Nokia warns that KIRF phones are a threat to personal safety, national security

Over the years, Nokia handsets have fallen victim to the infamous KIRFing process time, and time, and time again. Evidently the suits up in Espoo have had enough, as evidenced by a new marketing campaign urging bargain hunters in India to avoid unbranded / duplicate handsets. The ad, which was spotted in the Mumbai Mirror, is comical in a number of ways. For starters, the notion that "originals last forever" is obviously misleading untrue, and secondly, the whole "instilling fear" tactic is severely unnecessary. Nokia asserts that all KIRF handsets lack an IMEI number, and thus owning one "could be a threat to your safety and national security." Or is that longhand for "a threat to Nokia's bottom line?"

[The WC @ Nov 24th 2008 12:38AM]

I'm going to wager that no one's going to say "I'll take the one on the right" here...

[bill cant fart @ Nov 24th 2008 12:49AM]

I'll take the one on the top.

[bill cant fart @ Nov 24th 2008 12:49AM]

I'll take the one on the top.

[low tech @ Nov 24th 2008 1:39AM]

I'll rank the one on the top. +1

[chickenator @ Nov 24th 2008 2:12AM]

a life split in two!

[Techie @ Nov 24th 2008 7:48AM]

Why is everyone picking on Peter Parker?

[meisterdondon @ Nov 24th 2008 12:41AM]

I'm assuming Nokia is aiming for all the females in this one?

[Shinigami @ Nov 24th 2008 2:56AM]

You know you want to look like the guy on right, don't deny it.

[Marcela @ Nov 24th 2008 8:50AM]

They nailed me alright!!! But I could go oil free...

[Fusion Fuzo 05 - Mr Proffessional @ Nov 24th 2008 12:45AM]

NICE, if they are the same quality as nokia's at half price of less, then im buying

[roybiv @ Nov 24th 2008 12:47AM]

The only difference is the hard hat light! You give the guy on the left one and then there will be no difference!

[Ghen @ Nov 24th 2008 7:21AM]

And grease. I wouldn't go naked cave spelunking without my hard-hat light to shine the way and my body covered with grease.

There's no possible way for me to write that and make it not sound bad :\

[asg84 @ Nov 24th 2008 12:47AM]

looks like sharuk khan in the right side, quite a lot indian girls going to stare at this for a long time hehe

[Abuzar Baloach @ Nov 24th 2008 12:55AM]

lol

It's Sharukh Khan. I think some of the guys will go gaga over this as well.

[1234321 @ Nov 24th 2008 12:58AM]

lol, people won't know him here, but considering the population of asia and his fanbase, it was smart of Nokia to pick him up

[Rohit Kapur @ Nov 24th 2008 4:33AM]

Yeah, for those of you who aren't from India, this is incredibly funny. Even though that is Sharukh Khan on the right, that is NOT his body. He's in good shape, yes, but he couldn't dream of having that good a body. So I guess Nokia isn't keepin' it real all that much themselves.

Ha!

[Brrip @ Nov 24th 2008 6:02AM]

Ok, so Shah Rukh Khan is a huge movie star in India and that is definitely his body man! He got super ripped for the movie "Om Shanti Om". just search online for clips from the movie and you'll see it. Anyways, he's got such a huge fan following that anything he touches sells like hotcakes. He promotes Omega watches, Pepsi and even some random as biscuit brand (which may not be legit) but he is huge. So this was a smart firm for sure. Plus considering that India's middle class is finally forming and growing in numbers and having more expendable wealth, and where pretty much everyone owns a phone, it's a good marketing ploy!

[Adderz @ Nov 24th 2008 12:49AM]

Read links down.

[Pies @ Nov 24th 2008 12:54AM]

Any handset maker that tries to lie his way into my wallet is getting the FUD out of there very quickly.

[Brad @ Nov 24th 2008 9:04PM]

Oh, they're being completely honest. It is a threat to your safety and national security because Nokia will send its thugs to beat you up and bomb your country if you buy knock-off phones. See? They're just being up-front about how they plan to protect their image.

[Saad Rabia @ Nov 24th 2008 12:55AM]

I'll keep downloading everything, and buying alternatives forever, and if I have the choice:

I will never buy games, unless I think it is worth what is in the box.
I will never buy movies, unless I think it is good enough to get my support.
I will never buy music, unless I get 12 great songs in a 12-song album.
I will never buy originals, unless they sell them in their real prices; not 10 or 15 times the original value.
I will never buy a thing, unless I see the cooperations listen to us consumers.

Fuck the associations that want to take our money by spreading fear and nonsense statements.

[Abuzar Baloach @ Nov 24th 2008 12:58AM]

Hey, if you don't think the movie is good enough to support, then don't download it either! If you don't think the game is good enough to pay for then don't download it!

It's entertainment. It's not necessary. You don't NEED it. Stop stealing it. I know they don't lose a sale because you weren't going to buy it. But if you're not going to buy it then you don't need to play it.

[Saad Rabia @ Nov 24th 2008 1:10AM]

Abuzar Baloach, I used the words "Worth", "Good enough", "all songs" and "real price" all for a reason.

I will buy a game if it was worth the money, otherwise a game that will finish in 2 hours of gameplay and has the same price of a game that plays for 20 hours should be cheaper, or else, I ain't freaking buying it, will only download it. The same goes with movies, music and gadgets.

And for God's sake, stop calling it stealing; if someone decides to share it with me, then I am going to accept the gift.

[mm @ Nov 24th 2008 1:11AM]

Fuck the individuals who think that it's fucking wrong for "associations" to "steal" money from the wallets of people who shelled out the dough for whatever product they have NOT been forced to buy, but completely fucking okay to steal music/movies/software/etc. from "associations".

[Saad Rabia @ Nov 24th 2008 1:22AM]

But mm, associations are not stealing anybody's money, they are simply taking it in an unfair and unbalanced manner. When we buy something it is because we agree to buy it, in other words, if a bag head (or a special person) loves to pay money for a whole album of shitty music just for one song, or pay $50 for a game that will play for 1 hour and where they pay the same for a game that will play for way more than that, then it's his or her money and it's their lives and choices.

[telepheedian @ Nov 24th 2008 1:35AM]

This is why Man created the subscription. Zune Pass and Netflix have you covered on the music/movies side, and I think gametap has some games for subscription download (don't know how they price or anything).

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Nov 24th 2008 1:44AM]

If it isn't worth your money, you shouldn't steal it either.

You're creating false justifications.

Just like an object that cannot be easily duplicated, if you feel that it isn't worth buying, then the only honest thing to do is to do without it.

I do this a lot since, as you say there are a lot of crap games out there.

[Ravi Nair @ Nov 24th 2008 1:46AM]

You, sir, are a d!ck.

[Saad Rabia @ Nov 24th 2008 1:51AM]

Well telepheedian, that's why I have a Zune Pass; it is by far the most logical and absolutely fair paid music service I've ever experienced. I think selling music as a one-by-one track is the right way to go, lots of companies are doing it great enough, but watching these people around me buy Kanye West's album just based only on them liking one or two songs is incredibly pathetic, and the same goes for games and gadgetry.

If we keep buying them, the makers of these things will assume that they are so awesome that we only get more shit out of it, as consumers.

And guys, no need for the e-thugging.

[Mike10010100 @ Nov 24th 2008 6:32AM]

So remember: if you want a collection you can count on, pirate it. Hey, you'll be a criminal either way.

http://xkcd.com/488/

[Brad @ Nov 24th 2008 9:16PM]

Hmm, I had some trouble understanding your post, so I passed it through the bullshit-filter and here's what I got:


I will never buy games, unless I think it is worth what is in the box.
I will only buy games that I can't download easily.

I will never buy movies, unless I think it is good enough to get my support.
I will download all my movies and watch them. I will claim I don't like the vast majority, thus justifying not purchasing them. Sure, I could rent them, but that goes against my amorphous creed.

I will never buy music, unless I get 12 great songs in a 12-song album.
I will never buy music. I'll use the bundling argument for why I download single tracks I do like, rather than purchasing them through AmazonMP3 where they're DRM-free, high quality, and sold at single-track prices.

I will never buy originals, unless they sell them in their real prices; not 10 or 15 times the original value.
[The translator broke here, since I'm not sure what "originals" are other than perhaps non-knock-off products. With that assumption, it produced:]
I have little-to-no understanding of profit margin, distribution channels, advertising, licensing, research, or any other associated costs in product development.

I will never buy a thing, unless I see the cooperations listen to us consumers.
I know people who make nearly everything except software and they all listen to me, because I buy all of those things. Farmers, cars, airline companies, gasoline, big-screen TVs, laptops, etc. All those companies are worlds better than "software" and other goods that can be easily downloaded from my parents' garage.

Did I about get that right?
-------
Look, don't try and give some lofty consumer-rights reason why you download stuff instead of buying it (note I don't use "steal" here, it isn't ACTUALLY theft). But these are all goods that you obviously use, so either put your money where your mouth is and actually LIVE your beliefs, or admit that you just don't LIKE paying for it when you can get it for free. That's perfectly natural, but it isn't a high moral claim. It is just being cheap.

[Saad Rabia @ Nov 24th 2008 9:58PM]

Brad,

1. All games are available online, where have you been the past 10 years? Having said that, I still bought Gears of War 2 and FIFA 09 just the past week.

2. I will not pay a cent for a movie that I don't like, even if it was a rent, when you rent you actually pay, and I wouldn't do it. Having said that I did buy 3 movies from Virgin Stores this month alone.

3. I will not pay a cent for music that I don't like, DRM-Free or God-sent, no paying for shit I don't like. Having said that, I have a Zune Pass, which is a joy to use.

4. I will not buy a hands-free set for my car for $40, when I can get better or equivalent quality from another company for 5 times less than the "real" price! If you use iPods, NOKIA phones or even Samsung you'll know what do I mean. It isn't a matter of quality or investment because in both cases the outcome is the same, but one company thinks that it is cool to name their products "original" and sell it for 10 times the price! I ain't going to buy it.

5. Not all what these cooperations do is wrong, in fact I buy lots of things because they are worth the money, but when a company decides to sell a phone for 5 times its actual price, we as consumers should not buy into that shit. It's the way it should be all along.

I swear mate, I'm being truthfully honest here, I buy lots of these things, meaning that I pay on music, games or movies, but when the reasons I mentioned come in front of me, I will get these things for free or just get good quality knockoffs. It is really that simple, why is it hard for you guys to accept such thing?!! If I couldn't get it for free, I wouldn't even buy it in the first place, I'm not making anybody lose or win right here! In both cases, wither I don't buy a game or just download it for free, my message is always "I don't like it that much, either make it logically cheaper, or I'm not buying, meaning that I'll wait for it to come for free."

[eggothewaffle @ Nov 24th 2008 12:55AM]

I'm not sure how bad the KIRF situation is in India, but I think Nokia's money (and its fight against its rapidly diminishing market share in at least feature/smartphones) would go a lot further if they spent more of it on a revolutionary, not evolutionary, successor to the N95.

Oh...And massive updates to S60.

[1234321 @ Nov 24th 2008 1:03AM]

honestly as much as that would be cool for you, the people in India would be perfectly happy with the current S60 and N95/N96, its just that they can't afford it and they will be willing to go with a chinese knock off more easily than people in the US, Although Nokia doesn't have the kind of reputation here as they do in Asia

[Pdexter @ Nov 24th 2008 4:43AM]

I think this is more towards S40 phones than S60 smartphones in India. Just note S60 isn't Symbian.

Btw there's one thing many here in Engadget are missing is that S60 v9.4 5th edition that 5800 got isn't still the totally new S60 v9.5 that's supposed the be the next generation Symbian Plus if you have seen 5800 new reviews in mobileburn i think Nokia might do just fine and keep it's +40% market share in smartphones, but yeah they really need to get those next generation N and E series devices out soon.

[Pdexter @ Nov 24th 2008 4:45AM]

Pfff "Just note S60 isn't Symbian."

S40 isn't Symbian!

[Ridgecity @ Nov 24th 2008 12:56AM]

How to battle copycats? lower prices. Sadly, that's not an option.

[Richard @ Nov 24th 2008 1:00AM]

Am I the only one that didn't know what KIRF was?

[low tech @ Nov 24th 2008 1:07AM]

Yes. You must be new 'round these parts.

[FreeRange @ Nov 24th 2008 1:35AM]

Richard has been a member of Engadget for 2 months longer than low tech. Good show.

Seriously though, no clue what KIRF was or who Sharukh Khan is. But this is (partly) why I read Engadget. Not about reading things I know so much as learning about things I don't.

[Boards of Canada @ Nov 24th 2008 1:38AM]

Not KIRF... QUICHE!

[Richard @ Nov 24th 2008 2:12AM]

Yeah, I'm not new here at all. I've been a reader even before I registered to post.

KIRF just didn't stick out in my mind when I saw it.

[Peter @ Nov 24th 2008 2:21AM]

i just realized KIRF means...keepin' it real fake.

[o29 @ Nov 24th 2008 3:14AM]

Noobs :P

[egloskerry @ Nov 24th 2008 5:09AM]

At first I thought it was some kind of phone cloning process.

[FreeRange @ Nov 24th 2008 10:42AM]

@egloskerry

That's exactly what I thought. I've know people who had their phones cloned so I figured that was the concern (and with the talk of "duplicates" in the ad, I thought that made sense).

[Nishant @ Nov 24th 2008 1:27AM]

Actually, the lack of IMEInumbers is a threat. (Some) of the terrorist attacks that rocked Ahmedabad and Delhi were cellphone-activated. Impossible to trace. Good on Nokia. They're already a massive force in India, especially the high-end NSeries phones, so this isnt a ploy of market share. They are aped by many shady dealers.

[Ankur @ Nov 24th 2008 1:30AM]

read link will be up soon

[Ali @ Nov 24th 2008 1:45AM]

The companies dont care about the "danger" associated with KIRF handsets, they just care about their dipping sales....But the KIRF situation is quite damn bad in India....and if u think about it, it is also a genuine threat to security....no IMEI > no tracking > a big frikkin smile on the terrorists face ....

[Vlad Nistor @ Nov 24th 2008 2:02AM]

The "Read" link gives a 404 error.