When will people learn that there's more to a JPEG than a pretty picture.
Huawei is under fire after admitting a photo it supposedly took with one of its phones was actually snapped using an expensive digital camera. The (since deleted) image was posted to Huawei's Google+ page and was presented as having been taken with the P9, an Android-equipped smartphone that carries a pair of on-board 12Mp …
I would have thought they would have scrubbed that or edited it out... ;-)
But still, it pales in comparison to the Lumina 1020. Sure the OS was for shit, but that camera was the best and still not rivaled by today's phones. I have shots taken with the 1020 that rival digital SLR cameras. The only difference is that with a camera phone its easy to get some skew because its harder to keep the phone perpendicular to the subject. I have on my wall a couple of 8x10s taken from the phone. (One of which is a cropped image that was a smaller portion of the original shot.)
At 12mp, there should be no excuse not to show off the phone's ability to take pictures.
False advertising is IMO bearing false witness before the public: a serious breach of trust. That should be a criminal offense punishable by an outright ban to sell products in the country for a category and period to be determined by the judiciary (say, no phones for 90 days in this case since it's for a product just released, meaning it's an attempt to lie to encourage sales). If it weren't for the fact businesses can bribe legislators, we could have corporate policing laws with teeth: capable of seriously stinging bottom lines and putting even executives in jail for malfeasance under their watch.
@AC actually the rebate is applied *before* we pay the EU. With subsidies that £350m is then further reduced to approx £69m per week. As the UK is one of the richest countries in the EU I actually have no issue with this, for the same reason I have no issues with my taxes paid in Oxfordshire going towards regeneration programs in Liverpool, or Wales.
I have no issues with my taxes paid in Oxfordshire going towards regeneration programs in Liverpool, or Wales.
I have no issue with my taxes paid in Liverpool going towards regeneration programmes in London.
Enjoy the Olympic legacy. Love from the rest of the country.
@AC actually the rebate is applied *before* we pay the EU.
Not, it isn't. £55m per day before the rebate, which is £385m/week. With a rebate of £5bn/year, or around £100m/week the net after the rebate is £280-£250m/week.
There are, of course, other ways that money is returned to the UK via grants, so overall the UK gets back about 2/3 of what it pays in. Those are figures from pro-remain sources.
@POS No, the rebate is applied immediately so we don't send £350m per week, we send the lower £250m per week and then get subsidies back. This was made very clear in the Remain campaign. Please stop with the misleading figures.
For more see here https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ with nice graphics
Rather telling that table. Just as an example a small country like Finland is almost twice worse off than UK when looking at %GNI (and their's has kept going up unlike UK which looks to have almost halved from 2014 to 2014) .
Given the boast of world's nth largest economy it really is paying a pittance.
So really it looks like its mostly Germany, Sweden and Finland paying up for everyone (proportionally speaking of course).
Disclaimer: Yes of course this is kind of trolling, but the figures are interesting.
Except for one thing: The UK government has no say in how the money that comes back from the EU is spent. It is returned by the EU to be spent on what the EU stipulates. Including such worthy causes as supporting the impoverished owners of farmland, paid by the hectare for simply owning that land, regardless of whether it is used to produce any food.
It was entirely accurate to say that removing the strings attached to how that money is spent then the UK govt. could - potentially - choose instead to spend it on whatever it likes (or more accurately, what it is voted into office to spend it on). It was rash to suggest that it would ALL go onto any one thing since realistically this would then be a matter for the civil service to decide how the money is actually best spent, once they have the power to make such decisions.
But they could, in theory, then decide to spend it all on the NHS.
As for your own reconciliation with paying tax, consider that you pay your taxes and then crucially get to vote in electing a government to spends those taxes across the UK.
Apart, of course, from that part of the tax which is handed over to the EU, the spending of which is entirely removed from any influence of your or anyone else's vote (democratic vote that is - there may be some **internal** voting involved in how the EU apparatchiks reach their policy decisions regarding the distribution of your money).
Not just truth in advertising: ABSOLUTE truth in advertising: Patrician-style. Everything verifiable, conservative/typical claims only, and so on. It's time to put the Sixth Amendment to advertising: the truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth, so help you (Insert $DEITY here).
I don't know why the author thinks this is no too bad. It's outright crookedness and their excuses are just more lies. They could have just admitted fault and regretted the error and said it should never have happened. It was not just the exif - the reason people looked for the exif was that the image had characteristics of a larger sensor image.
To be fair, the people involved in posting to their social media accounts are probably either too young, too coked, too technologically imparied (or a combination of all three) to have intentionally misled.
Another company comes a cropper for not having proper social media controls in place. Too caught up in the coolness of it all.
In our previous press release, the comment:
"The photo, which was professionally taken while filming a Huawei P9 advert, was shared to inspire our community,"
should have read:
"The photo, which was professionally taken while filming a Huawei P9 advert, was shared to deceive our community into thinking it was taken with our phone,"
Why is China: Criminal Nation, still a scam hole? I know perfectly well there are great, brilliant and creative people in China. Then this scam garbage happens day after day, wrecking the country's reputation all over again, day after day. It's ridiculous. When will this country cast off the self-destructive garbage of its culture, grow up and join those of us who know how to be honest, positive and self-constructive? I'm sick of expecting the worst from China! Stop enabling my low opinion!
What a rubbish article. Lacking on details and misleading as week as having another jibe at google+.
For one thing, the post by huawei was posted to Google+, Facebook and Twitter but Google+ is the only social media network that doesn't compress photos and retains the ability of its users to view the exif info.
Secondly, the text in the post doesn't specifically say that the photo was taken using a P9, but it is implied. Why did you not include what Huawei actually said in the post?
Thirdly, it wasn't Android police that uncovered it, but a couple of saavy Google+ users (we are legion) including myself that tagged a few people in the media to alert them of the deception. If you had have included a screenshot, it would have shown that.
Fourthly, if you really were wanting to grow your audience, targeted posting to Google+ would be the way to do it.
Fifthly, as Mike Elgan points out, the same post on Facebook and Twitter was met with a positive response, and concludes that Google+ are the most intelligent, saavy people in the world. Google+ is somewhere that intelligent people can have intellectual conversations without resorting to the hate and mud slinging of twitter, and there is the ability to speak to each other in long form.
Seventhly, thanks for reading to the end, this article appeared in my Google Now feed, you'll see me over on Google+.
It wouldn't be a true El Reg article if it didn't bite a little - Google+ was the victim (as a less followed marketing vector) this time (beyond Huawei).
While Huawei may have avoided to tell explicitly the photo was taken with a P9, the wording was carefully crafted to make people believe it. Which makes you think they were fully aware of the photo true source.
They were caught with their pants down, and marketdroids newspeak ("The #HuaweiP9’s dual Leica cameras makes taking photos in low light conditions like this a pleasure. Reinvent smartphone photography and share your sunrise pictures with us") was easily available following the link.
Moreover it already appeared in News Bytes (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/05/huawei_promo_photo_goof/)
Companies regularly advertise their newest game by using cinema quality CGI 'game footage' but at least they put these words at the bottom:
Not actual gameplay
The food industry too, bright colourful pictures of perfectly presented food on the box but when you actually open up the box... IMHO the person who takes the photograph of the food should be forced to eat it afterwards, that way they won't use all sort of tricks like hairspray to make the food look good.
Ever since Forza Motorsport started intruding into Gran Turismo's territory, there's been a push for more honest gameplay advertising in order to influence buyers looking for the best actual in-game experience (or they end up returning the game). The latest Forza installments generally display "Actual Gameplay Footage" captions for their ads.
PS. Some of they tricks food advertisers use are food-safe (certain oils, different recipes, and so on), meaning ad models could safely eat many models. What you need is a way to verify the product is actual product from the line, probably brought in by an unknown source to reduce the odds of tampering.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019