Yes, I've read your post carefully. Let's re-examine it
carefully:
If you are working for Nokia, won't it further your purpose if you
claim that Nokia is a better product as compared to another
product. As opposed to a man on the street who claims that Nokia is
a better phone, the man on the street has no benefits from making
that claim.
You said that if a man works for Nokia, he will say that Nokia
phones are good since it will further his purpose. In the next
sentence, all you said was that a man on the street who claims that
Nokia is better derives no benefits from doing so.
You didn't say anything about the latter's views being unbiased. So
I interpreted you as saying that the man on the street can't
possibly be making such a claim since it doesn't benefit him in any
way - carrying the reasoning forward from the previous
sentence.
This is what happens when you're vague. You get misunderstood. I
can't be held responsible if you don't properly flesh out what goes
through your mind, eh? 
