Personally, I also didn't notice the presence of white men or lack thereof until you brought it up.

The other pictures I see are:

- White woman

- Asian man

- White(?) man (the guy with a man-bun who's jumping)

- White(?) man looking at mountains (his hand looks beige, so he could be any lighter-skinned race)

- Black woman

- Black man/woman

- White man/woman

- Asian family

- Asian man/woman and Black woman

- children that are too small to see

- Asian woman

- Asian woman

That's 20 people, 15 of whom seem to have an identifiable race. Of those 15, 3 are White, which is 20%.

The US is ~60% White and humanity is ~15% White.

So what exactly are you complaining about? In the grand universe of marketing pictures, White people have been dramatically overrepresented. Did you complain about that in the past?

I think they will survive being slightly underrepresented this time.

Having to squint to find anyone who even remotely resembles you is the lived experience of millions of people. Perhaps you should reflect on why you can’t relate to people in an ad that look different from you? It’s a skill that someone of us don’t have the luxury of not developing.

Does this meet your requirement?

Your examples are proving OP's point.

Your snarky response is what's wrong with the world now a days. I am brown but this over-pandering by companies feels more patronizing and condescending than genuine care. It's like winning an award or being hired just for being a specific skin color and not because of my skills.

This over-correction ends up creating more animosity because people start wondering if their heart surgeon was hired because of their skin color or skills and the brown person starts feeling lower because they aren't sure if they got hired because of their skills or just to tick a checkbox on the diversity list.

This type of over-pandering might be okay if this web page was localized to lets say another country with those demographics. But when countries like US and Canada don't have any representation of the largest demographic, then that's not genuine and mere pandering. I would even go as far as to say it's simply exploitation of skin color.

This may come as a surprise to you, but for most of American history surgeons were hired because of their skin color and genitals (two things not as far as I know used during the practice of medicine). And many probably still are. The number of medical degrees for women is now about at parity [1]. But as far as practicing physicians go, only 38% are women [2]. And the numbers for surgery are much lower. I've heard from multiple friends in medicine tell me that surgery has a culture that's very macho and frequently abusive.

[1] https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/nation-s-physician-workfo...

[2] https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/physicians-by-gend...

"Take authentic, accurate portraits with Real Tone. Portraits on Pixel represent the nuances of different skin tones for all people beautifully and authentically."

The point is that now they've broadened the range where the camera works well. So they are showing what's improved.

As a white person I've never had to wonder if a camera would be able to properly capture my skin tone, so them showing pictures of white people won't really give me anything new. The whole point of this is to show underrepresented people that their skin tones are now better supported. Those are the people who care about this new feature. And the photos are there to convince them. A white person doesn't need convincing that a camera can capture their skin tone.