Is this for real? This granny shoots a shotgun at an iPhone and this screen protector takes it. I am just curious if any of you tested guys had an opinion on this.
Yeap, I have: it's BS. What's the point here? What are they trying to achieve? They're shooting birdshot, each pellet on its own has very little power (well, still enough to heart you pretty bad...). They're just trying to generate some buzz around the strong image of firearms and stuff...
No technical challenge. As useful as that (same kind of strong image though).
Anyone that advertizes products by destroying a perfectly good object will never get any business of mine. That was such a wasteful and stupid stunt. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't buy anything from them simply because of that godawful narrator. And no. You can't shoot a shotgun at an iPhone without damaging it. Even birdshot will fuck it up. The screen protector might prevent scratches, but it does zilch for impacts. Stupid stunt, stupid company, stupid narrator, waste of a good MacBook and an iPhone. People that destroy shit for advertising are morons and I'll never make them a cent richer. What compels these people to do that I'll never understand.
Anyone that advertizes products by destroying a perfectly good object will never get any business of mine. That was such a wasteful and stupid stunt. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't buy anything from them simply because of that godawful narrator. And no. You can't shoot a shotgun at an iPhone without damaging it. Even birdshot will fuck it up. The screen protector might prevent scratches, but it does zilch for impacts. Stupid stunt, stupid company, stupid narrator, waste of a good MacBook and an iPhone. People that destroy shit for advertising are morons and I'll never make them a cent richer. What compels these people to do that I'll never understand.
Maybe they were bricked phones. Why is everyone so up in arms? Things have to be tested to be meaningful. It's one goddamn computer and one goddamn phone.
Sure, the product is bullshit, the narrator failed completely in his attempt to steal from Apple's past marketing, and it was a generally bad video, but the thing people go to first is they shot a couple things? How do you think they tested the phones in R&D, giving them backrubs? If a product works to increase protection to another product, the way to show that is to cause more damage to the unprotected product B than the protected product B. They are phones, not people, why do you care so much? Are you going to believe someone made a bulletproof iPhone just because they say so?
The MacBook most likely wasn't bricked, it's a waste of money to destroy one anyway, and it's damn near impossible to brick any iPhone. I've been jailbreaking since day 1 and even the serious screw ups I've made, none of my iPhones have ever bricked on me. Matter of fact, I've never seen or heard of a bricked iPhone before, even in the jailbreaking community. A company testing their product is in no way similar to completely destroying it in a completely awful ad. What they sell can't possibly protect from a gunshot anyway! I don't care if a phone is bulletproof because there is no reason for it to be. If it were bulletproof glass then yes, I'd want them to shoot it with a gun to prove it. Shooting a perfectly good MacBook to advertise a product that doesn't protect against gunshots is a waste, and that coupled with the stupid premise and godawful voiceover tells me that company is run by a bunch of wasteful idiots. If they were selling a waterproof case and submerged it in a pool that would make sense. This? Complete was and utter idiocy.
@HKZ: It wasn't wasteful at all to wreck the MacBook. Those cost what, about $2000? Even if they destroyed a few of them, that's still peanuts in the advertising world. Probably much cheaper than what a lot of companies will spend on computer graphics in one advertising spot.
I can see getting frustrated if you want one of those laptops but are unable to obtain one for whatever reason, but at the end of the day it's still just a commodity product that you can attach a dollars and cents value to; consuming it in the process of making an advertisement is just another way of spending the budget, and perhaps an effective one at that.
Is this for real? This granny shoots a shotgun at an iPhone and this screen protector takes it. I am just curious if any of you tested guys had an opinion on this.
Thanks!
http://gizmodo.com/clearplex/
Yeap, I have: it's BS. What's the point here? What are they trying to achieve? They're shooting birdshot, each pellet on its own has very little power (well, still enough to heart you pretty bad...). They're just trying to generate some buzz around the strong image of firearms and stuff...
No technical challenge. As useful as that (same kind of strong image though).
Anyone that advertizes products by destroying a perfectly good object will never get any business of mine. That was such a wasteful and stupid stunt. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't buy anything from them simply because of that godawful narrator. And no. You can't shoot a shotgun at an iPhone without damaging it. Even birdshot will fuck it up. The screen protector might prevent scratches, but it does zilch for impacts. Stupid stunt, stupid company, stupid narrator, waste of a good MacBook and an iPhone. People that destroy shit for advertising are morons and I'll never make them a cent richer. What compels these people to do that I'll never understand.
I wanna shoot that guy.
@HKZ said:
Maybe they were bricked phones. Why is everyone so up in arms? Things have to be tested to be meaningful. It's one goddamn computer and one goddamn phone.
Sure, the product is bullshit, the narrator failed completely in his attempt to steal from Apple's past marketing, and it was a generally bad video, but the thing people go to first is they shot a couple things? How do you think they tested the phones in R&D, giving them backrubs? If a product works to increase protection to another product, the way to show that is to cause more damage to the unprotected product B than the protected product B. They are phones, not people, why do you care so much? Are you going to believe someone made a bulletproof iPhone just because they say so?
The MacBook most likely wasn't bricked, it's a waste of money to destroy one anyway, and it's damn near impossible to brick any iPhone. I've been jailbreaking since day 1 and even the serious screw ups I've made, none of my iPhones have ever bricked on me. Matter of fact, I've never seen or heard of a bricked iPhone before, even in the jailbreaking community. A company testing their product is in no way similar to completely destroying it in a completely awful ad. What they sell can't possibly protect from a gunshot anyway! I don't care if a phone is bulletproof because there is no reason for it to be. If it were bulletproof glass then yes, I'd want them to shoot it with a gun to prove it. Shooting a perfectly good MacBook to advertise a product that doesn't protect against gunshots is a waste, and that coupled with the stupid premise and godawful voiceover tells me that company is run by a bunch of wasteful idiots. If they were selling a waterproof case and submerged it in a pool that would make sense. This? Complete was and utter idiocy.
@HKZ: It wasn't wasteful at all to wreck the MacBook. Those cost what, about $2000? Even if they destroyed a few of them, that's still peanuts in the advertising world. Probably much cheaper than what a lot of companies will spend on computer graphics in one advertising spot.
I can see getting frustrated if you want one of those laptops but are unable to obtain one for whatever reason, but at the end of the day it's still just a commodity product that you can attach a dollars and cents value to; consuming it in the process of making an advertisement is just another way of spending the budget, and perhaps an effective one at that.