Still cannot believe they didn't foresee the PR shitstorm they would create by faking the original pictures. Especially since the actual camera is pretty damn decent.
That's the thing. If the camera is anything near what they were claiming, they didn't need to fake the pictures. The reason you fake pictures (or setup unrealistic test conditions) is to make your product look better than it actually is.
But the decided to, reportedly because the software wasn't ready. Not only was the camera actually that good, but they faked it to make a paper launch, where they didn't even announce a release date.
"If the camera is anything near what they were claiming, they didn't need to fake the pictures"
They need, at the end of the day, it is a phone stabilization. Nothing compared with a real $200 video camera from Sony yet.
The Iphone technology in the works could be better than that, don't forget that this camera is just a prototype in the lab. In fact they are telling the competition when their puck is going to be.
Supposedly, `There is no such thing as bad publicity' [1]. In case of Nokia's recent phones, I agree wholeheartedly -- we wouldn't have heard of Lumia 920 on HN if it wasn't for the faked ad and resulting chatter in the blogosphere.
