9 ms·

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 th

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.

bheemboy 15y ago
> I would have preferred the later. Sure, but then no one will read it. Sensational headlines is the way the internet rolls.
ethank 15y ago
Yeah well, that's what I said by the logic being faulty and got nicely down voted.
ugh 15y ago
I view it more as a broken promise than a lie. I do, however, think that both are, morally speaking, on a similar level. Lying is worse but a broken promise isn’t all that much better.
- Steko 15y ago
  Where does linkbaiting rate on this scale?
  - ugh 15y ago
    Linkbaiting? Harmless. 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.
    - jackpirate 15y ago
      It could still be linkbaiting, just a slightly less bad version of it.
    - theschwa 15y ago
      People will stop linkbaiting once people stop being more attracted to linkbait. You can either use unsensational titles in protest, or write a title that will make people read your story. I apologize ahead of time for being realistic.
skue 15y ago
Your analogy isn't quite accurate. 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?" You ignore her. 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.
- ryanisinallofus 15y ago
  That's pretty much what happens!
davidbitter 15y ago
If I stand up in front of millions of people and tell them I'm going to take the trash out tonight, and then I don't take the trash out tonight... I'm not trustworthy. It's not lying. I don't know if he used the word "promise" so maybe he broke a promise or maybe he didn't. The bottom line is that he can't be trusted.
joeburke 15y ago
Yup, because if Steve Jobs wants something but the team pushes back, he'll abandon the idea.
Steko 15y ago
I don't think the trash is a good analogy. I think the proper analogy is something like: Me: I'm going to start working on my PhD tomorrow. My wife, tomorrow: Did you finish your PhD yet? Me: Lol wut?
makmanalp 15y ago
To be honest, I have a hard time believing that Apple doesn't have an internal protocol spec for FaceTime and created the protocol willy nilly. Which makes me question how hard it could possibly be to submit an open draft to a standards body. Changing your mind is usually okay, but when you push being open as a big feature and then don't pursue it, people can't help but feel baited and switched.
- spoondan 15y ago
  I have a hard time believing that Apple doesn't have an internal protocol spec for FaceTime and created the protocol willy nilly. 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.
  - bigfudge 15y ago
    And more importantly, FaceTime has only been out a year... Right now apple has the clout to force a protocol upgrade on everyone within 1 or 2 software revisions. Opened, they'd lose that, and my guess is that they want to be _sure_ before they release it.
extension 15y ago
You either lied or failed at your commitments, which are effectiveley the same thing when addressing the public, in a professional capacity, on behalf of a large corporation.
ChuckMcM 15y ago
It took me too long to figure this out. There are some people to truly, and passionately, believe something they say to you, and realistically they personally can't make it happen so you can't really bank on that 'promise.' 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.
- JoachimSchipper 15y ago
  Good point in general, but Jobs can "personally make it happen".
  - yardie 15y ago
    Unless Jobs personally wrote the stack in Facetime all I can think of is patents, patents, patents.
    - pedalpete 15y ago
      but I assume you are speaking of those 'patents, patents, patents' being owned by Apple. If so, Apple can open the standard and still own the patents. 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.
zmmmmm 15y ago
I agree that "lying" is incorrect. However your analogy in turn massively underplays what happened. Context matters. 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.
funthree 15y ago
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
- dasil003 15y ago
  Here's one for you to look up: connotation.
  - funthree 15y ago
    Just because there is a negative connotation around a word doesn't make it less than true. Connotation has little if anything to do with technicality.
    - dasil003 15y ago
      The connotation at hand is "willful" not negative per se. Anyway, the important thing is what the communicator means. You can't just open up a dictionary and say, "look, one of these definitions invalidates the thesis of your sentence."
- jamesteow 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
podperson 15y ago
I think it's interesting that Steve Jobs has earned this much credit with most of us (I think most). He has a history of saying stuff that is either clearly true at the time or turns out to have been surprisingly frank in hindsight. 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.
- Getahobby 15y ago
  The right thing to do when you make a promise without fully thinking it through is to still follow through with it, no matter how big of a pain in the ass it turns out to be. This is how people (should) learn to keep their mouth shut and stop over promising and under delivering. Jobs is not one to over promise so this instance is interesting. edit: wow, lots of grammar errors.
  - sigzero 15y ago
    A business cannot run that way.
    - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
      A business also cannot be run by its CEO shooting from the hip.
    - etha 15y ago
      Some do. Epic Systems, for example, is quite well known for this attitude.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
vl 15y ago
"Ryan forgot to take the trash out" wouldn't get many clicks, while "Ryan lies to his wife" can enjoy some traffic for few days.
mscarborough 15y ago
There's a pretty big difference between talking to your wife about moving a few pounds of garbage, and speaking to the world as the leader of a company with $360+ Billion market cap. 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.
gcb 15y ago
Your's an awful analogy. He lied. 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.
abrahamsen 15y ago
On Steve Jobs lying during presentations: http://sivers.org/itunes http://sivers.org/itunes
gizzlon 15y ago
Of course he sometimes lies.. duh! Of course he will say whatever they believe will maximize profit. Often this means telling the truth (kind of), sometimes not. 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.

bheemboy 15y ago

> I would have preferred the later. Sure, but then no one will read it. Sensational headlines is the way the internet rolls.

ethank 15y ago

Yeah well, that's what I said by the logic being faulty and got nicely down voted.

ugh 15y ago

I view it more as a broken promise than a lie. I do, however, think that both are, morally speaking, on a similar level. Lying is worse but a broken promise isn’t all that much better.

Steko 15y ago
Where does linkbaiting rate on this scale?
- ugh 15y ago
  Linkbaiting? Harmless. 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.
  - jackpirate 15y ago
    It could still be linkbaiting, just a slightly less bad version of it.
  - theschwa 15y ago
    People will stop linkbaiting once people stop being more attracted to linkbait. You can either use unsensational titles in protest, or write a title that will make people read your story. I apologize ahead of time for being realistic.

skue 15y ago

Your analogy isn't quite accurate. 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?" You ignore her. 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.

ryanisinallofus 15y ago
That's pretty much what happens!

davidbitter 15y ago

If I stand up in front of millions of people and tell them I'm going to take the trash out tonight, and then I don't take the trash out tonight... I'm not trustworthy. It's not lying. I don't know if he used the word "promise" so maybe he broke a promise or maybe he didn't. The bottom line is that he can't be trusted.

joeburke 15y ago

Yup, because if Steve Jobs wants something but the team pushes back, he'll abandon the idea.

Steko 15y ago

I don't think the trash is a good analogy. I think the proper analogy is something like: Me: I'm going to start working on my PhD tomorrow. My wife, tomorrow: Did you finish your PhD yet? Me: Lol wut?

makmanalp 15y ago

To be honest, I have a hard time believing that Apple doesn't have an internal protocol spec for FaceTime and created the protocol willy nilly. Which makes me question how hard it could possibly be to submit an open draft to a standards body. Changing your mind is usually okay, but when you push being open as a big feature and then don't pursue it, people can't help but feel baited and switched.

spoondan 15y ago
I have a hard time believing that Apple doesn't have an internal protocol spec for FaceTime and created the protocol willy nilly. 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.
- bigfudge 15y ago
  And more importantly, FaceTime has only been out a year... Right now apple has the clout to force a protocol upgrade on everyone within 1 or 2 software revisions. Opened, they'd lose that, and my guess is that they want to be _sure_ before they release it.

extension 15y ago

You either lied or failed at your commitments, which are effectiveley the same thing when addressing the public, in a professional capacity, on behalf of a large corporation.

ChuckMcM 15y ago

It took me too long to figure this out. There are some people to truly, and passionately, believe something they say to you, and realistically they personally can't make it happen so you can't really bank on that 'promise.' 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.

JoachimSchipper 15y ago
Good point in general, but Jobs can "personally make it happen".
- yardie 15y ago
  Unless Jobs personally wrote the stack in Facetime all I can think of is patents, patents, patents.
  - pedalpete 15y ago
    but I assume you are speaking of those 'patents, patents, patents' being owned by Apple. If so, Apple can open the standard and still own the patents. 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.

zmmmmm 15y ago

I agree that "lying" is incorrect. However your analogy in turn massively underplays what happened. Context matters. 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.

funthree 15y ago

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

dasil003 15y ago
Here's one for you to look up: connotation.
- funthree 15y ago
  Just because there is a negative connotation around a word doesn't make it less than true. Connotation has little if anything to do with technicality.
  - dasil003 15y ago
    The connotation at hand is "willful" not negative per se. Anyway, the important thing is what the communicator means. You can't just open up a dictionary and say, "look, one of these definitions invalidates the thesis of your sentence."
jamesteow 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

podperson 15y ago

I think it's interesting that Steve Jobs has earned this much credit with most of us (I think most). He has a history of saying stuff that is either clearly true at the time or turns out to have been surprisingly frank in hindsight. 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.

Getahobby 15y ago
The right thing to do when you make a promise without fully thinking it through is to still follow through with it, no matter how big of a pain in the ass it turns out to be. This is how people (should) learn to keep their mouth shut and stop over promising and under delivering. Jobs is not one to over promise so this instance is interesting. edit: wow, lots of grammar errors.
- sigzero 15y ago
  A business cannot run that way.
  - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
    A business also cannot be run by its CEO shooting from the hip.
  - etha 15y ago
    Some do. Epic Systems, for example, is quite well known for this attitude.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

vl 15y ago

"Ryan forgot to take the trash out" wouldn't get many clicks, while "Ryan lies to his wife" can enjoy some traffic for few days.

mscarborough 15y ago

There's a pretty big difference between talking to your wife about moving a few pounds of garbage, and speaking to the world as the leader of a company with $360+ Billion market cap. 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.

gcb 15y ago

Your's an awful analogy. He lied. 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.

abrahamsen 15y ago

On Steve Jobs lying during presentations: http://sivers.org/itunes http://sivers.org/itunes

gizzlon 15y ago

Of course he sometimes lies.. duh! Of course he will say whatever they believe will maximize profit. Often this means telling the truth (kind of), sometimes not. 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.