Shortly after Nokia’s press event, in which the Finnish company revealed their latest flagship device, the Lumia 920, they also released a commercial showing of the smartphone’s new optical image stabilization (OIS) technology. In the commercial we’re shown a young man and woman riding bicycles, with the man video taping the woman with his Lumia 920. Later, the camera changes to show the viewers what the technology looks like on and off through the lens of the smartphone. However, while filming, the female rides in front of a trailer with a window, which show her reflection, but instead of the male bikers reflection, viewers see a professional photographer using a large SLR camera under his arm inside a van. Some fans were outraged that Nokia would falsely advertise the capabilities of their phone.
Nokia, realizing they’d been caught, issued the following
PR damage control apology:
An apology is due
Published by Heidi Lemmetyinen on September 6, 2012
We’re excited about the Lumia 920 and the ground-breaking PureView imaging capabilities we announced today.
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.
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.
We are looking forward to bringing the Lumia 920, with PureView optical image stabilization to select markets later this year.
Here is the video shown at the press conference shot using a Lumia 920. On the right is a Lumia 920 prototype with OIS. On the left is a smartphone without OIS. The difference is apparent.
Here’s the original ad with the “mistake, ” click pause at :26 seconds and move the slider slowly to :27 seconds to see the moment the internet is all up in arms about.
So what is your opinion? Is Nokia guilty of false advertising or is this just a simply mistake?