I agree that it seems negative and I'd rather he didn't do it, but I can see why he does. There are plenty of even less accurate commentators who are prepared to make analyses of the situation that are unfavorable to Apple. Most people don't take the time to critically analyze the 'news' they hear and are actually influenced by this stuff. Apple needs to at least state their viewpoint so that it is out there alongside the criticism, and maybe it's better for it to come in this form than in their marketing materials.
Is it so hard for you fanboys to say something like "Lying is wrong and he shouldn't have done it" and just leave it at that? No bullshit, no qualifications, no Gruber-style excuses, just a simple condemnation of someone doing something wrong.
Apple is a religion. It's like when, 2000 years ago, some flood destroyed some town. They knew God caused floods, and they thought God liked everyone, so they came up with some bullshit like, "those people had impure thoughts". You have to "qualify it" or else everything you believe in is gone.
Now, the stakes are lower for tablet PCs versus The Meaning Of Life, and we all know... the lower the stakes, the more people care. Now you understand why so much hot air is devoted to Apple vs. The World.
The best reaction is to just laugh at the whole thing. They won't even tell you how much RAM the thing they want you to buy has. And you don't care, because you can't use it like a real computer.
I don't buy Apple products in general (with only one exception) and I think this presentation was of really poor taste, being in total agreement with the article.
That said ... I have an iPhone 3GS and I couldn't care less that it has lower resolution, a 600 MHz processor and only 256 MB of RAM. I totally prefer it over any Android high-end device available right now, because it runs smoothly, it has all the apps that I need including a couple of cool games, upgrades have been smooth and I haven't had any problems with it.
I don't like the iPad, I don't like their closed iTunes repository.
But I really think more hardware / software companies should be focusing more on functionality, polish, user experience rather than technical specifications.
And here I was hoping that at least one hardware company gets it. And yet I see them entering that same shitty game.
Have you really tried a recent Android device? Many highly technical people (ok, programmers/nerds) prefer it after they dig into it vs an iPhone.
Notifications, Google Nav, 3D + Vectorized Google Maps, Chrome-to-Phone, a real filesystem with SFTP/FTP/HTTP sync apps, widgets, python via SL4A, free dev tools for Windows/Linux/Mac, awesome 3rd party ROMs, swappable batteries, SDCard, bigger screens, tight Google voice integration, WiMax/LTE, Swype, better cameras, faster javascript, $30/mo cheaper plans, etc.. I feel sorry for iPhone4 users who think they're superior because the scrolling on their phone is a little smoother.
My wife has an Desire HD. It is great, and a developer's dream indeed (you can run frikin' Python on it :)). I also think the iPhone 4 is too expensive and doesn't provide enough value for the extra money over the 3GS or over a cheap Android, like LG Optimus One.
I was just making a point that faster processor / bigger RAM doesn't necessarily translate in a better experience; and more companies should focus on experience.
You can get _x_ features if you're willing to wait longer for updates, are willing to potentially be told your warranty is void if your device breaks, and don't have a recently released device.
In part they're "playing the game" because their followers want them to.
But I agree that it should be about how useful the device is, but that runs counter-intuitively to how companies work. The device must make more profit. This might mean being more marketable, or it might mean having a channel for content, or it might mean being better. Sadly, better is the WORST of the three.
I find the "cult of apple" and "apple is a religion" memes amusing because, including myself, the majority of Apple users that I know are atheists.
Personally, I think "spectator sports" makes for more constructive analogies than religion. People develop very strong associations to their favorite rugby/football/etc team, delight in their team's victories, and bemoan their losses. Some people cheer on favorite tech companies in the same way. It's silly, but no more so than a die-hard Detroit Lions fan.
I wish I could upvote you more. "X is a religion" should only be valid when X categorically resembles a religion--books, worship, in-group perks, rituals, supernatural, the lot. Your sports team analogy is great.
Religion to me is any kind of belief without questioning, without observable proof.
Books, worship, in-group perks, rituals, supernatural; are just side-effects and the scale of it depends on the ability of its leaders to bullshit people.
I'm not an atheist btw - that also requires belief and too much energy. As I'm too lazy to answer the question "does God exist or not?" guess that makes me an agnostic - and truly I don't give a shit.
But then again, I'm an Ubuntu user that also uses Windows from time to time.
And Ubuntu Christian Edition is a few clicks away if I ever make a decision :p
If you cannot honestly make this claim: "I believe in god/s", you are an atheist by definition. You may not be a strong atheist which is someone who would make the claim: "There is/are no god/s", but you are still an atheist (a weak atheist, which anecdotally appears to be the most common variety). Just think about the roots, atheism - without theism.
You're also an agnostic if you can honestly make the claim: "It is unknowable whether or not there is/are god/s".
I used to call myself an agnostic because, for whatever reason, people always assume that if you are an atheist you hold the position that there are no gods (which you also seem to hold given your assumption that atheism is a position that requires belief).
Just as long as you realize you're using uncommon terminology with respect to 'religion'. I'd rather term faith-based thinking as religious-thinking (or religious-esque), but it's certainly not unique to religion, and some irrational atheists also suffer from it... (I'd also ask how many bits of evidence about a belief you require before you take something as proof but that's fairly off-topic..) In regards to the god question, for me I care about being right, and my number of bits for the proposition "the Christian god exists" is at least below -10 so I'm pretty sure it's false. :) If I was presented with a strong piece of evidence in the other direction, I might join you and uninstall Gentoo to use the holy Ubuntu Christian Edition.
You know, the problem with God is that it isn't really a falsifiable notion; but here's something to chew on ...
Do you admit the possibility that tomorrow, based on weird but explainable phenomenons, molecules in the air might collide and materialize a tuna-sandwitch right before your eyes? Think about it - possibility is so close to zero that intuition would tell you that it is impossible.
And yet atheists are ready to admin that this wonderful and full of life world that we live in (which is a lot more complex than a tuna-sandwich btw) - came into being by way of some kind of cosmic accident that we'll never understand, with our universe instantly expanding, forming lots of hydrogen-burning stars and rocks of all shapes and sizes - and somehow on one of these rocks, carbon-based life not only happened, but it also gave birth to sentience.
This story is even more unlikely to happen than a tuna-sandwich integrating right before your eyes tomorrow, or having a man in red suit driving a sleigh with flying reindeers and yet we consider it natural because it already happened.
Eh, I'll spend a little karma. I believe the laws of physics, and it's the laws of physics which make the spontaneity of sandwich-appearance much less likely than the arising of homo sapiens based on billions of years of causality we have determined experimentally and then many many years of the very mathematical process of evolution. The big bang theory has some issues, but the idea that things were once really close together and now are expanding at an accelerating rate is pretty nailed down. Evolutionary theory is similarly nailed down, I believe both those propositions with a fairly high number of bits. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but not by merit of the possibility that I could be wrong. Not all possibilities are equal.
Can you point to some atheists who are as you say? As an atheist I've never considered this a particularly wonderful and full of life world (sure I like it and want to preserve parts of it but there's a lot of improvement to be made) nor have I considered the mysteries of the universe are incomprehensible. We are as Sagan said "the universe trying to understand itself".
You may say our lives coming into being by the known fundamental laws of physics is as unlikely as Santa existing, but here we are, the evidence is actually in front of us, humans and quantum mechanics. I've never seen Santa, yet I've seen humans and studied some QM.
You've been here for 1,466 days, and you didn't realize that this might not be the way to move a debate forward on HN? Please try harder not to call people names.
Yeah, because calling out someone's bullshit is now "abusive behaviour".
Listen, people here aren't retarded - they don't need someone to try and explain why Jobs lied. He lied because he can make himself and Apple look better if he told the truth. It's the same reason most other people lie and it's so transparent a toddler can see through it.
No one's gonna stop you from posting low quality Apple fluff, but don't expect not to get called out on it.
The problem with your comment is that it begs for a response in kind. The tone on the thread changes, from tendentious to outright hostile. Users click into threads and see high-ranked comments with that tone. They write their own comments like that. Oh, look. Now we're Reddit.
I think he used just the right amount of vitriol to best make his point. He's adding something valuable to the discussion and that's all that really matters to me. It's not tone that leads to Reddit, it's too many posters with too little to say.
If it's so transparent, and provokes such outrage, why does it make Apple look better?
I don't think it's so clear. I've noticed Jobs attacking the competition more and more - gradually increasing since the launch of the original iPhone - and, as I've said elsewhere it makes me think less and less of him.
At the same time, I'm curious as to why he feels he needs to do it given what a strong position they appear to be in. Wouldn't magnanimity serve them better? If not, why not? And if as you suggest, Jobs doing is serving Apple's best interests by doing this, how should we avoid getting into that position if we become successful ourselves?
I'd be interested to discuss this, but that means speculating about his motivations, which according to you, is off-limits in this community and must be policed with personal attacks and rudeness.
Is it so hard for you black and white moralists to say something like "companies interpret any data they can in the most favourable light they possibly can and it's up to you to work out what you want to know" instead of classifying the company you like's interpretation as "truth" and the company you dislike's interpretation as "lies"?
What are we supposed to say? I don't think I'm the only one who is tired of what basically amounts to Apple marketing being posted constantly on HN (and sure maybe the rate of those posts is lower than sites like Techmeme but it's still quite high, see for example Ipad 2 posts http://www.google.com/search?q=site:news.ycombinator.com+%22... )
There has to be some way to identify this group of people, and say, look it's fine that you love Apple, but this is a place for in-depth discussions, not a place to show the latest shiny new trinket and 'ooh' and 'ahh' over its features.
His particular question reads fine as "Is it so hard to" without referring to who feels that way. If he genuinely wanted a response, he could be inclusive with "Is it so hard for us to". "Fanboys" is not taboo, but is insulting and unlikely to obtain a friendly response. "Fans of Apple" is probably a better neutral term. But like the original author, I wonder if you are actually asking a question. Are you?
If you read the thread, you'll see that there was no fawning. Just an attempt to understand the motivation behind Jobs negative statements. Understanding how and why someone like Jobs communicates seems pretty relevant to this community.
You're all fanboys of some kind or another - "my apple product is sooo much prettier than yours" - "I'm way too cool for apple, I have android" Whatever. Show me the guy who has a Dell monitor, Toshiba laptop, droid smartphone, Apple iPad, and Sony flat screen.
He did. Your comment was a long winded apologetic on why Apple was justified in lying, bending the truth, and promoting half truths.
You started by saying "I don't agree" then ended up "Apple needs to state their viewpoints" which is subtly justifying their behavior.
In my opinion, this is an open and shut case of Steve not being honest in his keynote, and he should be called out.
It's especially disappointing to hear this as a fan of Apple as I don't think this kind of reality distortion is necessary given Apple's success. It just makes them look desperate and much lower then their actual position would dictate.
I think steve jobs was dishonest in presenting that uncorrected quote from the Samsung executive. It lessens him in my eyes and it has been called out already.
Does that mean we can't attempt to understand his motivation without being called names? Must every statement about the subject begin with 'Steve Jobs is a liar'?
It's worth pointing out that nothing else he said even comes close to being a lie.
"Does that mean we can't attempt to understand his motivation without being called names?"
I think that's implicit and not really necessary to discuss, "sell more stuff".
However, if Jobs came out tomorrow and said, "look folks, I've been kinda sick and out of the loop recently, somebody else put those slides together and I didn't realize they weren't accurate, sorry 'bout that" that'd be a reasonable explanation.
That was definitely a response to what you wrote. However, I don't think it's a fair to demand: "JUST condemn it, and offer no excuses." You're free to excuse if you like.
Isn't the motivation "they lie to sell more devices" - which is what your post seems to dance around, without outright saying it? Or am I oversimplifying?
You're oversimplifying. The misquote of the Samsung executive is the only thing he said that might be dishonest. Unlike the original statement by Samsung that they sold 2 million devices.
The fact is that executives in the industry make misleading statements all the time. These statements end up in headlines and do influence people. This is fact.
Does this mean I like it? Of course not. Do I think it would be better if Jobs was a lot more careful to say things that are unimpeachably clean - very much so.
I think they make these kinds of statements to try to counteract the kinds of falsehoods that others are making.
Other than the Samsung quote, Jobs didn't lie. How is exaggerating the outrage and pretending that he did, any better than what he's accused of?
Is it so hard to accept that there are reasonable people in the world who disagree with you? Or is childish name-calling your way of dealing with that?
>Most people don't take the time to critically analyze the 'news' they hear and are actually influenced by this stuff.
Err, I thought most of his presentation was targeted at exactly those people who will walk away with wrong impressions of the competition. Jobs knows that this presentation will be much more widely publicized than this criticism and that's why they wanted to do it.
Seriously, how much percentage of the people who watched that slide containing the misquote of Samsung's exec would come to know it's a misquote? I would say 5% at the maximum.
You seem to imply that it's better to spread lies and misinformation about some facts around because some analysts may do the same about different facts. I don't know how that computes.
