●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
64531981
story
Posted
by
Soulskill
eptember 16, 2014 @02:10PM
from the truthiness-in-advertising dept.
Sockatume writes: If you've been browsing Apple's site leading up to the iPhone 6 launch, you might've noticed something a little odd. Apple has edited the handset's protruding camera out of every single side-on view of the phone. (The camera is, necessarily, retained for images showing the back of the device.) The absence is particularly conspicuous given the number of side views Apple uses to emphasize the device's thinness.
You may like to read:
New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance
Astronomers Find Star-Within-a-Star, 40 Years After First Theorized
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bymarcello_dl ( 667940 ) writes:
"Is that a camera protruding from your back or are you happy to see me?"
twitter
facebook
byviperidaenz ( 2515578 ) writes:
Wow, that's an impressive 1mm camera.
bymarcello_dl ( 667940 ) writes:
Sorry I haven't heard the original, Italians dub it better.
byblueshift_1 ( 3692407 ) writes:
Meh, most people will put a big, thick case on it and it won't even matter.
twitter
facebook
byjellomizer ( 103300 ) writes:
Exactly, I am not sure why Apple tries so hard to make their device so thin.
Thin cost money, the more it cost the thicker case you will want to put on it to protect it.
bymrchaotica ( 681592 ) * writes:
My Nexus 5 is pretty thin. I don't use a case with it. The screen has not broken. I haven't gone out of my way to be especially careful with it, either.
It's just not that damn hard to use a phone without breaking it, unless you're ridiculously careless.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bynine-times ( 778537 ) writes:
I don't know how their design people allowed a protruding lens in the first place. It really runs contrary to Apple's design sensibility, but I guess we're seeing the first evidence of what happens to Apple without Jobs. The protrusion is ugly, and it mars the flat, smooth design.
And for what? Assuming that they can't make the camera any thinner, make the phone slightly fatter, and make use of the extra space. It's not as though the iPhone 5 was obscenely thick and needed to be made thinner. Hell, just fill the rest of the thing out with additional battery, and give us more battery life.
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
I think only the 6+ has a protruding lens and that's only because it has image stabilization. I don't think the basic 6 lens protrudes. This was mentioned in the keynote....
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
I think only the 6+ has a protruding lens and that's only because it has image stabilization. I don't think the basic 6 lens protrudes. This was mentioned in the keynote....
LOL. How did this get modded up? It's bullshit. The iPhone 6 also has a protruding lens.
byexomondo ( 1725132 ) writes:
The six has a flat back, Mr. Always Corrected.
No it doesn't, not according to Apple's website [apple.com] - see the bit where they compare thickness - the smaller 6 clearly has the protruding lens. Also you can quite clearly see it in engadget's hands on [engadget.com] video.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) writes:
I think this is the only explanation that's needed, but people will write 500+ comments bitching about it, 250 flames from Fandroids and 250 Apple-cannot-do-wrong from Appleboys.
bymacs4all ( 973270 ) writes:
I don't know how their design people allowed a protruding lens in the first place. It really runs contrary to Apple's design sensibility, but I guess we're seeing the first evidence of what happens to Apple without Jobs. The protrusion is ugly, and it mars the flat, smooth design.
And for what? Assuming that they can't make the camera any thinner, make the phone slightly fatter, and make use of the extra space. It's not as though the iPhone 5 was obscenely thick and needed to be made thinner. Hell, just fill the rest of the thing out with additional battery, and give us more battery life.
Well, you know what they say:
"You can never be too rich, or too thin; or have too much protruding bulge..."
bymeloneg ( 101248 ) writes:
It really runs contrary to Apple's design sensibility, but I guess we're seeing the first evidence of what happens to Apple without Jobs.
No the polka-dot hole case for the 5c was the first (overwhelming) evidence of what happens (this time) to Apple without Jobs.
byRob_Bryerton ( 606093 ) writes:
...and the trash-can Mac Pro. And the useless watch.
bydavid_thornley ( 598059 ) writes:
After predicting the iPad was going to fizzle (heck, I predicted that this web thing would never get real popular), I'm reserving opinion on the watch.
byBarlo_Mung_42 ( 411228 ) writes:
If they'd just made it as thick as the camera it still would have been thin enough and they may have been room to add a bit more battery juice.
Classic crApple form over function BS.
byTheaetetus ( 590071 ) writes:
And for what? Assuming that they can't make the camera any thinner, make the phone slightly fatter, and make use of the extra space. It's not as though the iPhone 5 was obscenely thick and needed to be made thinner. Hell, just fill the rest of the thing out with additional battery, and give us more battery life.
Although I agree and would rather have the additional battery, most people put their phones in a case, which adds some thickness... The lens will protrude into the case cross-sectional region, allowing the overall phone+protruding-lens+case to be thinner than a thicker-phone+flat-lens+case.
bynine-times ( 778537 ) writes:
Yeah, I guess it's not so bad if you assume that you're going to have a case, and that the case thickness will result in a flat back to the whole thing. I hadn't really thought of that.
Still, I think it's a bad choice. It seems kind of dumb to design your product with the idea that the dumb design won't be quite so dumb if you also buy a case.
byDins ( 2538550 ) writes:
I don't know how their design people allowed a protruding lens in the first place. It really runs contrary to Apple's design sensibility, but I guess we're seeing the first evidence of what happens to Apple without Jobs. The protrusion is ugly, and it mars the flat, smooth design.
The 5th generation iPod Touch (most recent, I believe) has a protruding lens which sticks out about 1 mm also. That came out about 2 years ago, and I have one. The protrusion is just enough to be annoying if you don't use a case.
byhey! ( 33014 ) writes:
I don't think you've really grasped Apple's design sensibility. Job one for the designers is to deliver a product that consumers want but can't get anywhere else.
The "camera bulge" may be a huge blunder, or it may be just a tempest in a teapot. The real test will be the user's reactions when they hold the device in their hand, or see it in another user's hand. If the reaction is "I want it", the designers have done their job. If it's "Holy cow, look at that camera bulge," then it's a screw-up.
The thinnes
byeladts ( 1712916 ) writes:
You're looking at it wrong!
twitter
facebook
bydenzacar ( 181829 ) writes:
Photos are taken from a wrong angle due to someone holding the phone wrong.
After all... It's the word of Steve. A known benefactor of humanity, through past [www.dmc.tv] and future incarnations [www.dmc.tv] as an Earth Sprite.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Apple could literal curve their logo into a dried turd and people climb all over each other to buy it.
byRonin Developer ( 67677 ) writes:
Yes, the "bulge" is clearly photoshopped out. I can only suspect the reason is that they want to show that the rest of the phone...the 95+% of the surface area is the stated thickness. During the keynote, the "bulge" was discussed. They could have shown the whole side view and position arrows or other marks to indicate the thickness. But, frankly, that would have been ugly, wouldn't it? Certainly, not Apple's way.
Now, iPhone / Apple fans aren't going to care that Apple marketers took this liberty with t
bySolandri ( 704621 ) writes:
Now, iPhone / Apple fans aren't going to care that Apple marketers took this liberty with the images - they are going to buy it regardless.
Only those who want to find fault with Apple, for whatever reason, give a rat's ass that Apple might engage as something so underhanded as to photoshop out the "bulge" to clarify their marketing point.
What IS more interesting is how much attention Android fans are giving to something which they claim no interest in owning.
Personally, I don't care about it. The only issue I have with it is that in the past, Apple fans have criticized my Android phone for having a protruding camera lens. Now when the iPhone has the same, suddenly it doesn't matter to them?
See, that's the difference. You think it's about the device. It's not. It's about consistency, honesty, and hypocrisy. Same reason people were upset Apple photoshopped images of the Galaxy Tab to make it more like an iPad in the German court documents.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byBoberFett ( 127537 ) writes:
Yeah, well iPhone fans used to mock large screen Android devices. "That huge screen is too big, the iPhone 4 has the ideal screen size." Until the 5 shipped, at which point that had the perfect screen size.
There's simple no reasoning with enthralled fanatics.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMeeni ( 1815694 ) writes:
What you call "claryfying their marketing point" I call false advertisement. As your second point about Android people, first that's not true (I for one is an Apple customer on other products), and second, if you let a bad apple (haha) in the basket, you know what happens. If Apple can play false advertisement without retorsion, other companies will follow to remain relevant, and before we know it, all advertisements will be smoke and mirrors and full of lies, including those for non-Apple devices, and it w
bystevez67 ( 2374822 ) writes:
If the biggest concern is a picture in marketing materials has been altered, people are grasping at straws for drama. After all no one in marketing alters pictures of actors, actresses, models, cars, motorcycles, musical instruments, etc etc etc (your sarcasm alarms should be going off now).
byi kan reed ( 749298 ) writes:
You are absolutely right that those things are detestable. I have no meaningful input to this discussion other than that I hate how marketing consistently misleads people.
I don't care if that comes out pro-apple or anti-apple, but modern marketing is ethically wrong.
byArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) writes:
Tomorrow, Apple will be posting a tool to put back the camera in the images of your browser cache.
twitter
facebook
byForthan Red ( 820542 ) writes:
Maybe they should have tried hiding it behind a pencil.
byMr_Silver ( 213637 ) writes:
Does anyone know of any iPhone 5/5S users who complained that their phone was too thick?
I see no reason why Apple felt it necessary to slim the device down even more - when they could have just had the same thickness as the 5/5S resulting in no silly bulge for the camera.
Plus, they could have put a bigger battery in the case and maybe get an hour or so extra time out of the thing. Which I can imagine would be a lot more useful than shaving a couple mm off an already perfectly slim enough phone.
twitter
facebook
bysysrammer ( 446839 ) writes:
1 Make thin, fragile thing thinner.
2 Make it even easier to put it where high-tech, fragile things shouldn't go.
3 Marketing blitz.
4 Youthful customers with few responsibilities snap it up.
5 Fragile item is indeed placed in an untenable position.
6 Fragile thing is broken, necessitating a replacement purchase.
7 Profit.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Phones have big screens now, so they need armor anyway. So since you're going to put armor on the phone, you want the phone to get thinner, so that the phone with a case on it is still thin. Just making the phone thin allows the user to put whichever case on it they like, so they get to personalize their phone and you don't have to try to anticipate their needs, instead letting the whole world do that. And that's why having the camera really doesn't matter. In fact, having the bezel around it protrude from
byPPH ( 736903 ) writes:
In my day, we called them codpieces.
Now get off my lawn, peasant!
byMotard ( 1553251 ) writes:
No, the bulge was where the U2 album was stored.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Yes, amazing things like announcing a smart watch (Multiple manufacturers are already selling these), introduced a larger form factor for their phone (Multiple manufacturers started this trend years ago), and introduced an NFC payment method (Multiple parties have already implemented this). What other amazing feats have I missed?
byschnell ( 163007 ) writes:
Yes, amazing things like announcing a smart watch (Multiple manufacturers are already selling these), introduced a larger form factor for their phone (Multiple manufacturers started this trend years ago), and introduced an NFC payment method (Multiple parties have already implemented this)
For fuck's sake, can we get rid of this tired meme finally? "Apple never invented anything" is a straw man faithfully trotted out by anti-Apple fanbois time and time again, seemingly oblivious to the fact that this is really not the point. Anyone who tells you "Apple invented X" is almost certainly wrong, and anyone who says "Apple never invented X" is missing the damn point.
To wit:
* Apple did not invent the Personal Computer. Apple took the idea and made (one of) the first PCs that were user-friendly enough that lots and lots of people wanted to buy it.
* Apple did not invent the GUI. Apple took the idea and made the first GUI that was user-friendly enough that lots and lots of people wanted to buy it. (Note: it took them two tries to get it right, including the Lisa.)
* Apple did not invent desktop publishing. Apple took the idea and put together the right user-friendly 3rd party software, GUI and laser printers that made lots and lots of people want to buy it.
* Apple did not invent USB, nor was it the first to use it. They took the idea and put it into a computer that was "cool" and user-friendly (and whose users were forced to use USB whether they liked it or not), and lots and lots of people started to buy USB devices.
* Apple did not invent UNIX, or *NIX-derived PC operating systems. They took the idea and made the first *NIX-based OS that was user-friendly enough that lots and lots of people wanted to buy it. (Note again that it took Steve Jobs two tries to get this one right, including NeXT.)
* Apple did not invent MP3 players. They took the idea and made the first MP3 player that was user-friendly enough and supported by an ecosystem that made it easy for people to legally buy music so that lots and lots of people wanted to buy it.
* Apple did not invent smartphones. They took the idea and made the first smartphone that was user-friendly enough that normal people wanted one instead of just work-issued mobile email tools, so lots and lots of people wanted to buy one.
Do you see a pattern here?
So please, please can we get over this "Apple didn't invent anything" BS and recognize what it is that Apple actually does, and hence what criteria their success or failure should be judged on? Apple doesn't live or die on being first. They live or die based on being the first one in a given market to do something really well ... at least until other people catch up and equal them. And then they are on to the Next Big Thing. If they ever run out of Next Big Things, then they are done.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byhomb ( 82455 ) writes:
That's complete bullshit. You have no idea what the original iPhone did then. That's exactly the point of @schnell's comment above. No one was using their "smartphone" (or super duper feature phone like the N95) because they were a disaster to use. What Apple did was create a complete package of software and hardware, and provided web apps functionality. It's only when users found out how amazing the package was that they said "Why did you short-change us!?!? That thing is great, let us use it all the way!
bythaylin ( 555395 ) writes:
Only because it is an "i device". Not because it is better in any way. That is not amazing, that is zealotry.
byDahamma ( 304068 ) writes:
Except it is better in the only way that matters: many people prefer it - especially those who can afford the premium over Android phones. The fact is, convenience and ease of use most definitely IS a feature, and for many it's the most important one. Calling 500M+ people worldwide "zealots" is something only a zealot would do.
Perfect example: Apple Pay. Google has had NFC payments via Google Wallet in Android for years. They could have built a huge business there, but they completely fucked it up. They put out the feature with almost no retailer support, minimal bank support, even worse CE vendor support, only in the US, and a half-assed marketing effort even for Google's usually low standards.
Apple waited until the feature was relevant (secure credit cards are coming to the US this year), they could design a much more convenient UI (iTunes/Passbook/Thumb ID), launched their solution with dozens of major retailers, bank deals, service beyond the US, and the usual insane Apple marketing hype. Rumor has it they even negotiated a small transaction fee from banks - that alone could make it a multi-billion dollar business very quickly.
Technical innovation is not everything, and it's often not the most important thing. Timing and execution are often the difference.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
right and where was windows phone, and Android before the iPhone was launched? how about full screen mobile browsers?
Windows CE and Palm OS phones were around years before the iPhone, complete with web browsers.
Sure there are lots of smart watches out there. All of them are thicker than the Apple watch
Apple Watch = 12.6mm
Samsung Galaxy Gear = 11.1mm
Samsung Galaxy Gear 2 = 10mm
Sony Smartwatch 2 = 9mm
Pebble = 11.5mm
Pebble Steel = 10.5mm
and none of them thought of implementing NFC payments into the watch.
Samsung Galaxy Gear/2 and Sony Smartwatch 2 have NFC.
Let alone the astounding watch feature of changeable watch bands
Samsung Galaxy Gear 2, Sony Smartwatch 2 and Pebble have changeable bands.
The iPhone 6 really doesn't have any good competing pieces. However iOS still has one major feature than Android and Window phone lack. with in 3 months of a new OS launch /update 80% of all compatible devices have been upgraded. It takes android a couple of years to get to 25%. iOS is still supported on 3 year old devices. only google nexus android devices are supported any where near that long.
CyanogenMod. I have a six year old HTC Dream running the latest version of Android.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byX0563511 ( 793323 ) writes:
Yea, all sorts of amazing things that Android phones have had since 2011?
byDishevel ( 1105119 ) writes:
they see you as a customer, not as a product.
Ha Ha HA! OMG that is awesome.
byNoah Haders ( 3621429 ) writes:
they see you as a customer, not as a product.
Ha Ha HA! OMG that is awesome.
explain.
byDishevel ( 1105119 ) writes:
they see you as a customer, not as a product.
Ha Ha HA! OMG that is awesome.
explain.
If it has to be explained to you then it can not be explained to you.
byNoah Haders ( 3621429 ) writes:
they see you as a customer, not as a product.
fact: apple makes money when you buy the product. they do not make money by tracking how you use the product.
fact: goog gives the "product" away for free. but they track how you use is, and sell access to this information to earn their profits. so yes, for apple you are the customer and for goog you are the product. how do you disagree, without ad hominems?
byDishevel ( 1105119 ) writes:
Sure. You go right ahead and click the agreements for your iDevices and iSoftware. Do not bother to read it. Apple loves you and would never sell information on you for profit to their "Partners". I bet no matter how hard you look you will never see ... Ohh, wait.
Is this where you could opt out [apple.com] of iAds tracking?
Interesting. I am sure they give away targeted ads to their advertising partners for free though. Because they do not want you to look like a fool.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byColdWetDog ( 752185 ) writes:
Show me another MILF with an IQ of 80 who has inculcated herself as one of the highest paid cheerleaders of all time.
That's amazing.
It's also depressing, but you didn't ask about that.
byjackspenn ( 682188 ) writes:
By MILF, I assume you are referring to the Media Input Lense Feature.
We are still talking about Apple, right?
byArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) writes:
Macs I'd Like to Fuck? Eww.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byiluvcapra ( 782887 ) writes:
We demand strict orthographic projection in all marketing materials!
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
This blatant image distortion by the cwhoreporate media gives young apples an unrealistic body image. We can stamp out this misfructopy in our generation! Sign the petition!
Parent
twitter
facebook
byKhyber ( 864651 ) writes:
Parallax isn't going to hide something like that on a device of that size. I'm holding mine exactly like that right now. I sure as hell see the camera bump, even being way on the other side of the phone from my vantage point.
Plus, take the images and invert the colors. You can clearly see editing work. Basic Photoshop detection 101. Even more fun when you have a shitty TFT screen that makes every glaring error even more obvious.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byiluvcapra ( 782887 ) writes:
Parallax isn't going to hide something like that on a device of that size.
This is a function of focal length and subject distance.
byKhyber ( 864651 ) writes:
Along with a few other mathematical things yes; but as it stands, unless they were taking those pictures from dozens of meters away, parallax isn't going to hide that from a dead-level perspective. I'm trying right now with my 26x optical zoom DSLR across the apartment, I can't get that tiny bump to stay hidden without showing more of the front of the phone.
bymsauve ( 701917 ) writes:
You're doing it wrong. The closer you are, the easier it is to hide.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymsauve ( 701917 ) writes:
Straightedge across phone's camera and edge. Another across the front of the phone. The two straightedges will form a wedge - a lens inside that wedge will see only the side of the phone (no camera, no front). It's not clear why you were playing around with taking pictures from across the room, I doubt the wedge extends nearly that far.
byTWX ( 665546 ) writes:
Not if the small thing is represented in the photographic medium at the same size as taking a picture of the thing up close with a different lens.
Automobile magazines take pictures of cars from as far away as practical, so that the part of the car closer to the camera doesn't look substantially larger than the part of the car further from the lens. They use a telephoto lens to achieve this.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymsauve ( 701917 ) writes:
"Smaller things further away are easier to hide than close-up."
Not if the resulting images are adjusted so the pictured object is the same size. Unless you're reducing a detail to the single pixel range, that is. Additionally, the phone's lens would be more out of focus (when focused on the edge of the phone) when taken from a closer position - depth of field can be used to de-accentuate a feature. Finally, parallax would make the phone's camera appear smaller in proportion when photographed from a closer
bygraphius ( 907855 ) writes:
But... but... he has a 26X Optical Zoom on his DSLR Whatever the fuck that means.
If he really has a DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) I am not aware of a zoom lens with a range greater than 16x (18-300) You do know that the multiplication factor means the longest focal length divided by the shortest.
Or maybe he meant 26x magnification at the sensor plane, in that case, he must be using a crop frame sensor with an 850 mm lens (approximately) or more likely, a 500mm (mirror) lens with a 1.4x converter
He spent all that money on photography gear and still doesn't understand perspective...
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymsauve ( 701917 ) writes:
"I know very well what I'm doing."
Well, if you know very well that you're doing it wrong, why do you persist?
byK. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) writes:
I know very well what I'm doing.
Based on your "logic", you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to hide something using perspective from across a room. You also nonsensically talk about "close-ups" when pictures of objects taken using lenses of different focal lengths can actually have the same dimension in the photos, with only the amount of perspective being different. Perhaps you need a refresher on geometry?
bygraphius ( 907855 ) writes:
never heard of mount adapters to use manual lenses from much older 35mm SLR cameras
Yes, and I have still never heard of a zoom lens with a range greater than 16 times. Most film zoom lenses maxed out at 4X
I understand perspective just fine,
I meant to say parallax, but you don't really understand either. Read farther down on the example of a chimney on a house.
Try this. Use a very wide lens, say 20mm on a full frame camera.
Bring the phone close to the camera so it fills the frame.
shooting edge on, and with the screen on top, tilt the phone up until you just see the screen.
You will not see the bump on the bottom.
or m
byK. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) writes:
I also understand parallax just fine. And I also understand that up close or far away, the bump still shows up, unless you're BLIND.
You've just publicly proven that you're a moron. Does that make you happy?
byiluvcapra ( 782887 ) writes:
Because every possible distance gets tested...
Umm, you realize this is a photograph and not a ray-tracing exercise?
byunrtst ( 777550 ) writes:
And with the obvious FOV on those images, it's obvious you couldn't get close enough to hide it without pretty much having the edge directly against the camera lens. You'd have better luck trying fro further away to minimize its detail.
Wrong. It's very easy to hide it. I just did so with my Samsung Galaxy S4, whose camera protrudes about the same amount, but does so in the middle of the phone. And I did that with a crappy point and shoot... just get up close and position it correctly. If you're looking with your eyes, you will have to close one, and you'll have to be able to focus on things very close (I can't focus on stuff that close to my face, but my camera can).
FWIW, I'm not claiming they didn't simply photoshop the images, but it's certainly possible to take side pics that don't show the 1mm protrusion on the opposite side of the phone.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
What did you do today?
I argued about a 1 mm bump on a phone.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bygraphius ( 907855 ) writes:
now that was funny...
byForthan Red ( 820542 ) writes:
Gee, that's funny, because Samsung's official images of the S4 clearly show the camera protrusion from the side: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsun... [gsmarena.com]
And Apple shows their phone from both sides, so in those with the lens on the near side, it should be even more evident. But it's not. It's clear case of iLying.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymark-t ( 151149 ) writes:
Plus, take the images and invert the colors. You can clearly see editing work.
I expected to see some sort of obvious contrast in the background when I tried this, but I didn't notice anything. What does one look for?
byjon3k ( 691256 ) writes:
Plus, take the images and invert the colors. You can clearly see editing work. Basic Photoshop detection 101. Even more fun when you have a shitty TFT screen that makes every glaring error even more obvious.
Not only is there nothing there when you invert the colors (see here [imgur.com], inverted and zoomed for your viewing pleasure), it's very likely it was a computer generated image and not even a photograph to begin with.
byYesIAmAScript ( 886271 ) writes:
On the smaller phone (iPhone 6) the lens is 50mm from the far (button) edge of the phone and protrudes 0.8mm. The phone is 7mm thick.
Thus there is a triangle formed on the top of the phone which is 0.8mm tall and 50mm base. Now, if you make the triangle 7.8mm tall you form a triangle with the front plane of the phone, a triangle with a base (7.8/0.8)*50 of 487mm.
So if you take the picture from less than 487mm away (half a meter) you can take a picture which doesn't show the camera and doesn't show the face of the phone (thus is "edge on") without using any photoshop trickery. The phone body will simply block the camera from view.
And that's surely what Apple did. It's not hard to do.
Also note: you don't have one, troll. It doesn't come out for a couple more days.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bysexconker ( 1179573 ) writes:
Does he work for Apple? Because iPhone 6 and 6 plus haven't arrived to customers yet.
Yes they have. Two of my coworkers have them now. Got them a few days ago. That's the result of big money contracts.
They haven't been shipped to consumers yet. Customers have them.
bysexconker ( 1179573 ) writes:
It's Khyber. He talks out of his ass every single time.
Just laugh and wait for APK to come tear him a new one.
byNoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ) writes:
No, the phone is shown at exactly right angles, and they're right, the lens is photoshopped out. Meanwhile, it's 1 mm. What is that, the thickness of 2 business cards?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byEm Adespoton ( 792954 ) writes:
No, the phone is shown at exactly right angles, and they're right, the lens is photoshopped out. Meanwhile, it's 1 mm. What is that, the thickness of 2 business cards?
I think they were just holding it wrong while taking the pictures.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byBarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) writes:
Apple is about style and fashion. So why not use photoshop or anorexic phone models? Everybody in fashion does it.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bybutalearner ( 1235200 ) writes:
No, the phone is shown at exactly right angles, and they're right, the lens is photoshopped out. Meanwhile, it's 1 mm. What is that, the thickness of 2 business cards?
Not that it matters anyway. Everyone I know that has a recent phone has a big fat case to protect it.
byRob_Bryerton ( 606093 ) writes:
This is true; if they wanted the lens flush with the case, they could've used a bigger battery as well. Win-win. These phones are too thin as it is; my S3 is so damn thin that, without a case, it is difficult to hold onto.
Marketing over function.
bydenzacar ( 181829 ) writes:
What is that, the thickness of 2 business cards?
Does it have a watermark? [youtube.com]
byviperidaenz ( 2515578 ) writes:
1mm is about 15% of the total thickness.
byevenmoreconfused ( 451154 ) writes:
It can't be at right angles to both the front and the back of the phone -- they are parallel, non-coincident planes.
bysexconker ( 1179573 ) writes:
Greetings, attempted pedant.
You cannot extend planes. Planes are, by definition, infinite in expanse.
You are correct in pointing out that anything orthogonal to one plane is also orthogonal to every plane parallel to the first.
byQuasiSteve ( 2042606 ) writes:
You're thinking of perspective - and you'd need a very odd angle and wide angle lens to hide it. Here's a more realistic side shot which is already fairly up close and wide angle:
http://cdn1.mos.techradar.futu... [futurecdn.net]
I don't think most people are particularly going to care (unless the protrusion is likely to make the phone wobble when set down somewhere), but it's slightly humorous to see Apple editing it away / leaving that ring off for product shots / conveniently leaving it out of product renders.
( Or, if you're still convinced that they didn't edit it away, they at least went to the trouble of trying to hide it without making it seem like they're trying to hide it. )
Parent
twitter
facebook
bydenzacar ( 181829 ) writes:
...that they are holding it wrong?
byZorpheus ( 857617 ) writes:
Ok, let's estimate this.
The display is not visible, so lets assume that the light goes parallel to the display. Lets also assume that it is 60mm from the side of the phone to the lens.
When drawing this in a sketch there are two triangles with identical angles. One is along the phone with two sides given as 1mm and 60mm. In the other one side is the phone thickness of 6.9mm, and the other is the distance between phone and camera.
Simply calculating the ratios gives a maximum camera distance of 60*6.9/1 = 4
byTheDarkMaster ( 1292526 ) writes:
"...why wouldn't they just make the case 1mm thicker instead of risking the lawsuits"
Who knows? We're talking about Apple here, so anything is possible. I personally would prefer a thicker device (and therefore higher capacity battery), I do not understand this obsession with "ultrathin" devices. But that said, note that the point of the article is actually Apple trying to hide what she considers a "problem" in her product, and this is not a behavior that is expected of a responsible company.
byMister Liberty ( 769145 ) writes:
Ever heard of a parrallel projection? You're all rahter pathetic as Appleogetics...
byK. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) writes:
Using KH-11? ;-) It's close enough, anyway.
byK. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) writes:
If I'm not mistaken, the parallax explanation would require a distance of the button side of no more than 35 cm from the lens' front principal plane. Doesn't it at least suggest that they tried fairly hard to consciously push the perspective? The usual 100mm macro lens would only be able to fit it in diagonally, I think.
byBronsCon ( 927697 ) writes:
And look! It caught you!
byjabuzz ( 182671 ) writes:
Actually it is, because in the U.K. at least (and probably the rest of the E.U.) doctoring photos like this and then using them in advertising is highly illegal. Apple are likely to be hit hard in short order.
I have no idea if the USA allows such deceptive practices in advertising but it would not surprise me.
bycorychristison ( 951993 ) writes:
Soon the Apple fans will come and show us all how some physics theory about light absorption when you point something at camera from the right angle will make the light bend just so slightly and cause an illusion that makes the phone appear to have no camera pointing out.
Except that these are software renderings...
byRichy_T ( 111409 ) writes:
You didn't think the reality distortion field was just a figure of speech, did you? It's been the primary subject of research for Apple to try and reform the Beatles since their revenues fell so heavily when they split up. (The whole Apple suing Apple thing was just a smokescreen, man).
bypraxis ( 19962 ) writes:
The subject of the photograph does not have zero thickness. The camera focal point could be along the plane of the front of the subject, which would make it *not* along the plane of the rear of the phone.
Imagine I am standing long the plane of the front of a building, am I also standing along the plan of the rear of a building? Am I looking at the building at a flat 90 (whatever that means)?
byArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) writes:
You know who likes that new HTC phone? The Hunchback of Notre-Dame.
byfrnic ( 98517 ) writes:
Thank you for there link, I followed it and found none of the "edited" photos you claim are there. I found ONE photo that showed the iPhone from an angle that showed the camera bulge and the bulge was there...
So, flaming slashdot - what a concept - lol... I am sure all the hate posted here is legitimate and justified. I see you are proud enough of your comment to stand behind it and not post anonymously - oh wait... I will stand behind my years posting here and my reputation and not hide behind "Anonymous C
bysemiotec ( 948062 ) writes:
https://www.apple.com/iphone-6... [apple.com]
Do you rate Apple.com as one of those "rumor mills and third party sites"?
bysemiotec ( 948062 ) writes:
Come on!
You seriously don't see any side view images of the iPhone?
Counting by images, the 2nd, 5th and 7th iPhone images on http://www.apple.com/iphone-6/... [apple.com] are all side views!
Please try harder!
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
●
333 commentsApple Faces 25% Tariff Threat Unless iPhone Manufacturing Moves To US
●
282 commentsTrump Tells Apple CEO To Avoid Manufacturing in India
●
224 comments25% iPhone Tariff Insufficient To Drive US Production Shift, Morgan Stanley Says
●
224 commentsTrump: Apple Building in China is 'Unsustainable,' Could Exempt Some Companies From Tariffs
●
184 commentsEU Orders Apple To Open Ecosystem To Rivals
Astronomers Find Star-Within-a-Star, 40 Years After First Theorized
New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance
Slashdot Top Deals
Slashdot
ussion
●
●
of loaded
●
Submit Story
"Our reruns are better than theirs."
-- Nick at Nite
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Astronomers Find Star-Within-a-Star, 40 Years After First Theorized
72comments
New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance
324 comments
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...