4 ms·

Uh yeah, especially on the 4. Tineye shows they're stock photos, which seems incredibly shady because you know the quotes are totally fabricated as well. This s

Uh yeah, especially on the 4. Tineye shows they're stock photos, which seems incredibly shady because you know the quotes are totally fabricated as well. This seems very opportunistic, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but opportunism + shadiness is a bad look.

pvg 7y ago
They're generic usage scenarios and clearly intended as such. I can see how someone might find this off-putting or unappealing but calling it 'shady' is a bit overwrought. There's no intent to deceive here.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  >They're generic usage scenarios and clearly intended as such. Based on what? I assumed they were real users because there was no indication otherwise. This is why we have words like "actor portrayal" displayed at the bottom of our screens when a person makes a claim about using a product and it's actually just a person reading a script.
  - pvg 7y ago
    Based on, I dunno, browsing the web? Seeing an occasional TV ad on an airport TV? I don't think it's quality stuff or anything but if you found these confusing, I suppose we move in entirely different media environments. Edit: And, of course, it's also a typical way we often talk about generic scenarios outside of advertising. Alice and Bob are not real people trying to establish secure communications. There is no specific Johnny who can't read, etc.
- irl_zebra 7y ago
  The quotes next to them make it strongly seem like they're real people endorsing the product. Coupled with this "Show HN" post, one would think they're genuine people. If this were some corporate blog, I would disagree.
  - pvg 7y ago
    I don't see quotes, just descriptions. They're quite obviously stock photos. This sort of thing is common on all sorts of product pages, tv advertising, etc. It's not my favourite practice and I do think it gives off a kind of low-rent vibe. But it's not intentional deception and is well in-line with typical phoned-in marketing.

pvg 7y ago

They're generic usage scenarios and clearly intended as such. I can see how someone might find this off-putting or unappealing but calling it 'shady' is a bit overwrought. There's no intent to deceive here.

alasdair_ 7y ago
>They're generic usage scenarios and clearly intended as such. Based on what? I assumed they were real users because there was no indication otherwise. This is why we have words like "actor portrayal" displayed at the bottom of our screens when a person makes a claim about using a product and it's actually just a person reading a script.
- pvg 7y ago
  Based on, I dunno, browsing the web? Seeing an occasional TV ad on an airport TV? I don't think it's quality stuff or anything but if you found these confusing, I suppose we move in entirely different media environments. Edit: And, of course, it's also a typical way we often talk about generic scenarios outside of advertising. Alice and Bob are not real people trying to establish secure communications. There is no specific Johnny who can't read, etc.
irl_zebra 7y ago
The quotes next to them make it strongly seem like they're real people endorsing the product. Coupled with this "Show HN" post, one would think they're genuine people. If this were some corporate blog, I would disagree.
- pvg 7y ago
  I don't see quotes, just descriptions. They're quite obviously stock photos. This sort of thing is common on all sorts of product pages, tv advertising, etc. It's not my favourite practice and I do think it gives off a kind of low-rent vibe. But it's not intentional deception and is well in-line with typical phoned-in marketing.