6 posts • joined 15 May 2007
Conditions apply, but please don't read them
Same thing with Terms & Conditions printed in grey mouse-type on your junk mail. Or scrolling Agree/Disagree online T&Cs. Or "see website". Or the lines at the foot of billboards that you'd need a telescope to decipher.
No-one* reads them.
So the question is: do the regulators really care about us punters? Or are they more interested in covering their behinds?
More effective (and honest) would be to insist that advertisers include all essential details in their main messages, with a ban on small print. And if that would take a 2-minute radio spot or a super-size billboard to explain, then the product is probably too complicated anyway.
Not to worry for now, though: just shove all the negative stuff in an unreadable/inaudible footnote and everyone** is happy.
* In the alternative universe of the asterisk, "no-one" can of course mean "some people". OK?
** Except the rest of us.
Speakers don't float my boat
"Speakers either side of the telly are attached to the screen’s frame by thin Perspex bars at the top and bottom of the set, which makes the audio bars appear as though they’re floating beside the screen."
No it doesn't. It makes the audio bars appear as though they're attached to the screen’s frame by thin Perspex bars at the top and bottom of the set – see photo.
Someone's falling for the hype.
Stylish, exclusive and, indeed, precision-engineered. Just three of the adjectives I’d use to describe this delicious assault on the world’s wealthiest dimwits. First, let’s extract £12,600 from their wallets. Then place in their hands an objet of amusingly provincial “good taste”. And finally, we’ll fill it with less-than-leading-edge mobile phone technology that we’d rather not dwell on in any detail because it can probably be obtained elsewhere for, oh, 1/100th the price.
Plus a rather splendid box.
Hat’s off to the perpetrators – you are vertual Gods.
Re: C is redundant
And what precisely is "TLA" ?
EWTAA – Enough With The Acronyms Already!
Title Is "smallest mobile" too big a claim?
"Smallest" seems to refer to frontal area only. My Nokia measures some 10.5 x 4.3 x 1.1cm (thick) for a volume of 49.6 cu cm. That means even less pocket-strain than the Elegance at 57.3 cu cm. OK, my Nokia is nearly half as heavy again, but the "size" claim here looks somewhat dubious I'd say.