

What Eric Schmidt actually said - jyap
http://julianyap.com/2011/12/08/What-Eric-Schmidt-actually-said.html

======
officemonkey
This needs to be brought to the attention of most of the bloggers out there
that are making hay with that misquote.

Journalism is really in a sad state when a (deliberate?) misquote like that
gets all the attention. It's nice to see that someone is actually fact-
checking instead of piling on.

Like Android or not, Schmidt has been pilloried in the past 12 hours for a
comment he didn't make. I'd expect that some of the more outspoken bloggers
print retractions.

~~~
mchanson
Painting with a big of a broad brush I think.

A misquote getting corrected in less than a day and getting noticed by a news
site which is frequented by the folks who would have seen the original
misquote seems pretty good to me.

IMHO I love the current state of tech press (of which Hacker New's is a big
part of for my consumption). I feel its much better than it was 10 years ago.

~~~
angrycoder
So the bar for quality is so low that it is ok to fuck up and fix it, it just
has to be really fast? That isn't how journalism is supposed to work. If any
of those bloggers had taken 30 minutes to track down the original quote rather
than jumping to be first with an article based in second or third hand
information, this situation could have been avoided.

I know they are just bloggers. But it is funny that they only want to be
called 'just bloggers' when they fuck up and journalists when they want to be
taken seriously.

~~~
mindcrime
_I know they are just bloggers. But it is funny that they only want to be
called 'just bloggers' when they fuck up and journalists when they want to be
taken seriously._

"Real" journalists make mistakes all the time. Haven't you noticed that just
about every newspaper or magazine ever printed had a "corrections" section
where they corrected mistakes in previous editions / issues?

~~~
function_seven
Very very rarely is a correction needed on the central piece of a story,
though. If a "real" journalist didn't check this quote before going to press
with a piece based solely on it, they'd be in real trouble. It would require a
full on retraction and apology, not just a blurb in the Corrections section
tomorrow.

~~~
weaksauce
That's true. Also, real journalists have fact checking departments that are
supposed to verify those facts.

~~~
anamax
> Also, real journalists have fact checking departments that are supposed to
> verify those facts.

However, "fact checking departments" consist of a bunch of folks with no
domain expertise, often interns, who do little more than try to find someone
who can "verify" what they want to verify. In other words, they're little more
than under-paid quote-checkers.

------
d_r
FWIW, if you're interested in how misquotes happen, I highly recommend
grabbing "Words that Work" by Frank Luntz [1]. Luntz analyzes extensively how
companies and politicians we know regularly get misquoted/misinterpreted due
to an unfortunate/awkward choice of words, negligence of the transcribers,
etc, etc.

This book has also opened my eyes to the importance of copywriting and clear
communication. Each sentence you form to an audience or a customer must be
reframed from the point of view of the potential listener, and not from what
_you think_ you are saying.

(Not to say that the reporter(s) weren't being negligent here, of course.)

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz>

~~~
davidhansen
_Not to say that the reporter(s) weren't being negligent here, of course._

The quote, as reported, is so wildly divergent from the actual quote, that I
wonder how you can think the reporter was "negligent", as opposed to
"intentionally just making shit up for the purposes of creating controversy".

This wasn't a case of one or two words out of place. I count 3 substitutions,
2 transpositions, 11 deletions, and 5 additions. In one sentence. That is not
"negligence", no matter how many books written by yellow journalism apologists
exist.

~~~
chc
Let me give you a perfectly plausible transcription of the real quote, which
is not at all dissimilar to actual reporters' notes I've seen:

> _weth lik ON u wl ↑ that plat + mb even 1st_

It doesn't make such a wide disparity excusable, but I've known enough
reporters to have plenty of reason to believe it was negligence. Many
reporters overestimate their ability to read their own notes later, much like
programmers overestimate their ability to figure out WTF that clever bit of
code is doing six months from now.

~~~
potatolicious
This is a case where someone has _recorded the entire exchange in publicly
accessible video_ for you!

This isn't the 80s where your chicken-scratches made on the spot are the best
you've got. This is an age where we have voice recorders, events are routinely
recorded with easy-to-access video...

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t02iJn5Ypio#t=41m12s>

~~~
chc
Yep, and I would describe failing to go back and check that video as downright
— wait for it — _negligent_.

Like I said, I'm not defending any reporter from any accusation but obvious
malice.

------
andrewfelix
Marco and Gruber are (unsurprisingly) running with the mangled quote...
[http://www.marco.org/2011/12/07/eric-schmidt-android-
leads-t...](http://www.marco.org/2011/12/07/eric-schmidt-android-leads-the-
iphone) <http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/07/marco-or-not>

~~~
raganwald
Did we read the same Daring Fireball post? The one I read is responding to
Marco's post rather than (mis)quoting Schmidt directly, and says so clearly.
Furthermore, he casts Schmidt in a reasonable light, arguing that Schmidt must
have _meant_ what Schmidt may have actually said.

Based on his track record, I would not be surprised to see a follow-up
addressing the accuracy or otherwise of the quoted words.

~~~
ender7
He links to and quotes the same source article one post previous:

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/07/schmidt>

However, I agree; given Gruber's track record I expect him to post a
correction soon.

~~~
raganwald
Done: [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/08/eric-schmidt-
rea...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/08/eric-schmidt-really-said)

------
smackfu
Marco updated his blog post, but with the typical "I don't really want to
admit I was wrong" stance. A quote goes from remarkable to unremarkable, you
probably should just nuke your entire post and say it was based on a mistake.
Not try to say "the basis for me making this post was wrong, but I stand by
the rest of it" with the reader left to determine what rest of it is even
valid anymore.

~~~
resnamen
It's better for page views if you keep the sensational false quote.

------
carldall
The sad thing is that, as with most media, this will hardly reach anybody. I
guess that the wrong quote will still be around in one years time. He who
screams the loudest defines truth.

I've long wondered if there shouldn't be a better way of handling updating /
correcting news items. Especially in newspapers, the wrong headline was
largely visible on the front, while the corrected information comes one week
later in a small box somewhere in the middle (if it comes).

~~~
gldalmaso
>> _I've long wondered if there shouldn't be a better way of handling updating
/ correcting news items._

Like I say here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3329327>

I think this is by design.

------
damncabbage
I recommend not putting the incorrect quote directly under the "What Eric
Schmidt actually said" heading; first skimming that page was rather confusing.

------
benatkin
I like the mangled quote better, though I don't appreciate the mangling. It
doesn't sound negative to me; it would have just been plain speaking about a
competitive advantage. The correct quote says essentially the same thing with
another thing that isn't interesting (the chairman of a company likes one of
their flagship products).

------
gautaml
This is like Fox News style reporting; misquoting everything.

------
gonzo
Hey, Julian. #1 with a bullet. Cool.

Thanks for the correction.

------
brudgers
> _"The basic stance from Google’s perspective is that the Android platform
> has a significant market share and volume."_

There is a bit of jumping to conclusions here.

Given that Schmidt was talking about ICS rather than Android in general and
the proportion of Android devices not intended to facilitate OS upgrades, the
market for ICS specific applications may not be so well established as to make
the author's conclusion the slam dunk as which it is presented.

In other words, Android's existing market share is predominately running pre
ICS versions and ICS only fragments it further.

~~~
jsight
I get what you are saying, but it's not quite as bad as it is made out to be.

[http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-
ve...](http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-
versions.html)

85% of the market is on either 2.2 or 2.3. Those are the two most recent phone
versions in general distribution. I'd expect that in about 1 year, 85% will be
on 4.x or 2.3.

New versions don't really make it worse, and new hardware standards often do
make things better.

~~~
brudgers
2.3 is Gingerbread not ICS upon which the article is premised.

In addition, Android faces increased competition in the form of Windows Phone
7 which is offered as an iOS alternative at similar price points and with
quite possibly a higher level of brand recognition among consumers.

Keep in mind that what I am making out to be bad is the author's logic, not
Google's mobile OS though I do believe its market share is very vulnerable.

~~~
fpgeek
You're making the (in my opinion, large) assumption that the "brand
recognition" for Windows Phone is a positive thing. Personally, I suspect it
would be doing better if Microsoft had called it "Metro Phone" or something
else non-Windows.

------
blub
Yes, doesn't sound so nefarious in the video, however I don't particularly
want to develop for Google platforms so the outcome concerns me if his
prediction turns out correct.

Furthermore, I do not think it is desirable for Google (or Apple) to own a
majority of the market.

~~~
corkill
Fragmentation of screen sizes and software versions sucks. But this is still
why I bought an Android, because it will be (is) the dominant platform and I
hope that being open will mean it gets the best developers and apps.

