Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth | Hacker News Reader

Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth

tech.fortune.cnn.com

513 pointsssclafani325 comments

Completely agree. I'm not exactly an apple fanboy, but I do love my iPad, and there isn't yet a competitor's device I'd want to replace it with (although I'm hoping BlackBerry's will change that).

If he had come out and given all the ways that the iPad 2 is better than the iPad, I'd have been impressed. But spending half the time criticising competitors just came across as the kind of tacky tactic that really shouldn't be needed unless you're trying to catch up to them - not if you're trying to prevent them from catching up to you.

Oh, and that's just for the attacking competitors. Going even further than that, and attacking them with incorrect spin, way too far.

This has been happening for quite some time. One of the earnings call last year was more of Android-bashing than a talk about Apple's successes.

EDIT: I believe it was Steve doing the talk back then too.

I think this is a sign that they're running scared a lot more than they're letting on.

It's only a matter of time before the iPad style tablet becomes commoditized. Quite a few years ago, Apple was one of the design leaders in the laptop space, then others caught up, more or less. The same thing happened in the smartphone space. The same thing will happen to tablets. In a way, they are subject to the same forces that Nokia is desperately trying to escape, except Apple has been smart and positioned themselves on the forefront of each wave, where it will lift them up. Nokia rode their wave too long.

Will Apple become a victim of their own success? Yes.

For the record, though, I think Steve Job's "reality distortion field" is sometimes actually an anti-distortion field. I think the consensus reality has some significant distortions, which he's good at seeing through. Then again, everyone who isn't Steve might have a hard time knowing which polarity the field is set to at any given moment.

> Quite a few years ago, Apple was one of the design leaders in the laptop space, then others caught up, more or less. The same thing happened in the smartphone space.

Who are these companies? Seriously. Have you used an Apple product side by side with a non Apple equivalent? Does any company come close to the build quality or original design of Apple?

If other companies are almost catching up, it still means they are behind, and, worse, just riding on Apple's success without much idea of why they are successful.

Who are these companies? Seriously. Have you used an Apple product side by side with a non Apple equivalent? Does any company come close to the build quality or original design of Apple?

"Close" is a very subjective term. I like the looks of my coworker's phones sometimes. I haven't played with one for very long. I really love the design of my iPhone 4. Nothing else is as good from a tactile perspective, I'll grant you that.

If other companies are almost catching up, it still means they are behind, and, worse, just riding on Apple's success without much idea of why they are successful.

Or they have something of an idea, but they can't execute.

can't execute yet..... it's only a matter of time. Apple has to keep moving forward.....

I can't speak for design, I know most people think that Thinkpads look ugly, however regarding build quality I own a Thinkpad T500 I bought 2 years ago and I have:

+Dropped it way more times than I can count, usually while closed and turned off but also while it was running, and while it was open (both running and not).

+Totally stood on it, putting my full weight on the closed lid many times.

+Left it running in my closed backpack for almost an hour (twice).

+Used it indoors and out during drizzle, snow, the height of summer and the low of winter, I even used it on a beach once.

And through all of the above I never had any problems. The only issue I have ever had was when I was carrying it about 6 ft. off the ground while open and running (brilliant I know) and I dropped it onto a tile-on-concrete floor. That time the hard drive crashed but everything was perfectly fine.

I don't know what kind of build quality Apple computers have but I'm going to guess that it can't be that much better.

It's not just build quality, it's also aesthetics. You say you can't speak for design, but that's what most people care about more than the ability to bounce their laptop off of concrete. That's why the average consumer isn't in the market for a Toughbook.

What data are basing the opinions of "most people" and "average consumers" on?

consumer sales?

You mean around 17% to 20% ? That's 'most people' and the 'average consumer'?

can you link to the numbers

Well then HP, Dell and Acer make the most beautiful laptops in the world.

Are you including sales to businesses in those numbers?

Yes probably. And in reality if you look at laptops > $1k it's not even close, Apple has 90% of that market. What that says to me though is that most people care more about cost than aesthetics. The point being that aesthetics isn't really the trump card that a lot of people think it is.

I think we have to bucket buyers into different groups. For one large group I think it is the dominant factor. I think the word "aesthetics" maybe be a bit of a misnomer. It's more than just physical appearance. There's a clean elegance to almost all aspects of the device including the software.

The tablets will be a good test, so far the android tablets aren't a lot cheaper than the ipad. We'll see how they do.

Does it matter? Are you disputing the claim? Do you think that people care more about the ability to bounce their laptop off of concrete than aesthetics?

Depends on which group you look into. The social level who can afford to buy apple? Most likely not that many.

Those who can't afford to change the laptop if it breaks (or who would find this to be a major expense)? Yeah, I can believe that.

The social level who can afford to buy apple?

A Toughbook costs more than a comparable MBP.

And for the price of a MBP you can buy 2-3 "normal" laptops.

I.e. the low-end budget stuff that ain't pretty, may have a whiny fan, but still gets the job done.

Why did that get downvoted?

For reference, here's a Lenovo G550 for $389:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834146...

The MBP starts at $1199.

And insurance costs more than not having it, but the poorer you are, the more you need it.

So yeah, it is maybe more expensive but I can totally see why you would want that.

I can see why you would want it as well, but if you can afford it then you are in the social group who "can afford Apple".

(As long as toughbook refers to Panasonic Toughbook brand, if there is a cheap laptop marketed as durable that would make a difference.)

>That's why the average consumer isn't in the market for a Toughbook.

The average consumer isn't in the market for a beautiful piece of a glass laptop that breaks with little impact either.

My original Aluminum Unibody 13" macbook has been dropped 6ft onto a hardwood floor, and banged multiple times against aluminum braces. Has a few dings, but still going strong.

I disagree. I think that the average person looks almost exclusively at price, and not much else. However, in my experience the few people that pay much attention to the specific type of laptop they are buying pay at least as much attention to quality as they do to aesthetics. (Note that I don't have any numbers to back this up, this is just my experience from the people who I help buy computers)

I know most people think that Thinkpads look ugly

I don't think so. Most people I know love the look of Thinkpads. It's still my favorite looking laptop. It has a classic styling too. It's a design that looked good 10 years ago, and still looks good now. I'm not sure any other laptop exists that can make that claim.

The styling of UPS delivery vans shares this longevity. I think it's because we all know Thinkpads just keep looking the same, so they never look out of date. Whereas, we can tell a Dell from 5 years ago is going to be a lot slower.

Everything you mentioned, I've also done (with the exception of using it out in drizzle and snow - that just seems crazy!)

Once, during my commute home, I decided to play music via iTunes (my iPod had died). I arrived home, walking to the door, when I decided to unzip the bag I was carrying (a sling type) to turn off iTunes, when my Mac Book Pro came sliding out. It landed smack on the front right corner, a good 5-5.5 ft drop. I feared the worst! It took me a good 10 seconds to finally get the nerve to check and was shocked to find, not only was the screen not cracked, but the machine was still running like a champ! (I did end up with a serious dent and some major scratches on the bottom, but I considered them battle scars and showed them off with pride!)

I've looked at ThinkPads for work (web development) and I'm glad to hear the quality is on par with the MBPs I'm use to.

I second this. My MBP has been dropped more times than I can ever admit to the Genius Bar and it has kept on ticking. Every computer I've ever owned has been a mac and they all still work. Compare that to my fiance's 4 PCs that have all broken beyond use. He's currently using my Power Book that's almost 8 years old. It's slow but it works! It also still looks nice.

Last time I looked at them was a while ago, but with mac book pro vs thinkpad, the mac book pro is significantly more expensive.

I once slipped on ice and dropped my running T60p 4 feet onto a steel manhole cover.

3 years later, it's still running like a dream.

These stories of people running across streets frantically computing with their open laptop during the dead of winter invite so many more questions than just the survival of the device.

"when I was young, we'd walk 25miles to school, in the middle of winter, uphill both ways, with our laptops open and running..."

"At least you had a hill to walk up. In my day we had to use our laptops in an icy hole covered in tarpaulin just to keep the things from overheating"

Trying to triangulate the position of a wifi AP ;)

I will tell you the build that Apple has: > +Dropped it way more times than I can count, usually while closed and turned off but also while it was running, and while it was open (both running and not). Yes

>+Totally stood on it, putting my full weight on the closed lid many times. Why on earth would I do that?

>+Left it running in my closed backpack for almost an hour (twice). More times than I can count. My MBP has been "shut down" for a maximum of 20 times in the past 2 years.

>+Used it indoors and out during drizzle, snow, the height of summer and the low of winter, I even used it on a beach once. Everything except the snow

>The only issue I have ever had was when I was carrying it about 6 ft. off the ground while open and running (brilliant I know) and I dropped it onto a tile-on-concrete floor. That time the hard drive crashed but everything was perfectly fine.

Done that as well. The MBP hard disk stops motion when the acceleration exceeds a certain value suddenly

-It is not just the build quality. -It is also about merging design and technology -Building a durable laptop can be as non innovative as carbon fibre layering. -It is about removing point of failures/fall/mishaps by innovation like the MagSafe adapters. God they prevent the laptop from falling everyday. -Also it is not just how it is built but also how it works. I work on Windows in my office and on my MBP by the night. The OS is exceedingly more polished and refined on the Mac. <br /> Does that give a fair perspective?

Ok. I am new here but I do know the reason why this was down voted. Could you please explain?

I didn't downvote, so I'm not sure, but I'd guess it's mostly because of the odd formatting. It's difficult to tell what you are quoting, and what you are adding. I wouldn't take offense. Checking http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc might help for the future.

I do like apple hardware (until mac os x became good enough for me, around 10.4/10.5 I used linux on a intel macbook), and it is well designed, but IBM thinkpad are much more solid.

Actually, the Intel plastic macbook were pretty crappy quality-wise: the magnet stuff which kept breaking for many people, etc... I bought the alu one for that reason alone. Also, ipods are not super strong, and the recent ones rarely last more than 2 years for me.

Maybe I am just careless, but the IBM thinkpad I got lasted for years and were built like tanks (and unfortunately looked like as well...).

Design, in this case, is mostly a matter of taste. Having said that, I prefer design of VAIOs over Apple Macbooks for example. Newer HPs are good too.

Second that. Especially VAIOs like this http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryD... Red Z/

I'm talking less about the physical design and more about the functional design. Apple products are extremely minimalist as a design decision: only include what is necessary, allow the form of the device to reflect what is necessary and the material chosen that expose that functionality. I mean design from a "how things work" perspective, something more objective than just how the thing works.

The designs of other companies appear to be aesthetic or functional primarily without regard for the other: design the look of the object and then fit as much functionality in as possible, or the opposite, get as much functionality as possible, and wrap it in some plastic. In either case there is little interaction between form and function, and often complete neglect between one or the other.

And even in the great case where both are considered, say Sony's line of VAIOs (I formerly owned a VAIO desktop), the build quality is low, or semifunctional (opening the case on my VAIO was a pain).

As others have noted, ThinkPad's may be the best counter example. They are extremely utilitarian. Their good looks, in my opinion, comes from their purely functional approach.

Sony's high end VAIO laptops have always surpassed Apple in build quality, and matched them in design, from the 505 to the R505, TZ and current Z series. I have a VAIO from 2002 that still runs well and the Z series is better than a macbook pro in pretty much every way except price (costing twice as much thanks to carbon fiber), while weighing as much as the macbook air 13".

Now don't get me wrong, Apple makes some fantastic product, and Sony makes a ton of crap to go along with its gems, but Sony can still go toe to toe with the company its aesthetic sense inspired.

Asus has superior build quality to Apple (measured in failures within 3 years; Apple is around 17% and Asus is 15%, as I recall), lots of original designs (they started the netbook craze, and have a line of laptops made with bamboo), and they don't look half bad either. The U36Jc is completely comparable spec-wise to the 13-inch macbook pro, except for lacking an optical drive, while costing $200 less. It also has better graphics, a larger hard drive, better battery life, is thinner, and weighs about a pound less.

So yes, there are companies that produce hardware comparable to Apple. They're just not as well known.

I suspect this is more of a branding issue. Macbook Pro is a relatively memorable name; U36Jc took me longer to type than the rest of this sentence, let alone remember (I won't).

Apple is better at being the original-design-brand, even if they're not the only brand doing awesome original design.

You're entirely right. Oddly enough, though, this never occurred to me before, even though in retrospect it's ridiculously obvious. Always interesting when that happens.

"I suspect this is more of a branding issue."

It's a choice issue, too. If my next laptop is a MacBook, I know that I have basically one choice to make: how big I want the screen. If I'm a penny-pincher, I can check out the refurb section of the Apple Store, but in general, I really only have one choice.

If I want to get an Asus, where do I even start? Screen size, resolution, weight, price, processor, presence or not of optical drive? How do today's models stack up against yesterday's? How much would I gain in price and trade off in performance by seeking out a store model or overstock one from six months ago?

The following is a list of every ASUS laptop offering. This is far too many models.

http://www.asus.com/AllProducts.aspx?PG_ID=1quIC6RvvlvcvNbn

Happened to stumble on Engadget's review of the U36Jc: http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/03/asus-u36jc-review/

"The company has an extremely great handle on what components are needed to make a really awesome thin and light machine – standard voltage processors, a dedicated GPU, a good sized battery, lots of ports – but it consistently forgets to pay attention to the small details. And in the case of the U36Jc, those details include a wonky mouse button, glossy bezel, and some heat issues. It's those things that hold systems like this one from being the best of the best."

Spec-wise, there are tons of laptops that can match or exceed the MacbookPros. It's the little details where almost all of them fall short.

Asus has superior build quality to Apple (measured in failures within 3 years; Apple is around 17% and Asus is 15%, as I recall)

Where did you get these numbers? It certainly doesn't square with my own, pure anecdotal, experience with Asus and Apple. Is anyone actually publishing these numbers? Are laptop makers required to?

People who offer generic after-market warranties have the stats. http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliab...

Thanks!

For sure! Oh, wait, I meant PlaysForSure.

I wish I thought you were right, because I think it would be much better for Apple in the long term to have credible competition. I see none, and pretty clearly Apple sees none, or their subscription-revenue plan wouldn't have seen the light of day.

Totally agree. Let's not forget the PC - invented by Apple, now it means non-Apple.

No one caught up with the iPod; Apple rode that wave fully, by mercilessly improving and price-cutting it; then subsuming/cannibalizing it with the iPhone/Touch. They will ruthlessly brutalize their current babies too.

When the iPad was launched, there was no talk of competitors. Today, most of the news is about competitors. It's necessary for Steve to trash them. And to be clear: the iPad 2 specs actually do trash them.

Big question: what's the next wave for Apple? I think it will be smart phones as a desktop/laptop replacement (you dock at home/work). Maybe a nano-sized smartphone replacement (or even smaller), for the next form-factor.

PS: The Kindle will disrupt the iPad: it has a far cheaper yet more profitable business model; when the iPad becomes more powerful than it needs to be, the Kindle will be powerful enough.

It's not the devices. The iPod didn't succeed because of the iPod. The iPhone was woefully inadequate when it was launched. The iPad succeeded because of everything that had come before it.

* iTunes * The Apple Retail Store * iOS App Store * Now the Mac App Store * Apple TV

Don't get me wrong, the devices are great. They look nice, the work well. I love my iPhone, my iMac, MBP, iPad, Apple TV. The Airport Extreme is a wonderful wireless router.

But alone, any of these products are okay (except the AE, it's worth it). It's everything around them that matters.

That's why I agree with you on the Kindle, though it won't disrupt the iPad. I love my Kindle, but it's used for a different reason than the iPad. But the Kindle does what it does well, and everything it connects to is top notch.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. However, it's not the product, it's everything beyond the product that really made Apple successful.

As for what's next: Removing the computer from the screen. I've been saying it for a LONG time here. I really think Apple is moving toward a server -> client model. You'll buy a computer for the house, a really powerful beast, something you put in the corner. Everyone connects to it using their iPads, monitors, Airs, iPhones. Your session remains the same regardless of the device.

Everything is pointing to this.

This is probably Apple having trouble adjusting their world-view.

With the iPhone & iPad, Apple might have expected a level of success and market-share equal to the iPod.

And without Android, they might well have gotten there!

But with Android, Apple is looking at a market more like Desktop OS, than iPod.

While Google wasn't bashing Apple at all at Google I/O...

That's how it was reported but if you listen to the actual call it was about 1-2 minutes squarely aimed at the Samsung Galaxy Tab which had just been released.

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.

Stay civil.

Stay truthful.

The truth is calling someone a "fanboy" is childish and virtually guaranteed to send the discussion in a bad direction.

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.

As you have just demonstrated, it is perfectly possible to complain about the coverage Apple gets on HN without calling people names.

So are you going to answer his question? Since 'fanboys' is taboo or insulting, what are we supposed to collectively refer to these people as?

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?

Why do you need a term aside from for use in ad hominem attacks?

For effective communication. Specific terminology has more uses than insults you know.

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.

Name calling does not.

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.

Not everyone is a fanboy. Some people just have different opinions. Also, did Steve Jobs come to your house and kick your dog or something? Calm down.

If you respond to something I actually wrote, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

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.

I didn't make excuses. I said it was negative and that I didn't like it. I attempted to explain why I thought he was doing it.

I find it interesting to try to understand people's motivations rather than condemn them even if I dislike what they are doing.

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?

Other than the Samsung quote, Jobs didn't lie.

Here's the ones you must have missed then, from the article:

"First dual core tablet to ship in volume."

">90% market share".

Those aren't lies.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2287053

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.

You are confusing explanation with justification.

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.

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.

Wait, now I'm depressed.

Wow, the Spanish Inquisition works quickly! Already down to -4!

I guess you weren't expecting that.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

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.

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.

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.

You can get roughly half of those features after you jailbreak your iPhone.

Faster JavaScript is coming in 4.3. As to whether or not it will be faster than Ginger, I haven't used the beta (4.3) yet.

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.

Versus having said features out of the box.

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.

"Apple is a religion."

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.

books: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dap...

worship: http://www.google.de/images?q=steve+jobs+messiah

rituals: the constant plugging in of iphones and ipods into iDevices to recharge/setup

Couldn't resist ;)

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

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.

That's why I said atheism also requires faith.

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.

Edit: oh hey, I almost forgot. http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprova... "The earliest account I know of a scientific experiment is, ironically, the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal."

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).

The old testament: http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Inside-Macintosh-Volumes-III/dp/...

The new testament: http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Macintosh-Apple-Computer-Inc/dp...

The book of common prayer: http://www.amazon.com/Macintosh-Human-Interface-Guidelines-C...

The dead sea scrolls: http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Reference-Manual-Computers-030-0...

The Apocrypha: http://www.amazon.com/Newton-2-0-User-Interface-Guidelines/d...

Deuterocanonical: http://www.amazon.com/OpenDoc-Programmers-Guide-Apple-Comput...

Dianetics: http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/ui_guidelines/i...

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?

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"?

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.

It may not move the debate forward but it does wonders for his karma.

You know what really helps debate? Not lying and not defending liars.

So that justifies your abusive behavior?

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.

What point did he make other than the vitriol itself?

That Apple is getting way too much sympathy for something that anybody else would be crucified for.

That point can be made, with vitriol, without resorting to attacking other members of HN.

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.

>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.

I actually see his assertiveness as a sign of how much Jobs respects the potential of his competitors and the ruthlessness with which the market will walk away from his company's products if he doesn't sell, and just how much obligation he has to employees who sacrifice so much to make it look like magic.

You have a strange definition of "respect".

Maybe behind closed doors and in board meetings, Jobs will admit that Android is a very fierce competitor that is taking market share away from Apple.

But on the public front, he shows nothing but disdain for competitors and he spends much more time on stage disparaging them than he used to.

Bashing competitors is not just poor form, it's usually the sign of a business losing steam.

By that measure, all of the major players are losing steam.

I think he means that when a company switches from ignoring competitors to acknowledging them by ridiculing them, then they are not as far ahead as they used to be.

So it does imply losing steam in this case.

Phases: 1) Ignore 2) Ridicule 3) Fight 4) Lose

If a company was in phase 2 last year, and phase 2 this year they are not losing steam. A company is losing steam when it moves down the above phase ladder.

Nice. That should be a mechanic in the Hacker News board game.

"Ridicule Competition: Your CEO is losing confidence but is unaware of it. Lose 3 steam points and miss your next turn."

You mean Apple, Microsoft, Google, RIM et al?

Yes, I think it's a pretty fair assessment to say that they are all losing steam. Their basic problem is that smartphones and tablets have gone from being the cool new toys of yesteryear to being mainstream, expensive tools, with just a soupçon of "too clever for your own good".

I saw an interesting debate a few weeks ago on HN. Some people saw these generic tools as the future and specialised tools increasingly becoming obsolete. Other people saw the generic tools as Jacks-of-all-trades whose weaknesses next to dedicated mobile phones, music players, e-book readers, satnavs, etc. were becoming increasingly apparent as practical experience starts to trump the hype.

If I were brave enough to invest in hi-tech companies, I imagine I would be shorting all of the stocks I mentioned above right now. They are making a staggering amount of money today, to be sure. I'm just not sure how much all these new technologies they have been coming out with recently actually help real people to do things they care about, and I think they are highly vulnerable to indirect competition as consumers become more aware of what they actually care about and which gadgets help them do those things.

[Edit: Would the downvoter(s) care to explain why? Apple have or have recently had significant problems with the reliability of the iPhone 4, the spec for the iPad, and their reputation among the communities of app and content developers who support their entire infrastructure. Google have released a string of flops, many of which have been killed within a year, and are starting to look vulnerable even in their main playgrounds of search and on-line advertising, so unless something is fundamentally different in Android world there are probably similar difficulties there as well. RIM's last two big product launches have made Microsoft's handling of Vista look professional. Microsoft themselves have released a string of Windows Mobile platforms that have horrible reliability, functionality and performance compared to other major mobile operating systems. How are any of these companies not losing steam?]

Good god, why on earth did that get downvoted? It's an intelligent opinion, and he's not the only one who thinks it.

That said, I strongly disagree. iPad class tablets are a portable window into the digital world. Apple's video did a pretty good job of showing how that could help people do things they care about, and we're only just getting started.

Apparently we'll just have to have a civilised discussion in light grey. ;-)

I would certainly agree that mobile devices with networking capabilities are a big step forward in general. What I think remains to be seen is whether tablet-style devices like the iPad and Galaxy Tab can carve out a sustainable niche fast enough to survive in a notoriously fickle market.

For leisure use, they seem to have fundamental weaknesses like very short battery lives and being difficult to read in sunlight. No doubt with time these will improve, but for now they reduce the applicability of tablet-style devices, and notably leave them vulnerable to competition from Kindle-style e-book readers in a major segment of the market.

For serious work, I think the lack of a real keyboard is a major disadvantage compared to netbook-style devices. It's going to be a long time before some sort of physical feedback screen is anything like as comfortable and efficient for sustained typing as even a cheap-and-nasty keyboard already is today.

Speaking of controls, while touch-based UIs could become the norm and stylus-type pointing devices might take over from mice for precision work, I don't think I'll hold my breath. Portable mice are widely used with laptops, simply because even the best built-in trackpads are relatively clumsy controls. Also, many a useful UI feature over the past couple of decades has been driven by awareness of what the user is passively observing, typically deduced by where a pointer is positioned. Again, this might change, but it's going to take a long time for conventions that have become as intuitive as handwriting to die, and I don't think the alternative UIs being developed for smartphones today are even close to refined enough for that job yet once you scale them up to tablet-size devices and applications.

I can certainly see tablet-style devices with custom UIs quickly becoming widely used in many niche areas where the flexibility has value, such as shop floor or industrial applications. And I'm sure there will always be an enthusiast segment of the market that values the flexibility they offer, though perhaps tempered in this case by the current closed/tightly-controlled software ecosystems that have been associated with these devices by the big players so far.

However, I think there is a long way to go before a general purpose device that is expensive enough to include components for everything but still only does one thing at once will beat out dedicated and cost-effective GPS satnavs, e-book readers, digital photo frames, wrist watches, and so on. I'm not saying it can't or won't happen, just that I don't think we're there yet, and until we are, companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft and RIM are highly vulnerable not so much to competition from each other but to competition from specialist firms whose specialist devices do one thing, but better and at a lower price.

I think you're overlooking the idea that tablets only have to be better at one or two things in order for people to adopt them. Once you have one, the additional functions don't have to be objectively better in order to displace single function devices because they have two unassailable advantages - zero additional hardware cost, and zero mass.

For example - just being able to browser, keep up with light email, and read ebooks is enough for me to carry my iPad in a lot of situations. I used to carry a backpack full of books and a laptop to get the same functionality. Once I'm carrying the iPad, the fact that it can become a music keyboard for another $5 is just a bonus. I was never going to buy and carry a small portable keyboard. Likewise the GPS and maps. I wouldn't have bought and carried an independent device for that. For specialists, dedicated devices will better for some time to come, but for most people that doesn't matter - the tablet is enabling activities that were simply not practical before.

As far as UI conventions go, most non-geeks just aren't very good with the desktop metaphor anyway. Sure there are experts and for programmers or digital content creators by profession it pays to become one, but most people just aren't.

My 87 year old father (who's last computer was analog!) was able to take my iPad out of my hands and operate the browser without me even telling him what the device was let alone explaining UI metaphors.

I think the key is that tablets can work in situations where netbooks etc. simply can't, and they can make functionality ubiquitous where a collection of special purpose devices would be too much overhead.

And then it's not going to take long for them to evolve to outpace the development of independent specialist hardware because all those separate makers don't stand a chance of putting the same level of resources into the development.

And for all the things that need custom sensors, why not simply have them be extensions of a tablet?

Take something really specialized - e.g. a metal detector. Why not make that into just a Bluetooth sensor that communicated with an iPhone? Setting could be adjusted on the touch screen, but more importantly the phone could log the output, put it on the map with GPS, and upload it to the cloud. All this extra capability, and the sensor could probably be lower cost than a standalone device.

So once tablets enter the equation, previously devices can become cheaper and more capable.

We aren't going to see tablets fall to standalone devices, altough other hardware isn't necessarily going away either.

I would certainly agree that there is room in the market for both specialist and generic devices, if that's what you're arguing.

I just think the generic device probably doesn't make much sense unless there are several things a customer would use it for but not simultaneously, and those things do collectively make use of the bells and whistles to justify the relatively high hardware cost. I'm not sure how many people that really applies to today, and market forces can be a harsh critic.

Your perspective is interesting. But I think it weakens your argument to claim you would short these stocks in theory, but actually won't. The market price is determined by people who are confident enough in their beliefs to act on them. And those people collectively seem to think market-cap-weighted bundle of AAPL, MSFT, GOOG and RIMM is a good bet. If you are not confident enough to act, then that significantly discounts the evidentiary value of your opinion.

He may not have the assets to act in any meaningful way.

Think of it as a figure of speech. I don't believe the current path taken by those companies is sustainable if they come up against well-considered competition.

Also, please don't read too much into my not investing in this particular case. For one thing, I'm not in the US, and for me trading US stocks directly and in a tax-efficient way would require jumping through hoops that just aren't worth the hassle.

It's worth mentioning that last year's Google I/O featured some intense competitor bashing from Vic Gundontra that actually did a lot to strengthen the Android brand, and cemented its status as the primary anti-Apple underdog (now uberdog?).

I think any harsh remarks from Steve Jobs at this event should be viewed in that context, and are a reflection of the overall shift in tone between Apple and Google. The sniping is probably good for their brands and for their 'brand advocates,' who along with the press are really the primary consumers of Apple Event streams and Google I/O conferences—the people discussing this shit ad nauseaum in forums and comment flamewars.

</meta>

>brand advocates

i.e. Everyone on this thread

When a perceived underdog bashes it's "scrappy", when a perceived leader does it it's "bullying", simple as that.

I think the thing I took away best from the original post is the presentation of some severe cognitive dissonance: huge pumping of specs, followed by carefully omitting specs that may not look the best, followed by "specs aren't important anyways".

> you have a strange definition of respect

here's my off-the-cuff attempt.

respect: appreciation for another's abilities, experience, and potential.

Sign of respect: modifying one's behavior based on another's abilities, experience, and potential.

So making things up about something/somebody is a sign of respect?

It is a sign that they have earned more credibility as a threat.

Allow me to appropriate a quotation from a person who's legacy Apple has had no shame appropriating for marketing: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

This was plainly an exercise in ridicule by Jobs.

Of course you realize how easy it is to apply that quote to completely absurd things, e.g. the Flat Earth Society or pretty much anyone who has reached the ridicule stage. It gets significantly harder as you go along (ignored, ridiculed, fought, victory), and the first two are relatively easy...

It's basically a rallying cry for the severe underdog (which I don't think Android is in this case).

It's also about how power behaves when threatened (which I think does describe Android's relationship to Apple).

I seem to recall the iPad being pretty roundly ridiculed as 'just a big iPod touch' no USB, no flash, etc. etc, and I hear plenty of ridicule from the Xoom crowd.

What's the rule in this situation? Does the one who ridicules first lose, or the one who ridicules the most?

It about how power behaves when threatened. The iPad was a challenge to the dominant netbook model. The Xoom crowd isn't at the top, but android is surging, so they're just noise at this point. Apple's at the top. That's the key difference. Ridiculing Android means that it's progressed to the point that they can't ignore them.

I always thought that quotation was geared towards innovators, and not merely underdogs who are following an already blazed trail.

Allow me to appropriate a quotation from a person who's legacy Apple has had no shame appropriating for marketing: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

While I agree with you that Apple's use of Gandhi in their ads is just about the most shamelessly incongruent marketing ever, Gandhi never said "First they ignore you etc." It comes from a speech made by someone called Nicholas Klein to a garment workers' union circa 1915. Oddly enough, the original Google Books citation I found for this no longer yields the phrase in search. But it appears in this (garbled but recognizable) digitization of the primary source:

http://www.archive.org/stream/generalexecuti1919amaluoft/gen...

(I'm experimenting with bringing this up every time I run across the misquote, because I'm curious if the real information will ever catch on.)

That's very interesting. It's listed in the disputed section of Gandhi's page on wikiquotes:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

As a thank you, I offer this personal favorite that I like to bring up whenever someone talks about stealing someone's thunder:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/steal-ones-thunder.html

I don't disagree, though I would say plenty of things which are ridiculed are done so with good cause and don't get anywhere near the fighting or winning stage.

Just because you're being ridiculed doesn't mean you're on the right track, it might just mean that you're genuinely worthy of ridicule.

(Note: I'm not suggesting that Android is worthy of ridicule, just saying the fact that someone chooses to ridicule you says little about what might happen next).

Yeah God forbid Apple conducts business like Microsoft and everyone else. I know we hold Apple to a higher moral standard for some reason, but come on, when has Jobs ever held back what he thought of his competitors?

I do agree the misquote was silly and unnecessary. I wonder if Jobs himself personally knew it was a complete deception or did he rely on fact checkers and speech writers to do his due diligence and simply wasn't aware the quote was wrong.

It's nothing about holding Apple to any higher standards, I made exactly the same comment about RIM a couple of months back, and in that instance all they were doing was putting their rivals down, not making up shit. And I'm a huge RIM fanboy.

Somebody rebutted the points in one of the comments: none of the dual-core are really shipping over 100 000 a month (threshold for volume considering iPad ships 1,000,000 per month); Samsung admitted miscalculating their end-sales; iPad 2 has some intense minitiarisation, which as with other 'features/improvements' doesn't come free; Apple bore the entire cost of developing the OS themselves; Kindles, Nooks etc. aren't tablets. Not sure if his/her points were sound, just reporting them.

none of the dual-core are really shipping over 100 000 a month (threshold for volume considering iPad ships 1,000,000 per month)

No one is shipping over 100,000 month. And Apple has shipped zero dual-cores. Jobs should wait til it happens before he says it happened.

Lot of nitpicks and to be expected framing/number fudging by Steve, but straight up misquoting the Samsung rep was very odd. That had been widely corrected, so either Apple did not research their presentation (unlikely) or just knowingly lied (yuck).

There is something kind of funny about a quote going from "quite small" to "quite smooth" (referencing sales numbers - as in "the numbers have been quite smooth").

It reminds me of a kid cursing in front of his mother and then twisting the sounds to create another word after he realized it, if that makes any sense.

ESL was the real culprit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN_w0mcDayI

How did anyone get "small" from that? Sounded pretty clear to me. I'm a native English speaker, and do not speak or understand any other languages.

I can sort of see it. Smooth is a bit of a strange word choice. And in context she was trying to say sales were OK but not blockbuster, so small was primed in the listener's head. Especially in a blink and you'll miss it sale call. Of course, reporters should have double checked the recording, but that is understandably difficult to do in the current fast paced tech news landscape.

If you already expect "smooth", it is in fact impossible to hear "small" in that recording. But that doesn't mean it's impossible in general.

Perhaps a case of selective hearing or hearing what was expected/wanted?

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

Hanlon's razor is something I live my life by.

How much stupidity do you think is involved when billions of dollars are on the line?

Well, there are 435 US Congressional representatives.

On a long enough timeline, everyone is an imbecile.

I'm sure Microsoft has the answer to that question. Or at least the experience.

A cheap jab at Microsoft with no citations that doesn't even follow the conversation, in an Apple thread no less. I'm shocked.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm a Windows user.

If you can't recall any egregious Microsoft failures, you're the fanboy trapped in a distortion field. Microsoft may have a lot of things going for them, but they are ginormous klutzes.

Do you seriously think that there isn't stupidity involved in any billion-dollar projects and companies?

For that matter, Apple made plenty of boneheaded moves themselves. Hockey-puck mouse, iPod socks, and of course, the under-resourced clusterfudge that is MobileMe and its progenitors.

Charlie Sheen is also a ginormous klutz! What does he have to do with this discussion (besides the fact that he's a rockstar who should be a part of all discussions)? Nothing. Neither does Microsoft.

This is one of my favorite quotes. But, in this case I don't think so. People involved are known to be extremely capable.

Even the extremely capable do stupid things.

Apple's misquote was probably more truthful than the actual quote.

>"just knowingly lied"

In their response to Gillis's lawsuit regarding failure of the iPhone 3G to perform as advertised - in part Apple's defense was:

  "Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class,
   are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive
   statements were such that no reasonable person in
   Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or
   misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact,"

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/files/apples_ans...

Yeah, the important part is in the header just before that response. "Puffing."

This refers to "puffery", a common advertising/marketing term. For example, the owner of a hamburger restaurant is permitted to claim he serves "the best hamburgers in the world" without actually producing an empirical study backing it up, because that claim is puffery, and nobody would reasonably take it literally.

I don't know which claim of Apple they are saying is puffery, but they do produce a lot of it ("magical" iPad, anyone?)

The other option is they knew the quote was wrong but the substance was accurate. The Galaxy Tab hasn't really taken off has it?

How much of an Jobs/Apple hater do you have to be before you include Nook and Kindle in the tablet market to argue that the iPad share is actually close to 50?

Quite a large one, I'd imagine. The Nook and Kindle are a pretty far cry from the iPad in terms of capability. To me it seems like it's a very close parallel to a smart phone vs. a feature phone.

So you're saying the iPad has sold more than 90% of all devices that are like iPads? Seems verging on tautological to me.

I'm pretty sure there's room for a distinction between iPad-style media/web tablets and the simpler "reader" type ones like the Kindle and Nook.

I'm not arguing that, but remember the nook-color has internet, wifi, games and an app-store. Is that an e-reader or a tablet?

(Note: that's all if you don't root it, those who do can do pretty much anything on it that android can do)

The iPad does compete with the Kindle, but they are clearly in different product categories. However, I'm inclined to agree that the Nook is closer to the iPad than the Kindle, without even having to root it.

Do any of the Kindles, etc. have touch sensitive main screens? 'Tablet' isn't exactly a new term and has implied a large touchscreen for a long time now. Seems a reasonable distinction considering the difference in how you interact with the devices.

The Nook is literally a 7" Android tablet. (Capacitive multitouch screen, same CPU and GPU as Droid X). And a pretty good one once you root it, which consists of inserting an SD card and turning it on.

That's the Nook Color, actually.

The Nook (the original one, which goes by simply 'Nook') is an e-reader with a 6" eInk screen (a Kindle clone, if you will).

The Nook does have a touch screen. And I think historically 'Tablet' has referred to pen-input devices, which aren't exactly the same as 'touch sensitive.'

Well, that's one advantage of being the first mass merket provider, you define the genre, like how Toyota has defined the crossover SUV because they were the first to build one.

But the actual hardware is half the story (or maybe 30%), these things will live and die with their respective app stores, which is a point Scroble made in his blog. Currently iPad is lightyears away.

As for the reader/tablet discussion: this will blur in the future. Amazon is getting their app store ready as we speak.

Defining the genre is all well and good, until someone else re-defines it out from under your feet.

At the early stage in the tablet genre we're at, this is largely moot - clearly Apple have a huge lead, both in sales and in consumer mindshare, and everyone else is playing catchup.

On the other hand, things can change.

I'm sure Sony and Nintendo would be quite happy to define the 'handheld gaming device' genre as one in which devices have buttons and analogue sticks, but saying they've got 90%+ of the 'buttons and analogue sticks' genre isn't much comfort if everyone is using their smartphones and tablets for gaming.

Similarly, Newspapers and printed media will be happy to define 'newspaper' to be something printed on real paper and then claim X marketshare, that doesn't mean that they're not losing out to online news sites.

If in a years time, Apple are saying 'but we have 90% of the REAL tablet market!' then the shareholders should be worried.

At the end of the day, it's still a case of No True Scotsman[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

"So you're saying the iPad has sold more than 90% of all devices that are like iPads?"

Or to put it another way, there are no other products like iPad.

hm, whats with the other 10% if there are no other products?

100% is "more than 90%".

By that logic they could have said "almost 110%". It would have looked even more impressive, I guess.

returns

Aka The No True Scotsman Fallacy

Right. Then they need to count Etcha-Sketch in there too.

Yep, that's right. And the only competitors are the streak and Xoom in those terms.

The Kindle doesn't make for much of a tablet, but I think the Nook is something I'd enjoy owning as a gearhead. Not sure if normal people would get the same thing out of it, though.

The Nook Color has drastically blurred the line between eReaders and tablets since it is, well, basically really just a tablet.

FWIW, the Optimus line of phones from LG is doing the same in the featurephone/smartphone market (priced like a feature phone, but with all the power and features of a 1 year old top of the line smartphone).

Have you actually compared the Nook Color and the iPad (version 1)?

They're very close on raw specs, e.g. both have Cortex A8 chips, the iPad running 200Mhz faster, and some of the specs are actually better on the Nook e.g. screen quality or memory (512 vs 256).

It's more like iPhone 3GS versus Nexus One than smartphone versus featurephone.

A consumer product should be classified by what it does, not what's under the hood. I don't think your average end user would put the Nook and the iPad in the same class.

A Toyota and a Lexus might have the same engine and HP but that doesn't mean they're necessarily competing for share of the same market. Yes, much of that is marketing - but that's the point of marketing.

Yes, I have to agree. I like my Kindle, but I wouldn't call it tablet. The Kindle is the equivalent of a single app on an iPad.

Are we really debating whether a CEO over-hyped his product in a keynote? Next we'll be taking apart a sales rep for saying his product is better than its competitors.

There's a difference between over-hyping and telling lies.

I saw nothing that constituted a "lie." This is an article from an obvious Android fan (looking at Seth Weintraub's other articles, it's all Google, all the time) who didn't like that Apple took some shots at competing tablets. I have to agree with one of the comments to the article that says Android fanboys are as bad as Apple fanboys, maybe even worse because they act like the fact Android is open source is some great benevolent act of morality--Google is simply an advertising company giving people free services in order to index their data for contxt-sensitive advertising space.

I imagine that a lot of Apple competitors and their fans were upset at the iPad 2 announcement, because it really seems as if will be another hit.

I often wonder whether there's anything that Apple could do that might make the faithful admit they've done something wrong. Once again, this is one of those times.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I've only just entered the smartphone market (android phone 3 weeks ago) but before I had a horse in the race, as a neutral observer, Apple fanboys were worse than Android ones. Android fanboy bitchiness seems to be a reaction to Apple marketroid guff. It doesn't self-generate and invade your mindspace. Apple marketing and culture does. Fanboys are annoying everywhere, but in the absence of mention of competition, Apple on other people's devices demands more of my mental space than Android does.

I saw nothing that constituted a "lie."

Here's the list from the article since you must have skipped over them:

1) A mistranslation from Korean that puts a competitor in a bad light.

2) "First dual core tablet to ship in volume."

3) ">90% market share".

#1 could arguably just a rehash of old stuff, "sorry guys I'm a bit out of date". #2 and #3 are complete fabrications.

The rest of the article was just nitpicking.

#2 depends on your definition of volume, and it's pretty clear that nobody is close to Apple there, so it's hardly even an exaggeration let alone a lie.

#3 isn't a fabrication either. For it to be false, you either have to include e-readers, or assume that Samsung sold over 1.6m Tabs, which seems extremely unlikely given the evidence.

#1 is the most dishonest looking one, but none of it really justifies the "You Lie!" outrage, given the general tone of industry commentary.

#2 Since the iPad 2 wasn't shipping at all, its volume is 0 at the time this was said. That much is inarguable, full stop. Ergo it is a lie.

#3 Provide documentation then, don't guess. Since you're obviously an Apple fan (not saying there is anything wrong with that), guessing will only provide numbers and situations that you want -- confirmation bias.

For it not to be a lie, Apple must own not 88% of the market, not 90% of the market but some number larger than 90%. And yes, include Nook colors since they're Android tablets and sold out and back-ordered where I live. And include Windows tablets. And include cheapo Walgreens Android tablets, and RIM tablets and Nokia tablets, convertable notebooks/netbooks, netpads and whatever other random tablet form factor is out there today. If you want to constrain the form factor to "a big screen that you touch and carry around" so that it excludes Kindles, I think that's fine and makes sense. Here's some lists of tablets so you can start your research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_personal_computer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_computer

Unfortunately, all indications are that Apple owns somewhere between 85-88% of the tablet market today. Which is a fantastically impressive number considering that Microsoft has been trying to build the tablet market for many years and Apple's only been at it a fraction of the time. That is the number that should have been presented, it's an amazing number. There's no reason to fabricate a number and lie.

"#2 Since the iPad 2 wasn't shipping at all, its volume is 0 at the time this was said. That much is inarguable, full stop. Ergo it is a lie."

No, he said when it was going to ship. It's a prediction. It's only a lie if he has good reason to believe that the won't ship in volume .

Here's the link to the slide in question

http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/scr...

It says, "first dual core tablet to ship in volume". That's an exact quote.

It doesn't say, as you are positing,

"when it ships, we predict that at some unspecified point in the future, it will be the dual core tablet that ships more than some arbitrary number for 'in volume' that we've defined, while our competitors will likely not meet or exceed our completely arbitrary and self defined benchmark for 'in volume'."

If you don't think that's a lie, I have some property on the moon to sell you (or at least I predict at some point in the future I will own property on the moon that I will immediately turn over to you if you pay me for it now)

A slide will usually have a generalization of the point that the speaker is making, not a word for word rehash of everything he says.

I listened to the audio and he clearly states a lie "ipad2 is the first dual core tablet to ship in volume". A bold faced lie.

I'm curious if specs in mobile devices have become less important when the device is only supposed to do more or less what it's advertised to doand what the user bought it to do, and not much else. Apple advertises all the apps that work on the iOS line of devices, but these apps are (should be) designed to fit "inside the box" of functionality on the device. Android seems to take a different philosophical approach where users are the big deciders in what is good and appropriate for them on their devices. In the face of advertising versatility, specs do become a bigger issue...especially when you compete with multiple devices on the same platform...like PCs. Apple devices don't have the spec issue, except where it's relevant to show difference between generations of devices. At least that's my two cents. I think both platforms put forth their design philosophies pretty well, and both are respectable options for users. Why people fight over what's better so much is a source of both hilarity and sadness for me.

I'm not sure I buy it, or at least that reasoning doesn't match Apple's apparent position on this. For example, at the iPhone 4 launch, the retinal display was the big topic. It would seem hard for them to then turn around and say that the better resolution of the XOOM is irrelevant.

This is the first product version launch I can remember where Apple wasn't on the leading edge in terms of specs. If they launched months after the XOOM and are as far behind spec-wise as the article suggests, that seems like a big win for the XOOM (even though specs obviously probably aren't the most important factor for most potential customers).

But the better resolution of the XOOM is irrelevant. The core value of a tablet device to the user is delivered through apps. Users tend not to care or notice how many pixels the device has, as long as there is a variety of good and inexpensive apps.

Not changing the iPad 2 resolution ensures there are still 65k and counting fully compatible apps. Android tablet makers continually "one-upping" each other on specs effectively ensure that much fewer quality and compatible apps will be available for their devices.

Except that we know why the iPad resolution hasn't changed:

1. There are 65,000 apps tuned to work with it, so a minor bump to 'compete' on specs would make the user experience worse.

2. We know they are going to double it to 'retina' levels when they can. If motorola want to follow that approach, it's going to be longer before a double size panel is available.

3. The Xoom has an aspect ration that is better for playing a small subset of HD videos, but is worse for using in portrait 'magazine' orientation. It's not actually better for a lot of users.

I'm not even sure where the idea that they are behind the Xoom spec-wise is coming from.

> I'm not even sure where the idea that they are behind the Xoom spec-wise is coming from.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's another side to this argument, but the article explicitly lists where the XOOM exceeds to ipad2:

- higher resolution

- superior cameras (w/flash)

- stereo speakers

- upgradeable to 4G

- micro-USB/SD Card reader

- probably more RAM (author suggests it may be double)

We know they are going to double it to 'retina' levels when they can. If motorola want to follow that approach

They don't need to. The iOS development environment encourages you to use absolute pixel layouts, so a minor resolution increase would break lots of apps. Android uses layout managers that scale better to arbitrary screen sizes. Most existing Android apps will run fine on the Xoom, although certainly many can be improved with tablet-specific interfaces.

The Xoom has an aspect ration that is better for playing a small subset of HD videos, but is worse for using in portrait 'magazine' orientation. It's not actually better for a lot of users.

It still has more vertical pixels than the iPad. Completely agreed on the aspect ratio in general, it's ridiculous that it's almost impossible to find a laptop without a 16:9 display other than from Apple.

The smallish difference is irrelevant unless you care about 720p movies. Double dpi would not be irrelevant as the results are much more obvious to the eye in most situations.

the retinal display was the big topic. It would seem hard for them to then turn around and say that the better resolution of the XOOM is irrelevant.

They had no trouble changing from "number of applications is irrelevant" when it came to the Mac and games on the Mac to "iPhone has the most apps".

Did they ever say that? (The first part, not the second.)

You see, Apple loves to talk about specs when it is in its best interest (speeds and feeds).

Generalizing,

You see, [companies] love to talk about [what] is in its best interest.

And thankfully, good journalists will call them out on it. I'd argue that's an important function of journalism, even.

That's fine, but the tone of this piece was surprise that Apple would use its own marketing event to make Apple look good. Calling them out on facts is good, but there's no need to tell me that Apple will selectively present features based on how good it sells.

Yes. The whole pretense that Steve Jobs' "reality distortion field" is somehow remarkable is one of the weirder and lazier tropes of tech journalism.

I think the backlash is stronger because Apple puts more into their marketing. They put a lot of effort into making everything "magical", "unforgettable", and "world changing". Naturally, some people have strong adverse reactions to that, and are going to be quite negative in an attempt to even it out, at least as they see it. It makes complete sense if you look at it as a counter/reaction to Apple's heavily positive PR.

“In what seems like a ritual at this point, I watched Apple's iPad 2 keynote in disbelief, noting the factual errors that kept coming up minute after minute.”

The only surprise is that a journalist bothered to fact-check a Stevenote.

The only surprise is that a journalist bothered to fact-check.

Most just put ditto remarks on a press release or a presentation. In tech journalism, there's been a meme that Jobs has a "reality distortion field", so there's free attention when someone actually bothers to look at Apple claims.

Yea, just the whole tone of this article really made me queasy. It just smacks of bias. Had it been even-handed observation...

There is no way you can call this article good journalism, no matter who you agree with.

Good journalist? Look at this guy's article history. He writes about nothing else but Google and Android. Of course he's going to be critical of one of Google's major competitors.

This is a whole load of conjecture, but the product announcements coming out of Apple for the last few years seem to be converging on a pattern.

1) Update on success / market share / etc.

2) Possible update on retail.

3) Compare product that is about to be obsoleted with its competition while putting said competition in an unfavorable light.

4) Make the magic happen and take the press to their happy place.

#3 intrigues me. I can't help but wonder if casting the competition in a negative light is just an excuse for being able to talk about the competition at all. Given the possibility of government interference in any industry it is in the best interest of most businesses to maintain the perception of healthy competition. What has struck me about Apple's portrail of their competitors is that they preset what appears to be a finely tuned mix of recognition, disdain, and paranoia. It's almost as if they want you to remember that there are others out there. Any company that mops the floor with their competition is going to have to deal with the losers running off to the FTC, Congress, etc and whining about anti-competitive practices. At times Apple's presentations seem to be attempting to preempt that sort of thing.

Let me preempt any emotional responses by pointing out that I'm not saying Apple/iOS is better than Google/Andriod, etc, etc. I'm saying that in terms of financial success and overall market/mind share they're doing some serious winning (and not in the Charlie Sheen sense of the word).

I hate when people compare Apple products specs with the other competitors. I mean, if a device runs smooth including apps, and no crashes. Why the hell do I need to know if Xoom as 1GB and iPad2 has only 256mb ?

This will only shows that the iPad was better developed in terms of memory optimization then any another other >= 1GB device that does the exact same thing.

I suppose the article talks specs because in the keynote the specs of the competition were being dissed. Reap what you sow.

Actually, the one spec that REALLY matters to me is resolution of the front facing camera. A smooth tablet is a nice gadget, but I really NEED a skype capable device for my mum, so that she can chat with her grandchildren.

It seems the iPad 2 is actually losing out in that spec comparison.

I do not know anything about the quality of either device's cameras, but I do know resolution is not the way to measure camera quality.

That applies even more to measuring how Skype-capable a device is. For Skype on an iPad, one could even argue that any resolution over 1024 by 768 is overkill.

Why should the resolution be overkill? Apple just put HD webcams into their new line of MacBook Pros.

The other end of the chat might be on something else than an iPad. (Also I say Skype, but Facetime might be an option in some cases, too).

Honestly? That would have to be a really crappy camera if it wasn't good enough for basic video chatting. You wont even notice unless the resolution is lower than the resolution of the device (highly unlikely).

I read the camera is just VGA (640x480). My niece is on a MacBook, so I suppose her screen resolution is at least four times that.

He's trying to say you won't be able to upload such a high resolution over your internet connection, so it doesn't matter.

Even 640x480 is tough to stream real time from most people's home internet connection. You also have to compress it real time, which may not be possible at a higher resolution.

Why did Apple put HD webcams into their new MacBooks, then? They seem to be more optimistic about the resolution that can be transmitted.

You can use the camera to record, and then upload non-realtime. Like youtube for example.

You can use the camera to record (and compress), and then upload non-realtime. Like youtube for example.

A small tablet probably doesn't have the CPU power to compress an HD stream, but a laptop should.

The Apple specs say specifically "FaceTime HD camera", which seems to suggest they believe transmission of HD chat videos is possible http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html

Also, who says I prefer framerates over picture quality? Perhaps a reduced framerate is the better tradeoff in exchange for high definition images.

You would need an upload speed of around 5Mbit/s to upload HD video (720p). Less for lower quality of course, but then why are you doing HD in the first place? It's doable, but not realistic for most people.

You also need a monster CPU to compress video that much in realtime. With a slower CPU you'd get worse compression and need a faster connection (or lower quality).

Reducing framerate doesn't help as much as reducing resolution because little changes between frames, so there anyway isn't much to upload. (You either upload a lot infrequently, or a little frequently. It doesn't matter a ton. You get some benefit, but not much.)

Why the downvotes? I want my mum to chat with my niece. Mum would have an iPad, niece a MacBook. Mum should look good on the MacBook.

Also, Facetime has been a major element of recent Apple ads.

The point is that mum and neice will look good -- you don't need a 12MP camera to do that.

Not 12MP, but more than 0,3MP. A popular Logitech webcam has 2MP, and I have heard that it DOES make a difference for video chats compared to lower quality cameras.

I was surprised to see Jobs hit Samsung with the repudiated 'quite small' quote, but at the same time Samsung hasn't exactly been eager to release their sell-through numbers. They haven't been shy about claiming their tablets are big sellers, though. Where is the condemnation of their claims that the Tab represented a third of tablet sales, when it's obvious from the near-total absence of them in the real world that they're nowhere near those numbers?

If Samsung is bothered by Apple's claims, they're easy to refute - just release the numbers.

And lo, at the slightest bit of Apple bashing in the media, suddenly the floodgates open and the hatorade pours forth.

Do any of you Apple haters hold any other company to the standards you claim that Apple or Jobs has violated? No, you do not. You huff and you puff on their vapourware, but if Apple puts a single foot wrong you pounce.

Why?

Why the double standard?

I'm not defending Apple†, and I think perhaps if all companies were held to the same high standard that you hold Apple to, the world would actually be a better place.

Let's hold all companies to the same standard.

†They're big enough to fight their own battles, and as I've said before they are far from perfect and there are plenty of valid things to complain about, just not the ones that people pick on (for some bizarre reason that escapes me)

Part of it is pushing back on fanboyism. Neither are logical or sensible, but I believe one begets the other.

If you don't overly care about Apple and the only news you hear is either "Apple did this" and "I WANT APPLES BABIES", you will start to form an overly critical view, because the news seems to always tend towards hype.

And then some people (with the same fanboyish mindset as the fanboys) will start to take it too far, still as a backlash, but still just as ridiculous. You only get raging haters by either spectacular failure of delivery OR by having raging fans. People seek to balance by becoming unbalanced. I am guilty of this. I suspect a great many people are.

People don't like being told that someone else is better then they are, especially when it's something they hold dear. Geeks, therefore, do not like being told that they are a poorer person for making different technology choices. This is not news, see Vim VS Emacs. As fanboyism can be quite judgmental, this gets on people's nerves, and they become defensive, lashing out at the "Cause" (being Apple). The fanboys feel that their identity is being attacked, and they fight back with equal fervor.

None of this is rational or even useful, but it's just a product of social human nature.

(You're right, they big enough to fight their own battles, and they're big enough to toot their own horn, but people will do it for them, so people will do it against them.)

Exactly zero of the 'raging Apple fanboys' that I know go around telling people that they are bad people because they don't use Apple products.

A few Apple fanboys get a bit 'preachy' about how 'awesome' Apple is when they first switch, but I've never seen an Apple fanboy call somebody a bad person as part of that process. Additionally, this desire to 'win souls' quickly wears off, and some never go through it at all.

----

Now, if you were making a sporting analogy and said that the mere existence of people who like Apple somehow causes the supporters of 'the other teams' to get more energetic in support of their team, that would make sense to me. Sports fans need the existence of other sports fans to hate and whip them into a frenzy.

But (sadly) that isn't what you're doing here. You are painting the Apple fans as the bad guys by making all these assertions about their behaviour and character. Essentially, you are saying that they bring it on themselves because of their bad behaviour, and I don't believe that. It doesn't match my observations at all.

-----

Let us examine your claims:

the only news you hear is either "Apple did this"

I dispute this as factually inaccurate. Right now, as I flick to the tab holding the front page, I see the following tally:

msft 2 startup 7 rampant rails fanboyism 1 digital rights 5 linux 1.5 apple 0.5 pop psych 2 world news 1 us news 2 fitness 1 history of the world 1 intel 1

(there was a story title for android and iphone, so I gave them each partial credit).

That's it. 2% of the news. 1/4 of what Microsoft is getting.

Now, when you say "Apple did this" I'm going to assume you mean people bitching about how evil Apple is. E.g. the recent 30% debate. Because all I remember recently about Apple is a bunch of bashing and sledging.

Essentially, you are saying that because you see people bashing Apple so often in the news, that makes you sick of Apple and want to bash them. I cannot say that I see that as a reasonable justification.

Then you say the other side of the news, the pro-Apple side

"I WANT APPLES BABIES"

Now look. I don't know if you've ever seen any Apple ads, but they never do that. They are never garish and over the top. Oh wait, the iPod ads. Well, okay, I'll give you that one.

Now I like understated ads. I liked the Microsoft ads with Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates, I thought they should have continued them. I like the ad where the guy is texting while peeing at the urinal, and then drops the phone and goes to retrieve it and the guy turns to him and says "really?", and the kid throws the ball at his Dad's head because he's texting instead of playing. But here Microsoft is taking a leaf out of Apple's playbook (sic).

For every loud garish Apple ad, I'll see you ten Microsoft party to install Vista ads. You want annoying? There's your culprit right there.

Moreover, I think you got the emphasis wrong, it is more like the two sides of the Apple news coin are like this:

"I WANT APPLE TO DIE IN A FIRE" and "Hey, Apple just put out new MacBook pros"

"you will start to form an overly critical view"

Not critical enough by a large margin. Like I said in the first post, Apple is singled out for unequal treatment. If your view actually was properly critical you'd view each company with equal suspicion.

"because the news seems to always tend towards hype"

But the hysteria end of the hype scale is filled with Apple haters. Where Apple fits on the hype scale is in the 'large corporate announcing a new product' part of the scale. But even there I give Apple better marks than most IT companies, since Apple actually delivers the products they are hyping (except the white iPhone). Most other IT companies make all sorts of breathless announcements and then half the time the product that is going to lead us into the promised land of milk and honey never arrives.

... but they never get called to task for it, or if they do, with only a minuscule fraction of the rage and bile that is directed at Apple.

"And then some people (with the same fanboyish mindset as the fanboys) will start to take it too far, still as a backlash"

Backlash against what though? You've failed to establish the existence of raving Apple fanboys, and my experience completely disagrees with your assertion that the Apple fanboys are just as bad as the Apple bashers.

"You only get raging haters by either spectacular failure of delivery"

If someone says they hate Apple because they had a $mac and one day after the warranty expired it blew up and then Apple screwed them over, that would be fair enough in my book. By all means, bring Apple to task for their real sins, but unless Apple has injured you, do not bash them for imaginary sins, unless you also bash other companies equally. That is all I'm asking.

"OR by having raging fans. People seek to balance by becoming unbalanced."

I just don't see the raging fans. Apple is far too mainstream these days. Maybe back in the 90s with Guy Kawasaki whipping the faithful into a frenzy of religious ecstasy, but that was TWO DECADES AGO. For every Apple raging fanboy you show me, I will give you 100 Apple bashers.

Let's have a look at the comments in the MSFT threads. In the first one, there are only three overt mentions of Apple. One is apparently an IE 8 fanboy bashing n IE 6 fanboy (the mind boggles), and the reference to Apple is an extremely minor point by way of an argument by analogy.

The second is a response to someone who was bashing Apple, and suggesting that because they are taking 30% of subscriptions, they are unfit to serve as a replacement for Microsoft. (In response to someone saying that we should just throw out Microsoft entirely (and not just IE 6)). The overt mention of Apple is someone saying that leaving Microsoft is not the same as going to Apple, because there are other choices.

The third reference is someone disputing that, saying that there are no Linux devices for sale, and that for non-technical people it is just a choice of Microsoft or Apple. (There is a response to that by a Linux fanboy, I know he's a fanboy because he misses the obvious logical retort that most Netbooks run Linux).

Anyway, by my tally in these mentions of Apple there are 3 Microsoft fanboys, 1 Linux fanboy and 0 Apple fanboys.

Hmmmm.... not looking so good for your theory. Perhaps the other thread will prove more fruitful?

There are two overt mentions: I'll quote the first since I can't identify its fanboy classification:

"Microsoft producing new software for Windows XP is like Apple doing the same for OS9."

It is a little fanboyish, since it is kind of inaccurate (a better comparison would be Windows ME vs OS 9 in my view, since Microsoft introduced XP in August 2001 and (according to Wikipedia), Apple introduced OS 9 in 1999 and discontinued development on it in 2002), but never mind that nitpick. So far as I can tell, this is not Apple fanboyism, this is just someone arguing by analogy, like the first example from the first article.

The second quote:

"Anyway, they supported it till IE8 and MS has one of the best track records for backward compatibility(if not the best) in the industry. Just see Apple to see how quickly things are deprecated."

Okay, so here Apple is being shown in a bad light. Microsoft is better than just about everyone at maintaining backwards compatibility. And the person could have said that, but no, they had to slide in a little negative dig at Apple in the process.

Would you call that an example of rampant Apple fanboyism??

I hope not!

You see, this is how things are. Apple fanboys as a general rule stick to their own 'turf' and don't engage in needless nerd-rages across the internet. I'll admit there is probably a low level of baiting and trolling that is going on, but not at a higher level than the last guys snide side remark about Apple.

In fact, this quick survey shows enormously more Linux fanboy trolling than Apple fanboyism.

If anything, it also shows that people are out there actively trying to bait the Apple fanboys, but they aren't biting.

Of course, this is a limited sample, highly inaccurate, blah blah blah, but I think it goes to cast suspicion on your claims of bad behaviour by Apple fanboys.

"People don't like being told that someone else is better then they are"

Apple fanboys don't do this.

"Geeks, therefore, do not like being told that they are a poorer person for making different technology choices."

Apple fanboys don't do this.

I'd happily accuse someone of making a poor technology choice if they go 'all in' with Microsoft technologies, but I wouldn't tell them they are a "poorer person"

"As fanboyism can be quite judgmental"

Apple fanboys don't do this.

"this gets on people's nerves, and they become defensive, lashing out at the "Cause" (being Apple)"

So, despite a complete and total absence of Apple 'fanboys' attacking, it is okay to go on the defensive, and the best defense is a good offense?

Even in trigger happy USA you're still supposed to wait until you're attacked before retaliating with superior force.

"The fanboys feel that their identity is being attacked, and they fight back with equal fervor."

But there aren't any attacks. Oh, I'm not saying that if you go into a thread about Apple you won't see people arguing in Apple's favour, but there it is entirely in appropriate and in context. The very thing you claim, the moral high ground of not lashing out except in defense, is exactly what the Apple fanboys do. The very superiority you claim for Apple bashers is instead the high ground that the Apple fanboys are firmly encamped upon.

It is the Apple bashers who are the clear aggressors, who attack without provocation.

you say "Exactly zero of the 'raging Apple fanboys' that I know go around telling people that they are bad people because they don't use Apple products." Well then you obviously have never met a mac zealot. Every and I mean EVERY person I have ever met that has a mac or iphone constantly berates windows users and especially android users. I can only postulate that is due to their insecurity and general lack of social grace or the fact that they are complete idiots.

Disagree, although it was wrong for Job's to misquote Samsung. Regardless, just because Samsung's tablet sales are "smooth" rather than "small" that doesn't mean that it's selling particularly well. It's not. Nor is the Xoom. I mean c'mon, honestly how many people do you know who own a Galaxy tab or a Xoom? Or anyone who is even really looking forward to buying one? And now how many people do you know who own an iPad or plan to purchase one? Exactly.

Jobs didn't even need to waste his time attacking his competitors. To be honest I, like most people out there probably, never even heard of the Samsung quote until he brought it up, so he may have even given them more credibility now.

And the smart phone game isn't over. Nobody I know who live in other countries wants an Android phone. They want an iPhone. But a lot of people can't afford it. Trust me that will change too.

The misquote was the straw that broke the camel's back. Everything else in that presentation was exactly like every other presentation given by Apple or any company touting a new product: Bring up the places you're better and leave out the places you're falling down.

If it wasn't for the obvious misquote, in bold type, nobody would have batted an eye.

Let's just take the bull by the horns here. Seth Weintraub's first sentence in this article, and ostensibly his main point, is:

"Apple twisted facts (or worse) to try to convince crowds that all other tablets had no shot at de-throning the iPad in 2011."

I'll put up $100 right now that says no competitor will sell more units than the iPad this year. I'd be surprised if anyone cracked 50%.

Does anyone seriously doubt that the iPad will kill its competition this year? I think it's pretty obvious. Weintraub is just dreaming if he thinks otherwise.

So who's guilty of reality distortion, here?

The guy who outright lied?

You mean Weintraub? He knows for certain that Samsung didn't sell 2 million tabs, because Samsung made a statement saying that, yet he pretends that they did.

This kind of journalism is part of the problem - not the solution.

So they both lied.

Aside from the Samsung misquote, what did Jobs say that could be called a lie?

You're a little slow, aren't you?

How does a link like this make it to the top of HN? It's nothing more than petty, spiteful Apple bashing by a Google guy.

Isn't the whole keynote "petty, spiteful Google bashing" by an "Apple guy"? Jobs intentionally misquoted someone to make himself look better at a talk with his customers and investors. An article pointing that out is not "bashing".

Care to elaborate, how was Google bashed in the demo of Garage Band, iMovie, Smart Cover? Was Google even mentioned?

I chose that wording to parody the comment I was replying to. When you see wording in a reply that is very similar to wording in the original comment, you should switch your language processing unit from the "analyze exact literal meaning" mode to the "read for entertainment value" mode.

From a strictly literal standpoint, Jobs made a lot of jabs at the competition for iOS, which is phones and tablets running Android now. Android is developed by Google.

A specific comment would be the misquote of Samsung's CEO. Samsung is not Google, but you can see how Google is involved; they make the OS that the Samsung tablets run.

OK, point taken.

The misquote thing is interesting. It causes (rightfully, I guess) a lot of noise, but to be fair: Jobs is not the author of misquote IIRC, and then we don't know if that version of the quote is a lie, Samsung does not give the numbers. Choosing to quote incorrect version over the "smooth" version knowingly is indeed fishy, no matter the factual accuracy.

Yes, Jobs took a lot of jabs at the competition. Here in America we call that "selling". The purpose of a product announcement is to sell said product. I think the bottom line for the author is that he hates that Jobs has done such an outstanding job of selling Apple products.

I'd expect Jobs to be selling iPads. I guess I didn't expect a hack journalist to be working so hard to sell Xooms...? I just can't believe how much bile and false naïveté he packed into this column. Did his AppleCare just run out? Did some turtleneck-wearing Mac fan steal his girlfriend?

You answered your own question. This article is exactly the kind of thing the people on this site upvote, and that tells you exactly the nature of the people on this site.

People that don't like lying?

People that don't like Apple lying.

First, I don't think this is really a reality distortion field. Yes, he does do it, but I think this is simply marketing.

Let's clarify a little what might be going on, and I don't think that many of the commentators here are thinking this way.

Have you noticed that a lot of the Apple advertising and marketing is directed towards those that already have apple products? Obviously people who favor android devices are going to be put off by this talk.

But if one is already invested in Apple products, then he might be addressing that little doubt such owners might have.

All of this hoopla reminds me of how for the better part of 30 years commentators were standing in line to underestimate Bill Gates.

And seriously, if this kind of talk, or john gruber's columns annoy you to the extent indicated in the threads, I suggest the following alternatives:

1) Look the other way, perhaps at something pleasant. 2) Figure out why it is working for Apple: can it work for you? (And that is what you are here for, right?)

Have you noticed that a lot of the Apple advertising and marketing is directed towards those that already have apple products?

It's an interesting point. If various analysts are correct, most of the recent purchases of Apple products have simply been existing customers moving up to the newest device, not new customers coming into the fold.

I overheard a very telling conversation today where a colleague was lamenting that his teenage daughter wanted to get rid of her new iPhone 4 and get a "Droid" because all her friends were doing the same.

2) Figure out why it is working for Apple: can it work for you?

Apple seems to have retention down to a Science. For the most part, people who buy Apple stuff will continue to buy Apple stuff. If some of the typical pro-Apple opinions in this thread are any indication, people will overlook almost any amount of flaws in Apple so that they can continue buying Apple stuff. That's a powerful bit of marketing, but it may not be instructive to try and analyze and duplicate since most of that effect seems tied to Steve Jobs himself (we'll see if his transition out of the company changes this, even in the dark ages while he was gone there were still loyalists who clung to their ugly, underspecced and out-of-date Performas...heck there are still people who use their Amiga 500s daily).

It may be more instructive to see how:

1) Apple is losing non-computery people that they managed to bring into the fold, what's going wrong (based on the conversation I heard)?

2) How can they reverse this?

3) Where are they still growing, what are they doing right?

The author must've missed the entire range of keynotes from the late 90s through the mid 2000s when the highlight of each was to have a shootout between a Power Mac and a Wintel PC at Photoshop.

My memory is poor but they seemed to stop this practice maybe 5 years ago.

So, this practice is really nothing new. It's marketing. Google did the same thing when they trotted out specs about how Android browsing is much faster than the iPhone during Google I/O. Horses for courses, etc.

That's not including all of the Android-powered Nooks out there,

I like the look of those.

those cheap $100 Androids you can buy at Walgreens or Amazon

Those aren't doing Android any favors.

and even Windows-powered Tablet PCs (which are mentioned two bullet points above!).

Have one of those. While it is great that I can use any Windows software I want on it, I only use the iPad nowadays. It's just more comfortable to use. Not sure they're the same category as the iPad.

Case is it's a bad article by a frenetic journalist. Bad written and more biased than Jobs. His 90% "math" is ridiculous.

It's a great piece, but I don't agree that Jobs focuses on specs. Apple is great in that they do their utmost to explain what is good about their products and simplifying the purchase and customization options for the user.

The iPhone 4 wasn't interesting because it had x more DPI clocking in at a total of y; it was interesting, because they had achieved so many DPI that the average person would not be able to discern the pixels.

The Android handset manufacturers are losing the marketing battle partly because they get caught up in numbers and data: x megapixel cameras, y RAM, z megahertz. To the average consumer, all these extra parameters to consider before buying a product makes it all the less likely and rewarding to pick out your next phone.

> "The iPhone 4 wasn't interesting because it had x more DPI clocking in at a total of y; it was interesting, because they had achieved so many DPI that the average person would not be able to discern the pixels."

That measure of achievement is entirely dependent on the distance between the eyes and the screen. I went around measuring a couple of days, many people with smart phones already had non-discernible pixels at the distance they held them in late 2009, before the iPhone4 (by Apple's measure of non-discernible). Why pick one arbitrary distance over another and call that the interesting transition?

ill never understand why someone so far ahead lowers himself like this. in american politics this is what a vice president is for.

Since when is it not okay for a company the emphasize the pluses over the competition and leave out what's not so good. This is common practice.

If you want a full comparison, you have to do it yourself or use independent tests. I always rely on my own tests, if possible.

Mr. Job's keynotes are rhetorically first class and most people can't wait to get hands on the products after they have seen the show. This is no reality distortion, this is perfect marketing.

Just emphasizing is not a big deal. Giving numbers that are outright wrong is a problem.

This is common practice.

"Everyone does that" is no excuse.

Which numbers were outright wrong?

The claim about 90% market share.

Price comparison, while not outright wrong, is still stretching the truth a bit. "Smooth/small" thing too.

I don't see how the 90% market share statement is wrong unless you include boxes sitting in warehouses or returned products as 'sold'.

What's wrong with the price comparison?

I agree that the smooth/small thing was underhanded, although let's not forget that that statement was made as Samsung admitted that they hadn't actually sold 2m devices as they had previously claimed.

1) I don't see how the 90% market share statement is wrong

From the article: Apple sold 14.8 mln iPads. Samsung sold 2 mln Tabs. Do you imply that these figures are not correct? If so, please provide better data.

But if we use these figures, Apple has 14.8 / (14.8 + 2) ~ 88% market share, and a claim about "> 90%" is outright wrong.

Please note that no other competitors were included in this count.

2) What's wrong with the price comparison?

"Jobs compared the most expensive Android tablet -- the XOOM --against the iPad. ... The XOOM's are simply better. It has (expandable) 32GB of storage built in and 3G built in ... XOOM has a much better, bigger 720P+ screen ... Then, add far superior cameras (w/flash), stereo speakers (iPad 2 has one), 4G and a micro-USB/SD Card reader", plus (possibly) more RAM.

One pays more for XOOM, but one gets more (EDIT - in terms of components. I'm not saying XOOMs have better design/software/etc) as well. Jobs compares prices for devices with different specs.

2 million Tabs is the number shipped to stores, not sold to consumers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/01/31/samsung-galaxy-tab-sa...

No real number given, but anything under 1.6 million makes 90% feasible.

Okay.

Please provide your data on sales (on iPads, Samsung Tabs and other competitors you consider worthy) and show that iPad has more than 90% market share.

Apple reports the same shipped to stores numbers. Why not compare them?

Do they? I imagine they do, but there aren't any WSJ blog posts pointing that out. The issue then is one of how long it takes Apple to sell out that inventory.

The Tabs weren't sold - Samsung said so.

The iPads were sold and are no longer available.

That's why.

(source: http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/02/28/backs.quick.se... )

There's nothing wrong with comparing them, but it is extremely misleading to use it as a measure of market share, when it is likely that sell-through rates are significantly different. The only relevant measure of market share or market size is devices in the hands of users,

It is even worse to claim that shipment to retailers is the one true measure of market share, and someone else "lied" by estimating customer sales instead.

Here's an independant 3rd party that saw 0.9 million Galaxy tabs activated in December alone.

http://blog.flurry.com/bid/54035/Android-Special-Report-Is-S...

It seems that despite the correction, we apparently still believe that the sell-through was "small" rather than "smooth". Even though Samsung themselves raised their estimated sales in November, suggesting it was doing better than they expected.

"activated in December alone"

what about iPads "activated in December alone"? Probably a big month for consumer electronics, don't ya think?

What device would have been a better comparison for someone who cares about price?

It was up to whoever makes a comparison to find such a device.

Comparing your device's price to something with a better specs is stretching the truth; if comparable device doesn't exist - just don't do this comparison.

For anyone who wants a good tablet for $500 or $600, the comparison is completely valid. All he said was that the competition wasn't offering anything at the lower price points. Nothing even slightly misleading about that.

There is no cheaper Xoom. There simply isn’t. The comparison is entirely valid.

Prices matter. Case in point: Apple has no competitive budget laptop. Their cheap plastic laptop costs $1,000 while competitors sell budget laptops for $500.

Sure, some spec might be minimally better here and there, that doesn’t change anything about the fact that those $500 laptops are perfectly competent and Apple has nothing to beat them.

(The only difference is that Apple explicitly doesn’t want to sell a budget laptop but the iPad’s competitors position themselves as, well, competitors.)

fine, make that “more than 85%”. very different.

One is true, the other is a lie.

So yes, very different.

But if we use these figures, Apple has 14.8 / (14.8 + 2) ~ 88% market share, and a claim about "> 90%" is outright wrong.

But you can't just pick your own figures and then say "because Apple didn't look at the market the same way I am, they are lying".

The only way it's a lie is if you use the same distinctions they do (which we don't know) and the same figures they used (which we don't know) and then show that they said different figures than their analysis resulted in (aka a lie).

Otherwise, when you say "lie" and "wrong" what you really mean is "they used different criteria", and that's not lying.

It's a bit hard to take CNN seriously as a tech commentator, frankly. They published this today:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/03/03/missing.fr...

I've rarely seen a tech article that was less useful or more silly.

Not sure why you chose to justify criticising CNN with a single article that was written by a guest, who happens to actually work for Mashable.

I don't read CNN regularly so I won't argue for or against CNN's tech coverage, but if you want to argue against it you should try a little harder.

I think the article referenced in the current thread makes for a pretty good second data point.

The author tries to pretend that sales "into the channel" are real sales (they aren't, of course). He pretends that all RAM is equal and directly comparable (on-die RAM is clearly superior). He pretends that megapixels in cameras that are a few mm in size is a hugely important measurement of camera quality (it's not). He pretends that the Nook and Kindle are at all comparable to the iPad or even in the same product category (they manifestly aren't). He pretends that all dual-core CPUs are equivalent (which is laughable).

I can't remember the last CNN tech article that I found to be insightful or informative. By contrast, I read a few dozen things via Hacker News daily that pass muster.

The linked article is from Fortune Magazine, although it lives on a cnn.com domain. Considerably more credible in my opinion. The author, Seth Weintraub, also owns the Apple-focused blog 9to5mac.com

How come Fortune didn't predict the 2008 bubble? Isn't that a much worse reality distortion field that hurt too many people...

At the end of the day, none of Jobs' points or of Weintraub's rebuttals have any bearing on how the quality of the product. It's really just a bunch of bickering. I just want to see the new gadgets and what they're capable of, not how much one company can one-up each other.

Look at SJ's talk as "entertainment" .. which is what practically all of Apple's products are about :)

Rgd Samsung tabs, I believe the writer's choice of "last quarter" itself shows bias, 'cos the debate on what "smooth" means seems to be about post-Christmas sales. It is indeed a vague word which can be interpreted as "slow" in comparison to "faster than expected". Bottom line is that we don't know what the sales figures are with any degree of accuracy if Samsung can say "2 million sold" .. and later on add quietly "to retailers".

The real bottom line is, do you care about these numbers when making your decision to get one of these things?

Isn't this just called marketing?

"To the author:

You have been warned. Take down this article based on lies or else we will sue you. You have 24 hours to comply.

Sincerely, Apple Customer Relations Posted By Apple CR, Cupertino, CA: March 7, 2011 5:41 PM "

fanbois are always entertaining.

Those comments there are the bread and butter of this article. I am pretty sure that, even lolcats won't hold a candle against those commenters.

You actually expect any company representative to be truthful in what essentially amounts to a sales presentation? The naivety in these comments is astonishing - I mean, it's not like Jobs works for a non-profit doing humanitarian work in third world countries. I'm not saying it's right but this is the world we live in.

I'm not sure why an article to rant about a common marketing practice? Earnings call bashing Android, Google IO attacks Apple, so on and on. Is Steve reaching the status of a saint and not allow to bash?

When will steve jobs just die already so apple can go out of business.

It's not important what is a fact, it's important whether masses will believe him. An they will. Period. Steve Jobs is marketing expert and showman of the century plus he produced few most revolutionary products in the world. Nobody really cares whether he gets his facts right because they are completely irrelevant for majority of people. He does what it takes to sell it and it works. When it comes to stretching the truth I don't think any company out there is clean but we only notice those things with top ones.

When did CNN start hiring Dvorak-style Apple trolls to generate traffic?

die steve, just die already.

SO when will the FTC catch Apple in the Truth IN Advertising gaffle..[sarcasm]..

You see keynotes are not covered by FTC truth in advertising but if I was an Apple stockholder right now I would be worried about all that fibbing by Steve Jobs.

Well, there wasn't too much to talk about other than these lies. "We got the iPad2. Same hardware you saw at CES, same OS you saw last year. Have a good day everybody"

The iPad 2 hardware was shown at CES?

Link bait.

I'm tempted to label the author a "socialist", keeping with recent trends. Apple markets well. Other people market and make similar claims. Your soap, your window cleaner, your vitamins, your TV set. It's the nature of our culture, our marketing, and our capitalism.

Why is this a me vs. you thing? Corporations selling Android devices do it, too.

Check out any Android-based "4G" device on AT&T: 1) virtually no one actually has "4G" coverage, and upload speeds are HORRIBLE on 3G (allegedly because AT&T or the OEMs decided to disable HSUPA on these devices for god knows what reason).

Why must Apple always be called out like this? Because they do it so much better than their competitors. If you don't like this, I urge you not to buy their products.

>Why must Apple always be called out like this? Because they do it so much better than their competitors.

Because this announcement gets more press than almost anything else you stated.

You just reiterated my point that you quoted.

"I'm tempted to label the author a "socialist""

And you really tempt me to label you something actually derogatory. The 50s called, they want you back.

Uhm, are you serious? It's tongue-in-cheek, hence the "keep with trends" quip.

When did "Socialist" become an insult? I don't admit to it, I boast of it!!

http://raganwald.posterous.com/hello-my-name-is-reginald-and...

I completely agree. It seems that there's a (mostly right-wing American) view that socialism somehow equates with communism and / or fascism (and even Nazism!). Fox News seems to play a part in ensuring that the view propagates, and lives on.

Socialism is simply about placing people before profits.

Unregulated capitalism isn't something that generally leads to positive outcomes - just look at the (cluster-fk) that was last couple of years for proof. Socialism can provide a useful counter to capitalism because it provides an alternative method of assessing worth.

Ideally we need balance - we need both.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com