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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Marco's "what will be different in 6 months?" question gave me a chuckle when you consider that native development for the iPhone is only about 3.5 years old and the rapid pace of change in the industry.
Anyway, Schmidt enumerated some differences:
- he thinks the software (ICS) has caught up to iOS
- Google has made it a core objective to get all the hardware vendors on ICS
- the Android Market has improved and now offers carrier billing
- volume favors Android
I don't know if he's right, but it's certainly a reasonable argument and not at all threatening or arrogant.
To me, Marco reads something nefarious or coercive into the "whether you like it or not" phrase which I don't think was intended.
Not to mention ICS unifying "phone" and "tablet" apps and the growing impact of hybrid devices like the Samsung Galaxy Note. The sooner people realize that the right way to do an Android UI is to have a flexible framework that scales from from a 2.5 inch screen to a 10.1 inch screen with varying pixel densities, the better.
"""Marco's "what will be different in 6 months?" question gave me a chuckle when you consider that native development for the iPhone is only about 3.5 years old and the rapid pace of change in the industry."""
I don't see any disruptive forces to have emerged those 3.5 years. The iPhone retains the lion's share of smartphone profits, and still is where the lion's share of mobile app profits are made. Trending upwards. Android expanded mostly in the low margin, bottom of the barrel, market category, and that's why they have a problem with apps.
Do you see anything TODAY that would challenge that in 6 months, or do you believe that something will magically emerge in, say, 3 months to do it?
All this "rapid pace" of the last 3.5 years is because a reaction to the iPhone, not something inherent in the industry.
The 10 years preceding the iPhone the smartphone industry was boring, with very slow evolution, and marginal differences between models. I know because I was there, using some monstrosities of the era (by Nokia, Sony, etc) and hoping someone would come and build a better f&%^n phone.
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.
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).
I recommend not putting the incorrect quote directly under the "What Eric Schmidt actually said" heading; first skimming that page was rather confusing.
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).
>"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.
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.
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.
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.
In the weeks following the announcement, many companies have listed many of their popular devices as "getting ICS." It seems better than for versions past.
I think almost all major (Honeycomb) tablets are slated for ICS, many of the most popular phones including the SGS2, Nexus S, and others are slated for ICS. Also, Gingerbread has gotten 50% within a year of release. Plus, many pre-2.2 devices are eligible for upgrade around now. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest soon ICS will have a strong market presence, and within a year ICS+ will be on the majority of devices.
edit: ICS+ means ICS and any versions released after it, not the version after ICS.
If every phone sold from today onwards were an ICS phone, and half a million of them were sold every day, it would still take about 14 months for ICS to have a 50% share.
Iirc, Froyo took 8 months, and Gingerbread 12 months (just recently) to reach a 50% penetration of Android devices.
You are forgetting about existing phones upgrading. Admittedly, it can be a long process for the hardware vendors to certify ICS for their phones, but 6 months is probably a reasonable time frame.
One thing that has changed about the relationship between Google and the hardware vendors is that Google now has it as a core objective to get the vendors onto the latest platform. In the past, I don't think that it was a high priority on Google's part.
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.
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.
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.