Which, even if it were true, would actually make it more racist.
Let's say the ad showed a white plantation owner whipping one of his slaves, and the slave was smiling. "Look, he's not suffering, he likes being a slave!" Or, to go even further, what if you'd shown a bunch of hooded KKK members with shotguns chasing after a grinning black man?
Whose interests would that ad be serving? Does the apparent joy on the victim's face make the act more or less demeaning?
If you take a racist ad and depict the victim as enjoying their humiliation, all you're doing is trying to justify your racist stance. "See? Racism's not so bad! They like it!" Which is more racist than if you'd shown them suffering.
I don't really see a smile, though, personally. But it's still a racist ad, just not as bad as it could have been. The first time I saw this, I only saw the image, and I don't think the image by itself is necessarily racist. It's only if you see the world in terms of different colors of skin that it would be.
BUT, when you then add the text that they've got there, it crosses the line. Because now Sony's saying specifically that they chose those two people because one is black and one is white, and the white one is dominating the black. Not only that, but the text is completely categorical - it's not "the white PSP is coming", it's "White is coming".
Put together, this is about as blatantly racist as an ad from a mainstream company has gotten in the past 20 years or so, at least that I can remember.
Man, that ad went completely over my head the first time I saw it. Not until you pointed out the (now) obvious connections to slavery, shotguns, and the Klan did I realize how racist I was being. Here I was thinking that I might enjoy that kind of treatment from Mistress PSP-White, but didn't take the time to see it from the black man's perspective.
This is going to cost Sony dearly in the african american high end portable demographic. DEARLY.