← Back to context

Comment by rendaw

1 day ago

The carousel 2nd image appears to have erased the camera to make it fit the marketing narrative? That's pretty bold.

It's the top image on the product page: https://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/

I would assume, however, that they didn't "fake" it - that they instead chose a filming position and lens such that camera was obscured behind the edge of the device (the edge facing the viewer is the far side from the camera). Bit of trickery for sure though.

  • > I would assume, however, that they didn't "fake" it - that they instead chose a filming position and lens such that camera was obscured behind the edge of the device

    I’d suspect the same. From that angle, the camera bump is on the opposite edge; when I hold my iPad Air in the same position, the camera bump is also just about hidden.

    That being said, I’d also suspect that Apple chose that angle deliberately.

  • Is that a real video or cgi? The motion reminds me of motion tweening.

    • Historically, Apple used real photos and video for marketing material, only lit and polished to perfection to create a sort of hyper-real effect. Nowadays, who knows.

The usual narrative is that Apple are meticulous, therefore it is only proper that we assume they did this on purpose.

  • I wonder if at this point a camera bump is too closely associated with quality.

    A minimal camera bump means they've advanced the technology to make it small, but no camera bump makes it look like they're using a cheaper camera?

woah - that's pretty shocking to me actually. in the past they generally have just used flattering angles. This is downright deception.

  • This is literally just a flattering angle. Not saying it's not deceptive, but they didn't "edit" the camera bump out of the image.

  • I presume it is a flattering angle instead of a falsified image. The camera bump is near the one large button, which was furthest from the camera when they rotate it, so the iPad could have been angled slightly to hide the bump. Maybe someone can try to reproduce it after it comes out to see if it is a false image.

It always reminds me of the imac from 15 or so years ago when they were touting how thin the imac was.

In reality the back was curved, and they took pictures from an angle that only showed off the edge of the screen and not how far back it curved

  • > In reality the back was curved, and they took pictures from an angle that only showed off the edge of the screen and not how far back it curved

    You only see the thickness at the back from an angle where you can't actually use the computer (and for many people, that whole angle is going to be against the wall). This is the good kind of design - making something appear beautiful without compromising the core function.

    I'm distinctly less convinced about ever-thinner mobile devices that I immediately have to slap a case on...

    • The older iMacs that were the same thickness all the way across, they still looked good. Except they were some of the best machines to service. Literally two screws in the bottom, the whole thing split in half, and your hard drive, memory and other components were right there. I worked on tons of them and they were fantastic. It saved people money in the long run when they needed an upgrade because it took less time. Even replacing the screen or logic board in them was a piece of cake.