Agreed, and I noticed it too, but I'm on the fence on that one.
Given the attention to detail in the design phase, I'd argue the apparent thinness was part of the spec, and since component space leads to a bump, the resulting angle value towards the bump comes from the design+engineering following the spec. From there, the marketing shots could very well follow the actual design and showcase what you will feel of the device most of the time. That is design => marketing, not marketing => design.
Where they dropped the ball is that they could really have put a nice side shot in the gallery. That's where I really expected to find one, and it's not like the thing is thick either so I fail to see the harm.
Comments
Agreed, and I noticed it too, but I'm on the fence on that one.
Given the attention to detail in the design phase, I'd argue the apparent thinness was part of the spec, and since component space leads to a bump, the resulting angle value towards the bump comes from the design+engineering following the spec. From there, the marketing shots could very well follow the actual design and showcase what you will feel of the device most of the time. That is design => marketing, not marketing => design.
Where they dropped the ball is that they could really have put a nice side shot in the gallery. That's where I really expected to find one, and it's not like the thing is thick either so I fail to see the harm.