. It doesn't take much for me to keep a note in my head "these guys are dishonest". OK, I may not boycott the company entirely, but it drops their perceived ranking in my mind wayyy down... which is exactly the opposite of what marketing is supposed to do, right?
- reaperducer 8y ago
  I don't see why not. I won't buy a Samsung phone after what I read about its televisions spying on people. I don't care that they're other people in other divisions. If everything is so blissfully separate, then don't have a single brand.
- olliej 8y ago
  Of course not - except in this case it’s multiple subsidiaries (Brazil, Malaysia, ...) which points to a systemic belief that faking a major feature is acceptable. If you’re going to advertise your camera, and you do it by showing off a photo taken with anything other than the actual camera, that’s fraud.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  How many fuck-ups do you require before writing off a company? Would the entire board have to personally come and shit in your mailbox?
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    The question isn't how many, but the scale of the fuck-up, and what it represents about the company. Maybe 5 people would have known that this ad campaign was using a non-phone-produced photo. Apparently that is enough for you to indict the 300,000+ people who work there.
    - mook 8y ago
      It's not indicting 300,000+ people, it's one person: the chairman of Samsung Electronics for not having set a culture where blatant lying results in negative repercussions.
      - oh_sigh 8y ago
        Did you give him a chance to fire this marketing professional in Malaysia? 299,995/300,000 behave well. 5 people misbehave. Bad culture!
        pavel_lishin 8y ago
        5 people got caught misbehaving.
        megy 8y ago
        > 299,995/300,000 behave well. Can you prove that? These guys were caught, does it mean the others just haven't been caught yet? What about the G7 battery explosions? What about the washing machines catching fire? What about last time Samsung faked images? What about when they faked benchmarks?
        aaronbrethorst 8y ago
- PascLeRasc 8y ago
  We don't owe companies anything. I'm a big proponent of not putting up with shitty design, and after a lot of bad experiences with Microsoft they're dead to me. I don't mind missing out on a good version of Windows sometime in the future, it's not worth dealing with their current awful software. Same goes for Samsung with the permanent Bixby button and Touchwiz UI. I'd rather reward good design like we have on the Google Pixel and iPhone X{'','R','S'} lines.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Personally, I've written all companies by default. Seeing things like that from both outside and sometimes inside, I came to conclusion that most sales&marketing material is simply full of shit, and unless your company gives me evidence otherwise, I'm assuming anything not casually verifiable is likely to be a lie. Also, RE Samsung vs. Samsung Malaysia, etc. - that's a flip side of having a brand. If you want various groups of people to inherit good reputation from the common pool of a brand, you should also expect they'll all inherit bad reputation too.
mhb 8y ago
Good luck buying a car.
- kirykl 8y ago
  True many car ads are actually cgi
  - danpalmer 8y ago
    Yep, most are. In fact CGI effects studio The Mill have a shell of a car that can expand/contract to fit the proportions of most regular cars, that can record its surrounds enough to build the environment for rendering, and that can be driven in place of the real car when shooting. The car being advertised is then edited in over the top, using the recorded environment to ensure accurate lighting and colours. http://www.themill.com/portfolio/3002/the-blackbird http://www.themill.com/portfolio/3002/the-blackbird
    - jonas21 8y ago
      That's really cool! Here's a video with more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnBC5bwV5y0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnBC5bwV5y0
      - jscissr 8y ago
        I noticed the CGI cars in this clip don't have drivers in them. How would they add a driver for an actual ad? I think cars are much easier than humans to do photo-realistically in CGI. Or do they just show the car in a way such that you can't see that there's no driver?
        npunt 8y ago
        I'd assume they'd just use window tint if they're cheap, or the same stuff used in movies to drop actors in if they're not.
    - nathancahill 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ur-whale 8y ago
This is a reaction I see a lot (and used to be tempted to have as well), but it is imo a mistake, grounded in the fact that we tend to think of companies as individuals whom once they've betrayed us, are likely to do so again. Companies like Samsung, while they claim to have a "culture" are, at the end of the day nothing but a large group of ever changing people, whose responsibilities in what the company does is quite often nil even when they are the one making them on the company' behalf. We can't deal with companies with tools nature equipped us with to deal with other humans.
- ilamont 8y ago
  Organizations most definitely have their own cultures including codified practices, management frameworks, and a culture of "X." Patterns of behavior emerge from those cultures, and can lead to success or failure. It's been studied quite extensively - browse HBR.org to see research and theory about this. If you're fortunate, the company you deal with as a customer or employee has a culture that rewards competence and high standards of behavior. If you're not, you as an employee or customer or member of the public may suffer. Look at recent scandals involving Wells Fargo, Uber, police forces in certain cities, and others. Or companies that release crappy or copied products time after time. These aren't cases of "rogue employees" or "isolated cases." It's often a broken culture or one that encourages people to break rules, or even break the law. See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace-culture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace... about how this manifested itself with Uber.
  - ur-whale 8y ago
    This is only true insofar as the company remains small. As soon as it grows, the cultural standards you describe diverge. Google is the perfect example of this, where while they remained at a reasonable size adhered to their cultural standards staunchly. They've grown way past the point where that's sustainable and are now exhibiting the exact same predatory business attitude they swore they wouldn't ever (dragonfly, contracts for the military, systematic and all-encompassing spying on their customers, obvious anti-competitive practice in the android space, shameless support for a specific political party, etc...) That doesn't mean there isn't still some pockets of folks somewhere in there that play by the old rules. It just these business practices can't be wrapped under the "Google culture" umbrella anymore.
folkhack 8y ago
Yep - zero trust is exactly right... I bought a Samsung smart watch for Black Friday for $280-ish. Figured "hey - this will probably have better calendar/application support than my Garmin watch!" Nope. Literally can't get it to vibrate/alert when a notification comes through unless it's through Samsung's SPECIFIC applications. So my HipChat messages, Gmail inbox, etc have ZERO notifications even though it WILL show as a new notification on the watch face. Before anyone gives me crap saying "you screwed up the settings" - trust me, I didn't, and I've tried everything. I learned my lesson - Samsung is a faceless company with zero attention to user experience, and customer support. It is of no surprise that they outright lie about their features - which is EXACTLY what using a DSLR stock photo for this marketing is. An outright lie. I will stick with my Garmin devices from here on-out and am looking to switch ecosystems for my phone as I'm on an S8+ that disgusts me as a user (Bixby, bloatware blah blah). ZERO trust for Samsung.
- 13of40 8y ago
  Heh - I was stuck at Costco getting tires installed the other day and ended up buying one of those watches. My favorite part so far is the Bixby app, which presents itself as a Siri-like assistant that collects all of my contacts and GPS data, because hey, but fails on everything I ask it, including dead simple questions like "Where's the closest Starbucks?"
  - folkhack 8y ago
    I'm just going to take a hammer to it. I know it's unreasonable but I'm that p'd off.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    My assumption is that the Bixby app is the point. It's the only way they can get recurring revenue out of you, the TV is a loss-leader to grease its installation.
- dvlsg 8y ago
  I bought a Samsung phone (S9) over black Friday. Returned it already. Their apps were incredibly heavy handed and invasive. The photo app had a hard coded button on top of my camera viewing area which linked a way to buy things via a samsung app. I was appalled. I also couldn't turn off the Bixby assistant without first making a new Samsung account.
mc32 8y ago
Sometimes mfgs don’t have enough oversight over their creative agencies. Often agencies use interns for these kinds of image search —and things fall through the cracks. Not exculpating the mfgs or agencies just putting it out there that sometimes it’s some poor schlep who ends up holding the bag.
- josho 8y ago
  The poor schlep did what his manager told him to do. The manager used the schlep because he wasn’t given budget to do it right. So, don’t excuse the behaviour the organization enabled it.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    Exactly. Companies have as much oversight on their agencies as they want. The problem is that companies don't care and shady agencies will do whatever is cheap. Every person in person in the chain is culpable here.
  - mattnewton 8y ago
    Can confirm at least that it can be done better than this. I used to work at Apple and you better believe they cared about details like this all the way up the chain. Every photo we used had to come from a marketing-blessed source, all modifications were auditable in source control, and the end result was blessed again by marketing.
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      What source control software did you use for the pictures?
      - paulmd 8y ago
        you could probably version-control a lightroom catalog file... it's binary but you can still check in a binary file.
Mikeb85 8y ago
While Huawei may have cheated that particular phone's photo taking ability, I have a Huawei P20 Pro, and can vouch it's easily the best phone camera I've ever used or seen (it has triple Leica lenses). It doesn't match my Fuji mirrorless camera in some ways, but its shockingly good for a phone.
- thirdsun 8y ago
  Doesn't that render the fake images even more silly? Smartphone cameras are pretty good these days - I don't see the need to fake the results.
trumped 8y ago
Its pretty hard to find a company that never lied in ads
- sametmax 8y ago
  Which says a lot about the state of our legal systems.
  - trumped 8y ago
    a legal system where nobody knows the laws (the attorneys even have to specialize)
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Which is part of the reason why advertising is a cancer on society, and why it shows the ridiculous double standard we have on the societal level about exploiting people we know vs. total strangers.
- mchannon 8y ago
  “Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.” -Thomas Jefferson
  - dllthomas 8y ago
    http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/1289 http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/1289
paulgb 8y ago
> I immediately thought of another recent case of a smartphone manufacturer faking their phone's camera shots[0] (turns out TFA links to it as well). In fact, TFA wrote the earlier article, which suggests a good rule for other companies thinking about doing this: before you buy the stock photo, check if the photographer has called other companies out on doing the exact same thing in the past :)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bryanlarsen 8y ago

You'd write off an entire massive company for the mistakes of Hauwei Egypt or Samsung Malaysia? It's not like this is central company policy, it's the people localizing the marketing.

ancorevard 8y ago
They reflect company values and culture. If this was the first incident, then I would tend to agree with you. But this is just one of a long string of similar incidents that together form a pattern that reflect on the company values.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  >> They reflect company values and culture. If it was from Samsung. This could have come down to a single decision by a very low-level person, or likely a contractor. Samsung's marketing execs dropped the ball in not supervising the campaign properly, but I'm not ready to fault Samsung generally because of a dozen poorly-managed publicity shots. Instead, I judge them by how they react to this mistake. Do they pull the photos or not?
  - wpietri 8y ago
    This sort of thinking on brands is always a puzzle to me. Samsung certainly takes credit for every good thing done by their employees and contractors. Why does a radically different standard apply when they do something bad? Even if it made sense in some light, it's still a bad approach, because it means people with power and money are never held accountable for things that happen on their watch.
    - sandworm101 8y ago
      We hold them to account by not purchasing their products. But we call out the mistake for what it is: underhanded marketing. It isn't like they installed spyware or were handing personal data to foreign governments.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        > But we call out the mistake for what it is: underhanded marketing. Let's call it for what it really is, then: lying in your face, at scale. > We hold them to account by not purchasing their products. Totally agreed. That's one of few ways to send them feedback directly. Other ways would include lawsuits or voting for regulation change. Given that signal here is roughly proportional to amount of lost market share, complaints in this thread are a fully legit, if indirect way, of getting more people to maybe buy less of their products.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 8y ago
      I’ve read the same kind of ‘logic’ applies to lots of situations. People will judge a company or restaurant or whatever more favourably if they correct a mistake to their satisfaction, rather than not making mistakes at all. It’s makes me wonder how many companies are hacking this. Don’t worry about quality past a certain point. Say everything works 95% of the time. After that, just offer a generous returns policy, eg just replace the whole thing. Probability that 2 things are broken is very small, and you just made the customer think you’re better than you are, and it’s cheaper than improving QC. Everyone perceives you to be better than the company with no mistakes. Profit.
      - dnr 8y ago
        It works at a job too: you get more attention rushing in as the hero to fight fires on a system that's blowing up than you do building it so it just works and scales better in the first place.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    Do we know how they reacted to the previous incidents?
jessriedel 8y ago
It seems sufficient to write off any trust you might have in that brand's name on account of the name only. That is, if Samsung's governance can't keep its employees or subsidiaries from lying with its name attached in the past, there's no reason to think they'd be able to do it in the future. This also incentivizes Samsung to police its underlings. Of course, you might have other reasons to like Samsung's stuff (reviews, prior experience), and you might also be stuck trusting no one because all large companies have similar issues (so you're forced to buy from untrusted brands).
amatecha 8y ago
I mean, it was Samsung Brazil last time: https://www.diyphotography.net/samsung-busted-tweeting-stock-photos-to-promote-galaxy-a8-camera/ https://www.diyphotography.net/samsung-busted-tweeting-stock... But, yes. It doesn't take much for me to keep a note in my head "these guys are dishonest". OK, I may not boycott the company entirely, but it drops their perceived ranking in my mind wayyy down... which is exactly the opposite of what marketing is supposed to do, right?
reaperducer 8y ago
I don't see why not. I won't buy a Samsung phone after what I read about its televisions spying on people. I don't care that they're other people in other divisions. If everything is so blissfully separate, then don't have a single brand.
olliej 8y ago
Of course not - except in this case it’s multiple subsidiaries (Brazil, Malaysia, ...) which points to a systemic belief that faking a major feature is acceptable. If you’re going to advertise your camera, and you do it by showing off a photo taken with anything other than the actual camera, that’s fraud.
pavel_lishin 8y ago
How many fuck-ups do you require before writing off a company? Would the entire board have to personally come and shit in your mailbox?
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  The question isn't how many, but the scale of the fuck-up, and what it represents about the company. Maybe 5 people would have known that this ad campaign was using a non-phone-produced photo. Apparently that is enough for you to indict the 300,000+ people who work there.
  - mook 8y ago
    It's not indicting 300,000+ people, it's one person: the chairman of Samsung Electronics for not having set a culture where blatant lying results in negative repercussions.
    - oh_sigh 8y ago
      Did you give him a chance to fire this marketing professional in Malaysia? 299,995/300,000 behave well. 5 people misbehave. Bad culture!
      - pavel_lishin 8y ago
        5 people got caught misbehaving.
      - megy 8y ago
        > 299,995/300,000 behave well. Can you prove that? These guys were caught, does it mean the others just haven't been caught yet? What about the G7 battery explosions? What about the washing machines catching fire? What about last time Samsung faked images? What about when they faked benchmarks?
        aaronbrethorst 8y ago
PascLeRasc 8y ago
We don't owe companies anything. I'm a big proponent of not putting up with shitty design, and after a lot of bad experiences with Microsoft they're dead to me. I don't mind missing out on a good version of Windows sometime in the future, it's not worth dealing with their current awful software. Same goes for Samsung with the permanent Bixby button and Touchwiz UI. I'd rather reward good design like we have on the Google Pixel and iPhone X{'','R','S'} lines.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
Personally, I've written all companies by default. Seeing things like that from both outside and sometimes inside, I came to conclusion that most sales&marketing material is simply full of shit, and unless your company gives me evidence otherwise, I'm assuming anything not casually verifiable is likely to be a lie. Also, RE Samsung vs. Samsung Malaysia, etc. - that's a flip side of having a brand. If you want various groups of people to inherit good reputation from the common pool of a brand, you should also expect they'll all inherit bad reputation too.

mhb 8y ago

Good luck buying a car.

kirykl 8y ago
True many car ads are actually cgi
- danpalmer 8y ago
  Yep, most are. In fact CGI effects studio The Mill have a shell of a car that can expand/contract to fit the proportions of most regular cars, that can record its surrounds enough to build the environment for rendering, and that can be driven in place of the real car when shooting. The car being advertised is then edited in over the top, using the recorded environment to ensure accurate lighting and colours. http://www.themill.com/portfolio/3002/the-blackbird http://www.themill.com/portfolio/3002/the-blackbird
  - jonas21 8y ago
    That's really cool! Here's a video with more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnBC5bwV5y0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnBC5bwV5y0
    - jscissr 8y ago
      I noticed the CGI cars in this clip don't have drivers in them. How would they add a driver for an actual ad? I think cars are much easier than humans to do photo-realistically in CGI. Or do they just show the car in a way such that you can't see that there's no driver?
      - npunt 8y ago
        I'd assume they'd just use window tint if they're cheap, or the same stuff used in movies to drop actors in if they're not.
  - nathancahill 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ur-whale 8y ago

This is a reaction I see a lot (and used to be tempted to have as well), but it is imo a mistake, grounded in the fact that we tend to think of companies as individuals whom once they've betrayed us, are likely to do so again. Companies like Samsung, while they claim to have a "culture" are, at the end of the day nothing but a large group of ever changing people, whose responsibilities in what the company does is quite often nil even when they are the one making them on the company' behalf. We can't deal with companies with tools nature equipped us with to deal with other humans.

ilamont 8y ago
Organizations most definitely have their own cultures including codified practices, management frameworks, and a culture of "X." Patterns of behavior emerge from those cultures, and can lead to success or failure. It's been studied quite extensively - browse HBR.org to see research and theory about this. If you're fortunate, the company you deal with as a customer or employee has a culture that rewards competence and high standards of behavior. If you're not, you as an employee or customer or member of the public may suffer. Look at recent scandals involving Wells Fargo, Uber, police forces in certain cities, and others. Or companies that release crappy or copied products time after time. These aren't cases of "rogue employees" or "isolated cases." It's often a broken culture or one that encourages people to break rules, or even break the law. See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace-culture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace... about how this manifested itself with Uber.
- ur-whale 8y ago
  This is only true insofar as the company remains small. As soon as it grows, the cultural standards you describe diverge. Google is the perfect example of this, where while they remained at a reasonable size adhered to their cultural standards staunchly. They've grown way past the point where that's sustainable and are now exhibiting the exact same predatory business attitude they swore they wouldn't ever (dragonfly, contracts for the military, systematic and all-encompassing spying on their customers, obvious anti-competitive practice in the android space, shameless support for a specific political party, etc...) That doesn't mean there isn't still some pockets of folks somewhere in there that play by the old rules. It just these business practices can't be wrapped under the "Google culture" umbrella anymore.

folkhack 8y ago

Yep - zero trust is exactly right... I bought a Samsung smart watch for Black Friday for $280-ish. Figured "hey - this will probably have better calendar/application support than my Garmin watch!" Nope. Literally can't get it to vibrate/alert when a notification comes through unless it's through Samsung's SPECIFIC applications. So my HipChat messages, Gmail inbox, etc have ZERO notifications even though it WILL show as a new notification on the watch face. Before anyone gives me crap saying "you screwed up the settings" - trust me, I didn't, and I've tried everything. I learned my lesson - Samsung is a faceless company with zero attention to user experience, and customer support. It is of no surprise that they outright lie about their features - which is EXACTLY what using a DSLR stock photo for this marketing is. An outright lie. I will stick with my Garmin devices from here on-out and am looking to switch ecosystems for my phone as I'm on an S8+ that disgusts me as a user (Bixby, bloatware blah blah). ZERO trust for Samsung.

13of40 8y ago
Heh - I was stuck at Costco getting tires installed the other day and ended up buying one of those watches. My favorite part so far is the Bixby app, which presents itself as a Siri-like assistant that collects all of my contacts and GPS data, because hey, but fails on everything I ask it, including dead simple questions like "Where's the closest Starbucks?"
- folkhack 8y ago
  I'm just going to take a hammer to it. I know it's unreasonable but I'm that p'd off.
- rhizome 8y ago
  My assumption is that the Bixby app is the point. It's the only way they can get recurring revenue out of you, the TV is a loss-leader to grease its installation.
dvlsg 8y ago
I bought a Samsung phone (S9) over black Friday. Returned it already. Their apps were incredibly heavy handed and invasive. The photo app had a hard coded button on top of my camera viewing area which linked a way to buy things via a samsung app. I was appalled. I also couldn't turn off the Bixby assistant without first making a new Samsung account.

mc32 8y ago

Sometimes mfgs don’t have enough oversight over their creative agencies. Often agencies use interns for these kinds of image search —and things fall through the cracks. Not exculpating the mfgs or agencies just putting it out there that sometimes it’s some poor schlep who ends up holding the bag.

josho 8y ago
The poor schlep did what his manager told him to do. The manager used the schlep because he wasn’t given budget to do it right. So, don’t excuse the behaviour the organization enabled it.
- wpietri 8y ago
  Exactly. Companies have as much oversight on their agencies as they want. The problem is that companies don't care and shady agencies will do whatever is cheap. Every person in person in the chain is culpable here.
- mattnewton 8y ago
  Can confirm at least that it can be done better than this. I used to work at Apple and you better believe they cared about details like this all the way up the chain. Every photo we used had to come from a marketing-blessed source, all modifications were auditable in source control, and the end result was blessed again by marketing.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    What source control software did you use for the pictures?
    - paulmd 8y ago
      you could probably version-control a lightroom catalog file... it's binary but you can still check in a binary file.

Mikeb85 8y ago

While Huawei may have cheated that particular phone's photo taking ability, I have a Huawei P20 Pro, and can vouch it's easily the best phone camera I've ever used or seen (it has triple Leica lenses). It doesn't match my Fuji mirrorless camera in some ways, but its shockingly good for a phone.

thirdsun 8y ago
Doesn't that render the fake images even more silly? Smartphone cameras are pretty good these days - I don't see the need to fake the results.

trumped 8y ago

Its pretty hard to find a company that never lied in ads

sametmax 8y ago
Which says a lot about the state of our legal systems.
- trumped 8y ago
  a legal system where nobody knows the laws (the attorneys even have to specialize)
TeMPOraL 8y ago
Which is part of the reason why advertising is a cancer on society, and why it shows the ridiculous double standard we have on the societal level about exploiting people we know vs. total strangers.
mchannon 8y ago
“Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.” -Thomas Jefferson
- dllthomas 8y ago
  http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/1289 http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/1289

paulgb 8y ago

> I immediately thought of another recent case of a smartphone manufacturer faking their phone's camera shots[0] (turns out TFA links to it as well). In fact, TFA wrote the earlier article, which suggests a good rule for other companies thinking about doing this: before you buy the stock photo, check if the photographer has called other companies out on doing the exact same thing in the past :)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]