7 ms·

What Eric Schmidt actually said

315 points by jyap 15y ago

officemonkey 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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 15y ago
        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 15y ago
        That's true. Also, real journalists have fact checking departments that are supposed to verify those facts.
        anamax 15y ago
        > 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.
        reissbaker 15y ago
        Depends on power relations, really. If the journalist and paper aren't likely to get in hot water for it, doesn't happen. For example, U.S. coverage of international news can be pretty bad with misquotes, misattributions, and "accidentally" photoshopped images -- particularly so when the country being covered is primarily non-English-speaking.
  - Semiapies 15y ago
    "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Or more to the point, people remember inaccurate stories - they don't remember the corrections.
    - TeMPOraL 15y ago
      That's why anti-editorializing rules on HN submission titles are so important. That's why picking a good headline for the article is important. That's (another reason) why I believe that most of the news services are doing a disservice to humanity. We read many more headlines than full articles, and every sensationalistic title that is inaccurate, or a lie if taken out of context, might be another untrue information we learn.
andrewfelix 15y ago
Marco and Gruber are (unsurprisingly) running with the mangled quote... http://www.marco.org/2011/12/07/eric-schmidt-android-leads-the-iphone http://www.marco.org/2011/12/07/eric-schmidt-android-leads-t... http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/07/marco-or-not http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/07/marco-or-not
- raganwald 15y ago
  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.
  - andrewfelix 15y ago
    Gruber analyses the same mangled quote. I'm not commenting on the interpretation. Consider if it had been a Job's quote. I suspect Gruber would have been more thorough. Having said that, I think you're probably right regarding a follow-up from Gruber.
  - toddheasley 15y ago
    Gruber's assessment is more reasonable, but watching the video, I completely fail to see the controversy. In context, Schmidt's response seems almost humble, and he seems to be addressing two separate concerns raised by the question: 1) The actual challenges for developers (in terms of both the software being good enough to deliver killer apps and the store being able to generate money for developers) and 2) The perceived uncoolness of Android/perceived lack of developer interest On the first point, he's conceding that Android, up until ICS, fell short. On the second point, he's saying that, whether Android suddenly sparks developer interest or not, it's gonna be on so many devices that developers won't be able to say no (to the fame and fortune). I can't say whether he'll be correct, but I think he could be. It's an honest, if not direct, answer to the question asked -- and doesn't come across as a threat.
  - 15y ago
carldall 15y ago
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 15y ago
  >> 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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3329327 I think this is by design.
d_r 15y ago
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
- blub 15y ago
  Was this book useful to you in practice? Found compelling (if few) negative reviews on Amazon.
  - d_r 15y ago
    To me, absolutely, but it depends on your interest area and expertise/writing level. I would say that this book would be more valuable to an entrepreneur who actively communicates with customers or investors, or performs marketing activities. It is less relevant to, say, someone who is interested in politics. It has plenty of examples of crafty word twisting from politicians, but it is not a book about politics, which I think disappointed some of those Amazon reviewers. I am a fairly beginning app developer and wanted to learn more about copywriting and communication. After reading this book I looked over my past e-mails to customers and realized that my sentences were either outright confusing or communicated that my software is buggy. One take on the message: you must understand your audience well enough to adjust your words to the most common denominator. Otherwise, people will misunderstand your message and it will confuse or backfire.
    - blub 15y ago
      Thanks, there is some discount for Kindle, got it just for 3$.
blub 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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.
gonzo 15y ago
Hey, Julian. #1 with a bullet. Cool. Thanks for the correction.
brudgers 15y ago
>"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 15y ago
  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-versions.html http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-ve... 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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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.
- billmcneale 15y ago
damncabbage 15y ago
I recommend not putting the incorrect quote directly under the "What Eric Schmidt actually said" heading; first skimming that page was rather confusing.
benatkin 15y ago
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).
smackfu 15y ago
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 15y ago
  It's better for page views if you keep the sensational false quote.
gautaml 15y ago
This is like Fox News style reporting; misquoting everything.

315 points by jyap 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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 15y ago
        That's true. Also, real journalists have fact checking departments that are supposed to verify those facts.
        anamax 15y ago
        > 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.
      - reissbaker 15y ago
        Depends on power relations, really. If the journalist and paper aren't likely to get in hot water for it, doesn't happen. For example, U.S. coverage of international news can be pretty bad with misquotes, misattributions, and "accidentally" photoshopped images -- particularly so when the country being covered is primarily non-English-speaking.
- Semiapies 15y ago
  "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Or more to the point, people remember inaccurate stories - they don't remember the corrections.
  - TeMPOraL 15y ago
    That's why anti-editorializing rules on HN submission titles are so important. That's why picking a good headline for the article is important. That's (another reason) why I believe that most of the news services are doing a disservice to humanity. We read many more headlines than full articles, and every sensationalistic title that is inaccurate, or a lie if taken out of context, might be another untrue information we learn.

andrewfelix 15y ago

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

raganwald 15y ago
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.
- andrewfelix 15y ago
  Gruber analyses the same mangled quote. I'm not commenting on the interpretation. Consider if it had been a Job's quote. I suspect Gruber would have been more thorough. Having said that, I think you're probably right regarding a follow-up from Gruber.
- toddheasley 15y ago
  Gruber's assessment is more reasonable, but watching the video, I completely fail to see the controversy. In context, Schmidt's response seems almost humble, and he seems to be addressing two separate concerns raised by the question: 1) The actual challenges for developers (in terms of both the software being good enough to deliver killer apps and the store being able to generate money for developers) and 2) The perceived uncoolness of Android/perceived lack of developer interest On the first point, he's conceding that Android, up until ICS, fell short. On the second point, he's saying that, whether Android suddenly sparks developer interest or not, it's gonna be on so many devices that developers won't be able to say no (to the fame and fortune). I can't say whether he'll be correct, but I think he could be. It's an honest, if not direct, answer to the question asked -- and doesn't come across as a threat.
- 15y ago

carldall 15y ago

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 15y ago
>> 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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3329327 I think this is by design.

d_r 15y ago

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

blub 15y ago
Was this book useful to you in practice? Found compelling (if few) negative reviews on Amazon.
- d_r 15y ago
  To me, absolutely, but it depends on your interest area and expertise/writing level. I would say that this book would be more valuable to an entrepreneur who actively communicates with customers or investors, or performs marketing activities. It is less relevant to, say, someone who is interested in politics. It has plenty of examples of crafty word twisting from politicians, but it is not a book about politics, which I think disappointed some of those Amazon reviewers. I am a fairly beginning app developer and wanted to learn more about copywriting and communication. After reading this book I looked over my past e-mails to customers and realized that my sentences were either outright confusing or communicated that my software is buggy. One take on the message: you must understand your audience well enough to adjust your words to the most common denominator. Otherwise, people will misunderstand your message and it will confuse or backfire.
  - blub 15y ago
    Thanks, there is some discount for Kindle, got it just for 3$.

blub 15y ago

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 15y ago
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.

gonzo 15y ago

Hey, Julian. #1 with a bullet. Cool. Thanks for the correction.

brudgers 15y ago

>"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 15y ago
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-versions.html http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-ve... 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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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.
billmcneale 15y ago

damncabbage 15y ago

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

benatkin 15y ago

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).

smackfu 15y ago

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 15y ago
It's better for page views if you keep the sensational false quote.

gautaml 15y ago

This is like Fox News style reporting; misquoting everything.