196
submitted 3 months ago by schizoidman@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.ml
all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 74 points 3 months ago

This was just incredibly dumb. Now any positive news about their new phone is going to be seen as planted.

[-] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 46 points 3 months ago

I always assume that anyway

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

They don’t care, the massive majority of normies will never hear about it and those that do won’t care

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

Normies buy Redmi Note Pro Max + (or iPhone if they're rich). Pixel is for devs and photos.

[-] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 6 points 3 months ago

Can I just say, I'm incredibly pissed off at Xiaomi (and at the redmi sub brand by extension) at how difficult unlocking the bootloader is on newer devices. Like, you have to make an account with them, log in, and then wait 7 days, to unlock the bootloader, like WHAT? Why? I kinda understand the account, cuz spyware, but why the 7 day wait? So you're forced to use their crappy bloated and spyware-and-ad-ridden system? It's just really frustrating. Left a bad taste in my mouth to the point where I'm considering a switch to another brand for my next phone.

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

The Redmi brand is aimed at a mainstream audience, and there are probably enough people who will try to unlock bootloader without thinking through that Xiaomi wants to put some deterrance. Although I feel the Poco brand should allow easier unlockong, since it is aimed more at power users.

[-] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 2 points 3 months ago

They're the same phones. And use the same Android distro/ROM.

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

Poco phones are based on Redmis. They do change some things, even hardware. So nothing is stopping them from changing their unlocking policy.

[-] forgotmylastusername@lemmy.ml 59 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Influencer is a fancy word for salesman. Instead of going door to door like grandpa did in the old days, they stream directly to your device.

[-] ScruffyDucky@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

influencers used to be called attention whores but you can't really use that term if you want to shill products

[-] SidewaysHighways@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Yeah that's kinda my whole disconnect from this stuff from the get go. These guys were begging for attention! Huge turn off

[-] hate2bme@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago

So these influencers are against this type of practice? That means they all really do play Raid:Shadow legends.

[-] mle86@feddit.org 8 points 3 months ago

There's a big difference between being sponsored by the very product you are reviewing in this specific video, and being sponsored by something unrelated while being openly and obviously presented as sponsored content.

[-] tabular@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

This is for "brand ambassadors" says LTT (WAN show).

[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 3 points 3 months ago

I don't see what's the problem. It's a proposal of a sponsorship with payment in nature (the expensive phones) instead of money. If the influencer disagrees, there's no problem and they can buy the phones by themselves, Google is not forced by law to send free phones to influencers.

I don't think that all those influencers are actually playing raid shadow legends or eating factor or using betterhelp.

Google is giving free review samples to real reviewers

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The first problem is that Google is giving an incentive to influencers - who are supposed to be (more or less) impartia - to review their phone favourably compared to alternatives.

The second problem is that, despite being one of the biggest companies in the world, they did this in the most obvious way possible. Now who will trust any positive review of their phone? Anyone with common sense, let alone the lawyers whom I suppose cleared this - should have told them not to do something so dumb.

Edit: corrected reviewers to influencers, for the reasons explained below.

[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There are YouTube channels/instagrammers that exclusively review sponsored products. Bigger ones like Unbox therapy, LTT shortcircuit, and so on. Never a bad word about the shitty product they're reviewing, because it's a paid ad.

Take a look by yourself. The product they're "reviewing" is clearly non functioning e-waste, yet they don't say it to make the advertiser happy.

This is a program dedicated to influencers, not reviewers. The verge, Engadget, marques, Mr mobile, they didn't sign this contract. If Google believes that the outlet is legit, they give the review device for free without the sponsorship contract.

Edit for clarity as I didn't add a paragraph between this sentence:

When the influencer that got the free phone under this ad campaign shows the phone on camera they need to flag the post with #giftfromgoogle and #teampixel - you can use that as a hint that the review is biased

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

This is a program dedicated to influencers, not reviewers.

Corrected. Thanks!

There are YouTube channels/instagrammers that exclusively review sponsored products.

I don't use instagram, and stick to the more reliable youtube channels. Didn't know this was a thing.

If Google believes that the outlet is legit, they give the review device for free without the sponsorship contract. When they talk good about the device they need to flag the post with #giftfromgoogle and #teampixel

This feels like one of those stories where one person misleads another without technically lying.

[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 2 points 3 months ago

I read your quote of my post and realized to have wrote in a way that's not clear. If someone gets sponsored to become a Pixel fanboy, needs to use those two hashtags

[-] thegreekgeek@midwest.social 3 points 3 months ago

Found the Google employee

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Advertisements should be explicit. You'll often see sponsored segments of videos when a YouTuber is talking about a product, where they explicitly say it's sponsored. These influences are being asked to treat the product preferential to other devices without being a sponsor.

Advertising is one thing. Asking people to advertise your product without revealing that it's an ad is something else.

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 3 months ago

We don't call it fake news for no reason... These media whores ways been shilling whoever pays them and mega corps pays.

[-] Flyswat@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

For those considering to buy a Google product, remember project Nimbus.

this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
196 points (91.2% liked)

Technology

34975 readers
244 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS