
Steve Jobs Sometimes Lies to You - holman
http://zachholman.com/posts/steve-jobs-sometimes-lies/
======
ryanisinallofus
My wife: "Will you take the trash out?"

Me: "Yeah, for sure. I'll take it out tonight."

Tonight rolls by and the next day she tells me "You didn't take out the trash.
You lied."

Did I lie? Or did I have honest intentions of taking out the trash with
circumstances getting in the way? Maybe I just forgot?

I don't presume to know Jobs' intentions but without a history of lying during
presentations I'm going to assume his were true. Maybe the team pushed back?
Maybe he just changed his mind? Maybe they are still working on it?

"Steve Jobs Lies" just attracts allot more clicks I guess than "A Year Later,
FaceTime is Still Just A Tech Demo."

I would have preferred the later.

~~~
funthree
You lied. You said something that turned out to be a lie (an inaccurate or
false statement) and although people have trouble hearing the word, it doesn't
make it any less true. You do not fit a few of the definitions of "lie" but
you fit at least one.

edit: to all the downvoters, pick up a dictionary

~~~
jamesteow
If someone asks me a question, I give them an answer based on my
understanding, and it turns out not to be so, I am not lying. At the time, I
thought it was to be so.

By going along a strict definition of a lie being "an inaccurate or false
statement," I think it is misleading especially compared to the other
definitions: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
intentional untruth; a falsehood" or "something intended or serving to convey
a false impression;"

These other definitions relate to intent, which is a factor in determining
whether a statement is a lie or not.

~~~
funthree
_If someone asks me a question, I give them an answer based on my
understanding, and it turns out not to be so, I am not lying. At the time, I
thought it was to be so._

No, whether you like to _hear_ it or not (which you clearly are a person who
does not want to hear it) you lied.[1] There is no other noun/verb in the
English language to describe the act of telling a false statement.

Naturally, telling a false statement with intention to deceive is morally
unethical, whereas just being the bringer of false statements is not. I think
that's where you and everyone else gets hung up on the word "lie" because you
firmly attach the notion of intent to the word. That is not the case with
every lie, and if I need to reference the dictionary to show that you are
wrong then so be it. It is just often the case that a lie said with intent to
deceive, but it by no means is the rule.

If people would work as hard to remove the negative connotation around the
word rather than trying to do mental gymnastics to get out of being labelled
with it we would all be more honest and better off. We all lie sometime, after
all, but what we can always avoid is intention of deceit. Doing some mental
gymnastics to try and avoid being labelled a liar actually, in itself, makes
you deceitful.

[1] <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie>

------
varunsrin
' “Open” isn’t just a buzz word. People like the word “open”. Marketers love
it. '

A very valid point, everyone these days in jumping on the open bandwagon.

This problem isn't limited to just Apple unfortunately - several companies
have been guilty of twisting open to suit their needs (HTC not releasing some
modified Android code which was under GPL a while ago, and Google not
releasing the Honeycomb source come to mind).

Not that any of these are wrong from a legal standpoint (OK, maybe the HTC one
was) but it's still twisting the nature of open standards & platforms to suit
business / marketing agendas. Open is quickly becoming the next Web 2.0.

Apple & Google have both done great things for the open standards community (
Webkit, Android etc.) but there is always a conflict between 'true' openness &
business interests. Never forget, corporations exist to serve their
shareholders - embracing openness is simply a means to that end.

~~~
trout
What I heard on the Google/Honeycomb was that they released it earlier than
intended. Part of it was the Xoom driving it, some was to compete with iPads,
but it wasn't so much of a planned release. Google actually requires you to
sign a license agreement if you want to release a 3.0 device, from which I've
heard, requires for you to not change your hardware for X years. The next
release, 3.1 Ice Cream Sandwich, is the planned release and will be open
source.

~~~
wmf
Which is just as damning. "This software is so bad we won't show you the
source code."

------
rdl
I might care more if I'd ever actually observed someone using FaceTime. I have
3 MacBooks, an iPad, an iPhone 4, my coworkers and girlfriend and friends have
FaceTime compatible devices too, but I've never seen anyone use it. Maybe they
don't open it because it is a dead product.

~~~
delackner
Of course of course, because if our own circle of friends are all [x] then
everyone everywhere must also be.

Ever since Facetime came to the iPod Touch, I have used it routinely with my
parents on the other side of an ocean, and it remains the only video solution
I've seen that actually WORKS. Skype video and Fring video on the iphone are
just horrifyingly bad in comparison, occasionally comically bad, with seconds
per frame blobs of color that vaguely resemble heads). Facetime just works,
with quality that matches the output when you record an HD video on the
device.

------
joshaidan
Reading this makes me think of the iPhone commercial about FaceTime.
<http://youtu.be/EmAIptWS7Mk>

"If you don't have an iPhone, you don't have FaceTime on your phone."

Perhaps it was the marketing department that was not informed of Steve's
intentions to open up the FaceTime protocol, or maybe Apple really has changed
their position on opening up the protocol.

I really wish they would open up the protocol. It would be very cool. And just
think, all these android users would have to get iTunes accounts.

~~~
trezor
_And just think, all these android users would have to get iTunes accounts._

I don't think you will find a international standards-body which will
standardize anything which requires an iTunes account. I may be wrong, but I
sure as hell hope not.

~~~
joshaidan
True, but I wonder if Apple really needs to have a standards body overseeing
it. They can still open up the protocol without going through a standards
body, which is probably in their best interest.

Then third party developers would develop FaceTime apps for Android, etc.

But then of course you won't get the seamless user experience.

------
Maakuth
My understanding of the situation has been that most of the FaceTime
technology is indeed in the open just because they mostly used already
existing technology. What is not in the open is the cryptographic key that is
used to sign all the FaceTime client keys. So technically you could create a
FaceTime compatible client by following open specifications and filling the
gaps by reverse engineering, but Apple devices wouldn't want to talk to it
without Steve's cryptographic signature.

------
digipen79
You have a great point, sir, and Apple (along with other companies) does need
to be called out when they say they will allow the general user access to
something and they do not put it into practice. What can we do about it,
though?

~~~
ugh
Whatever gain (if any) they had from claiming that FaceTime would become an
open industry standard must certainly dwarfed by the embarrassment of being
unable to actually make that happen.

Or, to put it another way, had Steve Jobs known that their attempt of making
FaceTime an open industry standard would fail (for whatever reason) he would
never have said that Apple wants FaceTime to become open. It just wouldn’t
make any sense.

~~~
mrkurt
I dunno, they got a great deal of press when they announced FaceTime, and a
huge amount of it harped on the "open standard" feature. A year later, no one
really cares. It's not an embarrassment. It's a shrug.

------
jgh
Oh gosh, I'm glad all these good people on HN have lined up to defend Steve
Jobs, I don't know what I would do if I found out that he, at any point in
time, lied to me. I would just... I would probably faint. Just thinking about
that possibility has made me all lightheaded. I need a fan. I need to sit
down. Steve Jobs will not lie to me! He is a good man! He makes the devices I
crave! Electrolytes!

~~~
18pfsmt
I sense a bit of disrespect for the community in which you opt-in in order to
participate here. In general, HN is the most logical and reasonable internet
community I have ever come across outside of NNTP (certainly on the web).
Please don't make this community "snark-central".

EDIT to add: Curious what the counter arguments to mine look like.

------
jasongullickson
What are your thoughts on this?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facetime#Standards>

It would appear that FaceTime is built on top of open standards, is Steve more
explicit than that in the original presentation (for example, does he say that
access to Apple's FaceTime servers will be available openly, etc.)?

~~~
Kylekramer
If you watch the actual presentation
([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1edQuxclUs&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1edQuxclUs&feature=player_detailpage#t=5806s)),
Steve makes a clear distinction between being built on open standards and what
they plan to do. What he means by going to standards bodies and making
Facetime an open industry standard isn't really clear, but it is clear they
didn't do that.

------
marioestrada
Here's the only information we have publicly about what happened with the
FaceTime open standard: [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/05/11/facetime-
standar...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/05/11/facetime-standard)

------
jmspring
"Steve Jobs Sometimes Lies to You" but following other posts... "Does he
respect you in the morning?"

I'm sorry, but re: FaceTime, not opening it up is old news. There is probably
more traction in following what is going on in the RTCWeb world than there is
in any particular company's opening of their video calling API. Keeping
eyeballs in the realm of the proprietary app is key.

Many companies are in paying attention to WebRTC, but it's not there yet. Some
companies, I suspect, like Apple, probably don't care (at least for now). It's
better to focus on the primary customer experience.

Speaking of experience, I haven't researched, but how do the assorted non-
facetime apps compare w/ facetime?

------
jsz0
Most people have a motive for lying. I don't really see that here. What does
Apple have to gain by suggesting FaceTime would be an open standard? Did lines
of people show up to buy iPhones because FaceTime would be an open standard? I
doubt it. Quite the opposite I think. If you could only FaceTime between iOS
devices (and Macs) that might be a competitive advantage. My guess is they
simply calculated it was not worth the effort in the end. Making something an
open standard and supporting centralized authentication/etc is a nontrivial
thing for what purpose?

~~~
donaq
Well, the motivation is not the issue here, is it? Nor is whether opening
FaceTime is a competitive advantage. The issue for the author is that a
promise was broken.

------
jm4
I'm genuinely curious why it even matters whether it's open or not. I get that
he said it would be open and now it's not. But beyond that why does it even
matter? I can use Tango, Qik, Skype, etc. I think there's an iOS app out there
that does Google Talk video. They are even easier because I don't have to
explain to my parents how to connect the phone to wifi.

Maybe with the proliferation of all these other video chat apps opening up
Facetime became a lower priority?

~~~
wtracy
None of them inter-operate. So, when you have a friend on Tango, a friend on
Qik, and a friend on Skype, you have to install Tango, Qik and Skype.

We don't have a single protocol for everyone to standardize on, and we don't
even have enough access to the various protocols to build a Trillian-like
client that supports everything.

~~~
jm4
That makes sense, but opening up Facetime doesn't necessarily solve that
problem. It has to be open and all these video chat vendors have to decide to
embrace it, possibly abandoning years of investment in their own protocol.

In general, I prefer open protocols and standards. I'm just not sure opening
Facetime meets any pressing demands of consumers. I suspect this is a matter
of not wanting to allocate resources to something no one is asking for. I
can't say I'd blame Apple for that decision if it is, in fact, the case.

I'm a new iPhone user so I haven't necessarily kept up to date with App Store
developments until recently, but I believe that prior to Facetime Apple was a
bit reluctant to approve video chat apps. Maybe that played into the
announcement to open it up.

If people start clamoring for open video chat standards I'm sure someone will
step up to the plate.

~~~
xash
Obligatory xkcd link: <http://xkcd.com/927/>

------
ara4n
At least Apple's failure to deliver on their promises on Open FaceTime leaves
an opening for other folks to deliver (e.g. <http://jointheseen.com/sdk>)

------
mmahemoff
Good point. Skype haven't been too quick about innovating anywhere lately, but
companies like Tango and Fring, would be all over it if it was open. And maybe
Google too, given GTalk, Android, and Google+.

------
andrewpi
The lack of any apparent activity regarding an open FaceTime protocol is
pretty annoying. Has anyone emailed Steve to ask what the holdup is?

------
tomazstolfa
wrote this a while ago. might be relevant for the debate -
<http://www.funkykaraoke.com/2010/10/on-facetime.html>

------
known
You cannot _successfully_ run a business without lies.

------
mmuro
"Open" does not always equal "Open Source."

~~~
cheald
"Open" at the very least means "interoperable". FaceTime is neither open
source nor an open standard right now.

------
benihana
Didn't Apple do something similar when they forked KHTML? I think it took them
a few years to make it completely open source after they said they would.

~~~
cma
They still take up to a year to release the changes they made to khtml for a
given iOS release.

------
napierzaza
He's not in political office. He's not beholden to your or me. Unfortunately
they didn't open it. It would be great if they had. But it's just a dead
feature. Steve Jobs actual legally binding responsibility is to the share
holders that he will make Apple money. Why not reverse engineer FaceTime and
release a OpenSource version?

Anyway,if you REALLY want someone to dilly dally with the term "Open", you
should get an Android phone.

------
buster
one cent for every lie, and i'd be millionaire by now..

(this had to be said and will be worth the massive downvotes)

~~~
buster
Also, on a more serious note:

Why isn't there a website for all those massive marketing lies about every
company throws at the customers, it's sickening.

~~~
ethank
Sickening? ITS MARKETING. The promise that something will make your life
better is rarely true, but we deceive ourselves into thinking so because it
helps fulfill the prophecy being told.

~~~
jasonlotito
There is a difference between saying "FaceTime is awesome!" and "We’re going
to the standards bodies, starting tomorrow, and we’re going to make FaceTime
an open industry standard."

------
juliano_q
I think Facetime is already open. You can use it on your Mac, on your iPhone,
on your iPad. Looks like this is open to Steve Jobs, open to all your iOS
devices. Why would you need to have another kind of device anyway?

~~~
zyb09
Is this fucking Scientology, where we replace the meaning of words with their
opposites?! The fact that Apple is the only provider of FaceTime software and
it's only available on Mac and iOS means it's proprietary. Jobs said they're
going make it an open standard. They didn't. There's no third party client,
there's no FaceTime for Windows or Android.

~~~
juliano_q
I was being ironic.

~~~
vacri
Poe's law: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law>

------
tobylane
There are plenty of (insert absolutely any apple product here)-killers that
are loudly touted by the manufacturer, and any apple-hater that we have never
heard of since. Do we whinge that there hasn't been more proof that the
iphone/etc are best? Silence isn't incriminating, it's silence.

How open is Honeycomb, or Ice Cream?

~~~
technomancy
> How open is Honeycomb, or Ice Cream?

Do you have any idea how much _crap_ they are getting for that? People made a
stink, and they learned their lesson.

~~~
glassx
And it's a cool thing. I hope Apple learns their lesson too, with articles
like this.

My guess is that, in both cases (Honeycomb and FaceTime), it was more a
problem of corporate inertia or laziness rather than evil.

~~~
tobylane
Sounds evil to deliberately allow anyone to see the 2.x source but not the 3.x
which is only a continuation, not a rewrite.

------
saturdaysaint
This strikes me as an affront to Jobs' integrity a little more severe than his
failure to deliver a white iPhone in a timely manner. In other words, this
author is going to need to write an article of PG-level insight before I read
another word of his. This is almost as bad as the "5 reasons why exercise
makes our startup awesomer" guys.

