Nokia Shows Off Lumia 920's Video Capabilities By Using A Camera Not Included In The Phone

Listen, companies, if you want to sell us stuff, we’ve got to trust that you’re representing your products honestly. Which makes this a good time to call out Nokia for doing just the opposite of that, by faking video footage purportedly shot on its new Lumia 920 in an ad bragging about how awesome the phone’s camera is. Yeah, it’s awesome — because it was shot with a professional camera.

In the ad spot, Nokia touts the smartphone’s fantastic image stabilization capability called “PureView” in a scene where a man on a bike films his female biking companion, first with the feature on and then with it off. Holy wow and sweet smokin’ aces, what an improvement it makes!

But there’s no such thing as pulling a fast one on the Internet, where the tech blogosphere quickly called Nokia out over the reflection of a white van in a parked RVs window. Said van had a professional camera rigged up to shoot was supposed to be coming from the man’s phone.

Nokia is apologizing in a blog post for what it calls “confusion” but what many others are calling just plain lying.

“In an effort to demonstrate the benefits of optical image stabilization (which eliminates blurry images and improves pictures shot in low light conditions), we produced a video that simulates what we will be able to deliver with OIS,” wrote Nokia spokeswoman Heidi Lemmetyinen. “We should have posted a disclaimer stating this was a representation of OIS only. This was not shot with a Lumia 920,” she added. “We apologize for the confusion we created.”

Below is first the original ad (with an added “simulation” disclaimer), followed by a new video that is supposed to be actual footage from the phone, if Nokia can be believed this time.

Nokia admits faking video for new Lumia smartphone [FoxNews]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. crispyduck13 says:

    Nokia, I love you, but you done fucked up here.

    • UberGeek says:

      Come on, “No rational person expects fast food, or any restaurant meal, to look exactly like the promotional photos.” Oh wait, wrong article…

  2. valkyrievf2x says:

    And then they wonder why there is no consumer confidence, lol. Seems like it is better to be a cynic about all the companies out there than to trust any of them…

    And you know, if they actually fessed up to the fact they were lying, I’d probably let it go. But now, errrr, no.

    • axhandler1 says:

      That’s exactly what I was thinking. I’d be much less upset about this (not that I’m very upset) if they had just stepped up and taken responsibility for it. “Yeah, ok, we were trying to put one over on you guys. You caught us. Sorry.”

  3. Hi_Hello says:

    Helmet?

  4. Lethe says:

    Does the ad actually say that it was shot with the camera? If not, then I don’t see it as such a huge problem. Other camera commercials (one I can think of off hand was a Cannon SLR) made a big point of saying that the commercial was shot with the camera being advertised. Unless they said that, I wouldn’t make the assumption.

    • valkyrievf2x says:

      But wouldn’t that constitute fraud or false advertising? They are advertising the product as being able to do that. If you buy it, but it doesn’t do that, sounds like a case of fraud to me…

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      But the video shows a side-to-side comparison of OIS Off/On. Come on! How could anyone, anywhere, ever, in the history of existance, not think they are trying to show what the advertised camera is doing with a feature on and off.

      • GitEmSteveDaveHatesChange says:

        Perhaps if they MENTIONED the name of the camera/phone being used, you’d be correct. But no, they are advertising the TECHNOLOGY.

        • George4478 says:

          Maybe if they changed the part where they write ‘THIS IS LUMIA’ in big ol’ letters across the screen.

          Because it is not.

  5. Sarek says:

    Confusion my ass. Paging the FTC…

  6. YouDidWhatNow? says:

    I’d like to inform the world that I just had sex with Jessica Alba.

    …well, actually it was a different woman. What I was trying to get across was a simulation of what it *would* be like to have sex with Jessica Alba.

    I apologize for any confusion.

  7. PragmaticGuy says:

    By the way, after they introduced their new phones yesterday the stock still went down 13% to $1.99 euros. Investors thought the phones weren’t good enough to beat the new ones that will be coming from Samsung and Apple and didn’t think that market share would increase.

    • YouDidWhatNow? says:

      Yeah, and investors are never wrong. Like everyone who bought Facebook.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        The difference is that the investors in Facebook have no actual say in their investment.

        • YouDidWhatNow? says:

          Depends. I know of a few individuals who were dim enough to personally put their own money in that black hole.

    • TuxthePenguin says:

      That’s also because the operating system of their new phones isn’t even out to developers yet. Kind of hard to sell a Windows Phone 8 without the Windows Phone 8 operating system.

    • GodfreyOriole says:

      THe problem is that they did not introduce a release date. It could come out next june for all we know. Thats why the stock went down.

  8. someoneinwa says:

    First of all Consumerist folks, this was not an “ad.” We all know what “ads” are, right? This was a promotional video teasing the release of a new technology. The teaser was posted to the web prior to the announcement of the product containing the technology, and made no claims about the product itself. At that point, I don’t believe any type of disclaimer was necessary. After the announcement of the product containing the technology, the Lumia 920, Nokia should have put a disclaimer on the video as they’ve admitted. Or, better still, they should have taken down the teaser and replaced it with a comparison video shot with the actual product. The second video shown above is shot with the phone, but I know Consumerist wouldn’t want to let a good snark opportunity pass by.

  9. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    At the very least, the 2nd video looks more like the capabilities of a layman’s camera rather than a professional one.

  10. eturowski says:

    0:27, in case you were wondering when to look for the blooper.

  11. axolotl says:

    *screen images simulated
    I’ve seen this on so many commercials this kind of thing is not at all a surprise.

    • cyberpenguin says:

      They only added the “screen images simulated” after they were called out on it.

      Before they were caught it only had the “This is Lumia” and “OIS On/Off” text.

  12. donovanr says:

    Once Nokia did a deal with Microsoft their days were instantly numbered. Does Nokia think that MS will allow them to keep any profit if the phone is a success? If it isn’t then Nokia will be blamed. And if MS decides to make their own phone or do a deal with someone else they will tell Nokia to lose their number in an instant. MS has done a deal with a European phone manufacture before and it couldn’t have gone much worse for everyone involved.

    Best of all Nokia owned a great company called Trolltech that would have been ideal to win a pile of programmers over to the new system. But Nokia tossed them aside leaving programmers like me to continue to ignore all things MS which means ignoring the new MS based phones.

  13. Plasmafox says:

    O i(t)s on. It’s definitely on.

  14. quail20 says:

    I read earlier this week that their stock dropped like 15% on news that their next phone was a Windows phone. Wonder what this little scandal did.

    Love Nokia. Even like the one Windows phone I had my hands on at a store last year. But investors aren’t keen on them and don’t see that big of a market.

  15. Billy C says:

    This reminds me of the bullcrap I saw Sony pulling with their high refresh rate displays in Best Buy (yes I *gasp* bought a TV at best buy recently, a cheap one). The one half of the screen shows what their screen runs at 240 hertz (admittedly very nice), and the other half is allegedly what you see on “competitors’ 60 hertz screens”. Except the 60 hertz screen is extremely choppy only running about 5 or 6 frames per second. That is not an accurate representation of a standard 60hz screen. The TV I bought is one of said competitors’ 60hz screens and it is infinitely better than what Sony claimed. It would be like McDonald’s straight up saying Burger King’s food will give you cancer.

  16. udsaxman says:

    The one riding the bikes almost looks like it was done with a steadycam.

  17. Press1forDialTone says:

    It isn’t about the truth, it’s about the money. When you try to get one with a camera,
    upsell immediately follows.

  18. Kisses4Katie says:

    Damn this chick is annoying. Is this what the kids do now with their smart phone thingamajigs? Hop around and look stupid?