Ads don't have to be paid. Promo-for-product is still an ad - sometimes called an advertorial.
It's unprofessional at best and dishonest at worst to pretend that this isn't just corporate PR.
And ironically, the image quality really isn't all that amazing. It's +/- other phone cams - better in some conditions, not as good in others. And in absolute terms, these photos are nowhere close to the sharpness, dynamic range, and saturation of professional equipment. Night mode is good, but the daylight shots are okay but not awesome.
You could argue it's unfair to expect anything better from a (relatively) cheap phone cam - but it's a (relatively) cheap phone cam with a "pro" tag being marketed as a "pro" product.
In photographic terms, it simply isn't - except maybe for the fairly forgiving social media photo niche.
PR and advertising are not the same thing. Seeding review units to product reviewers is part of effective PR for consumer electronics. It isn't advertising, though. Standard practice (at least among Apple reviewers) is for the devices to be returned after some period of time.
Please don't conflate different terms for the purpose of making a glib point. It really doesn't help the conversation. They are different words because they mean different things.
From the perspective of a consumer, the difference is totally irrelevant. Why should the particulars of the exchange between the shill and the company matter to me? They don't.
The Verge regularly gets review units from Apple. Their editor, Joshua Topolsky, is not what you would describe as warm and enthusiastic about Apple and their products. When The Verge reviews an iPhone, they are not them engaging in advertising for Apple. If you think every tech outlet is a shill for the manufacturers, then you're just plain wrong about how the world works.
I think the replies from toasterlovin (below) summed it up on the diff between PR and ads so I'll leave it at that.
The root of what you are asserting is that is ANY review is corp PR. Which is partially true - a review (good or bad), and esp high profile reviews, can shift conversations around its subject.
For smaller entities, any publicity is good publicity, not as true for larger entities.
So if Apple gave a review copy of a phone to a photographer, that based on his past writings, Apple was fairly sure would write something "positive" - they made a good bet and the review copy of the phone paid dividends.
That being said, the article isn't corp PR - it reads like a "fanboy" review and that's exactly how I took it. Not an advert.
Personally for camera tech I like sites like dpreview.com (no review site is perfect).
I did like some of the example photos in this article tho - don't know if I could ever reach that quality but I'm not a pro photographer.
> Promo-for-product is still an ad - sometimes called an advertorial.
Are you suggesting that Apple gave or lent the author products with a contractual obligation that the author write a positive review? I think that is extremely unlikely, and I believe anyone familiar with how Apple works with reviewers/influencers/content producers would agree. I would need to see compelling evidence to change my mind.
It's unprofessional at best and dishonest at worst to pretend that this isn't just corporate PR.
And ironically, the image quality really isn't all that amazing. It's +/- other phone cams - better in some conditions, not as good in others. And in absolute terms, these photos are nowhere close to the sharpness, dynamic range, and saturation of professional equipment. Night mode is good, but the daylight shots are okay but not awesome.
You could argue it's unfair to expect anything better from a (relatively) cheap phone cam - but it's a (relatively) cheap phone cam with a "pro" tag being marketed as a "pro" product.
In photographic terms, it simply isn't - except maybe for the fairly forgiving social media photo niche.