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.
I used to think those people were lying to take advantage, but as I've gotten older I have come to recognize that these 'yes' people get promoted a lot. And for some of them, they really do believe what they are saying.
As an engineer I've found that once I can 'calibrate' someone's 'yes-ness' I can then work with them, understanding that they only make 'wishful' commitments rather than 'reasoned' commitments.
So when someone, like Steve Jobs, says "we're going to make it an open standard!", my first question then is "Great, I've got your support in making this an open standard so I can count on you to wield your position influence to aid me when folks line up against that effort, right?" If the answer that that question is no, then they were lying.
The difference is subtle of course but important. Steve clearly doesn't go to standards meetings and vote etc, but if Manager Bob gets push back from accounting that he's going to exceed his travel budget by sending 5 guys to the Open Video Chat Working Group which is championing the Facetime protocol as an open standard, then Manager Bob goes to Steve and says "I need your help here, these 5 guys are needed to argue this standard and keep it from being turned into a turd by the 5 guys from Google who are going to attend." and then Steve whips off a one liner to accounting that says "Get off this guy's back we need this." Then its all good. If on the other hand he says "We gotta save money, send one guy." well in that case I'm more sympathetic to the accusation of prevarication.
If others own the patents, Apple can still open Facetime with the requirement the anybody who wants to use it has to go to the patent holders before it can be made into a product.
And they could open source it and leave it to the community to handle licensing but you'll eventually end up with fragmentation as some clients implement features that others won't.
Suppose your wife is less prone to accusations (admittedly you know her better than I). Instead of calling you a liar straight off, she simply reminds you, "You didn't take the trash out."
You ignore her.
She then asks, "Are you still planning to take the trash out?"
She starts getting irritated. "Look, you said you were going to take the trash out. Obviously, you lied. And I'm really upset you won't talk to me about it."
You could try to say that you just hadn't gotten around to it yet, or that you had better things to do than explain this to your wife.
But you're still probably spending the night on the couch.
A casual reply to your wife is not the same as walking out on stage in a high profile event as a CEO for a company and stating "I will take the trash out". External third parties don't depend on you taking the trash out either. Investors aren't making decisions based on you taking the trash out. Consumers aren't buying phones based on you taking the trash out. All these things matter and that's why CEOs become legally liable for things they say and commitments they publicly make.
I think on this count there would be room for a class action from consumers who feel they bought iPhones on the basis that they would be able to video chat with other phones and now find that they can't because Apple has failed to make good on a public commitment.
Also: I’m pretty sure that the author of this article actually believes that Jobs was lying. It’s not linkbaiting if the headline reflects the author’s beliefs.
I'm not a FaceTime user but seems like a year after "we're going to start tomorrow on an open standard", it's not unreasonable to expect more to have happened.
You can design something very intentionally without ever having compiled a spec for it. There are certainly design notes, e-mail conversations, and, of course, the code itself to document the protocol for internal purposes.
Which makes me question how hard it could possibly be to submit an open draft to a standards body.
Assuming FaceTime has an internal spec, that does not mean it is in any shape ready for public consumption. For example, the spec could leave unspecified various things that Apple's particular implementation did not have to address. It could be written very informally. It could have fallen out-of-date as the protocol evolved.
None of this would mean that FaceTime was designed "willy nilly." There are processes less than ideal but still perfectly acceptable.
But I agree the article is underwhelming. I wish someone would compile a list of the best lies Apple (and other companies) have told the last decade.. would be entertaining.
Sure, but then no one will read it. Sensational headlines is the way the internet rolls.
Your wife didn't bought products based on your well intentioned promises to take out the trash. There's laws against that.
If you buy snake oil from the back of a wagon because the seller truly believes it cures cancer and hangovers, suit yourself.
edit: to all the downvoters, pick up a dictionary
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.
No, whether you like to hear it or not (which you clearly are a person who does not want to hear it) you lied. 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.
Me: I'm going to start working on my PhD tomorrow.
My wife, tomorrow: Did you finish your PhD yet?
Me: Lol wut?
My guess is he was shooting from the hip and then discovered that it was a much bigger pain in the ass than he realized.
edit: wow, lots of grammar errors.
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.
The introduction of Bing as a search provider for Safari on iPhone had been rumored for some time. Naturally, everyone saw this development as an attack on Google. But the presentation itself sent just as much of a message. Jobs used the word “choice” six times in less than twenty seconds during the Bing announcement. While Apple’s addition of Bing was a shot at Google’s core business, the announcement was a shot at its melodramatic PR.
The announcement that FaceTime would be an open standard was another surprise. Would Apple have done this without the pressure Google and Adobe have been applying? Maybe. But we certainly wouldn’t have seen a slide with a giant “OPEN” on it.
Not just companies. Many individual are wont to try and blend "open" into "open source" or "free software", which as far as computer standards go, is at best revisionism.
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.
All those pronouncements about videochat being something nobody really uses are more or less true.
However, I've heard from some other folks that they use it purely for inter-family communications, where appearances don't matter nearly as much.
There's also the anec-data for me that video chat is just meh. I'm about to jump onto a skype call with an international colleague - do I want him to see me in my t-shirt on the couch? No. Do I want to shave, suit up, and head to me home office? No. So voice call it is for me in a majority of situations - only I believe FaceTime is either video or nothing, with no voice-only option.
Unlike Skype, you have no indication that this person has a facetime compatible phone. Just to get it to call the desktop is problematic because my phone has my phone number as the username and my PC has my email as the username so your never sure where a facetime call is going to end up, and that is if it picks up.
"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.
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.
Then third party developers would develop FaceTime apps for Android, etc.
But then of course you won't get the seamless user experience.
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.
EDIT to add: Curious what the counter arguments to mine look like.
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.)?
Each one of those protocols has many optional characteristics and properties that don't operate together unless they're planned or someone has created the super-stack which is fully compliant with every deviation from the specification. Even then, many of the specifications aren't truly specifications (SIP), and even some of the specifications have portions for customization (SIP) that don't require adherence to specification (recommendation).
This literally means nothing other than you could probably reverse engineer it and create something that would work with it. Until they change it.
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?
Maybe with the proliferation of all these other video chat apps opening up Facetime became a lower priority?
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.
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.
I thought both XMPP and SIP were supposed to solve that problem. What happened?
I'm less familiar with SIP, but my take here is:
SIP seems to be a good thing, but then you notice that it doesn't do thaaat much and end up in hell afterwards (Okay, we've got a session. Which (open?) codecs are we going to use now?
What I'd have loved to see is jingle taking off. Give me XMPP based voice/video. The problem? For a long time Google fucked that up. There were lots of problems because of differences between the 'standard' and the implementation on GTalk. Til today the clients don't support video or audio conferences (unless you're counting the G+ hangout feature. I wonder why it is possible there, but not elsewhere. Why can't I just video call two of my friends, G+ or not?) and they still fail to support mobile phones.
Android 2.3.4 supports audio and video, but only for a limited set of hardware, because their support is tied to a specific platform. Using a different chipset (although in a powerful phone, with all hardware capabilities and Android 2.3.4? Bad luck).
So - I'd love to see XMPP win. But for now the implementation is mediocre. There's not enough support to push it, from what I can tell.
Anyway,if you REALLY want someone to dilly dally with the term "Open", you should get an Android phone.
(this had to be said and will be worth the massive downvotes)
Why isn't there a website for all those massive marketing lies about every company throws at the customers, it's sickening.
Fairly simple and straight to the point.
Do you honestly not know the difference, or are you just trying to make a point? Because, and I feel justified in saying this, any reasonable person would look at what he said, and what has happened, and realize that he hasn't done what he promised.
That it was part of the marketing for the product as well doesn't help matters. Part of the reason I got the iPhone and got excited about FaceTime was precisely because it was supposed to be open. That it's not would have played a big part in purchasing decisions.
Downvote away, but its true. What may be a lie after the fact was not a lie in situ.
I remember being giddy about it. Now I'm giddy about WebRTC instead.
noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
It crossed the line when there was no clarification or retraction of the statement. It still stands, and as far as I'm concerned, people making claims on a stage while announcing "visionary" magic, ought to deliver on those commitments, and failure to do so is wrong. Call it lying, call it talking out [his] rear, the point really is the same as far as this discussion is concerned.
Jobs got a lot of positive and excited attention when he said FaceTime was going to be open (with the implication of interoperability). It feels wrong and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If you want to call it something other than "lying", that's fine.
Do you have any evidence, of any kind, that Jobs did not intend, in good faith, to follow through on his idea of making FaceTime an open standard? No, you don't. If you did, you would post it. Just who is being snarky here?
Let's try another tack: do you even have any made-up theory as to why Jobs would make such an announcement, if he had no intention to follow through? Apparently not, or you would post that, which you haven't.
Lose the ad hominem and participate in the discussion. And no, downvoting is not participation.
And you should know, it's not possible to downvote child comments, nor would I have anyway.
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.
My guess is that, in both cases (Honeycomb and FaceTime), it was more a problem of corporate inertia or laziness rather than evil.