Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth • Hacker News Board

Re: Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth

#161

Post by ubernostrum » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 8:35 PM UTC

martythemaniak wrote: post #36

rbarooah wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it seems negative and I'd rather he didn't do it, but I can see why he does. There are plenty of even less accurate commentators who are prepared to make analyses of the situation that are unfavorable to Apple. Most people don't take the time to critically analyze the 'news' they hear and are actually influenced by this stuff. Apple needs to at least state their viewpoint so that it is out there alongsid…

Is it so hard for you fanboys to say something like "Lying is wrong and he shouldn't have done it" and just leave it at that? No bullshit, no qualifications, no Gruber-style excuses, just a simple condemnation of someone doing something wrong.

Is it so hard to accept that there are reasonable people in the world who disagree with you? Or is childish name-calling your way of dealing with that?

Re: Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth

#162

Post by Someone » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 8:37 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #147

phatbyte wrote: post #139

I hate when people compare Apple products specs with the other competitors. I mean, if a device runs smooth including apps, and no crashes. Why the hell do I need to know if Xoom as 1GB and iPad2 has only 256mb ? This will only shows that the iPad was better developed in terms of memory optimization then any another other >= 1GB device that does the exact same thing.

I suppose the article talks specs because in the keynote the specs of the competition were being dissed. Reap what you sow. Actually, the one spec that REALLY matters to me is resolution of the front facing camera. A smooth tablet is a nice gadget, but I really NEED a skype capable device for my mum, so that she can chat with her grandchildren. It seems the iPad 2 is actually losing out in that spec comparison.

I do not know anything about the quality of either device's cameras, but I do know resolution is not the way to measure camera quality.

That applies even more to measuring how Skype-capable a device is. For Skype on an iPad, one could even argue that any resolution over 1024 by 768 is overkill.

Re: Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth

#163

Post by Semiapies » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 8:38 PM UTC

kmfrk wrote: post #74

scott_s wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, but the tone of this piece was surprise that Apple would use its own marketing event to make Apple look good. Calling them out on facts is good, but there's no need to tell me that Apple will selectively present features based on how good it sells.

“In what seems like a ritual at this point, I watched Apple's iPad 2 keynote in disbelief, noting the factual errors that kept coming up minute after minute.” The only surprise is that a journalist bothered to fact-check a Stevenote.

The only surprise is that a journalist bothered to fact-check.

Most just put ditto remarks on a press release or a presentation. In tech journalism, there's been a meme that Jobs has a "reality distortion field", so there's free attention when someone actually bothers to look at Apple claims.

Re: Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth

#164

Post by dean » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 8:39 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #22

Somebody rebutted the points in one of the comments: none of the dual-core are really shipping over 100 000 a month (threshold for volume considering iPad ships 1,000,000 per month); Samsung admitted miscalculating their end-sales; iPad 2 has some intense minitiarisation, which as with other 'features/improvements' doesn't come free; Apple bore the entire cost of developing the OS themselves; Kindles, Nooks etc. aren…

none of the dual-core are really shipping over 100 000 a month (threshold for volume considering iPad ships 1,000,000 per month)

No one is shipping over 100,000 month. And Apple has shipped zero dual-cores. Jobs should wait til it happens before he says it happened.

Re: Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth

#165

Post by ZeroGravitas » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 8:39 PM UTC

wmeredith wrote: post #16

Jun8 wrote: post #12

How much of an Jobs/Apple hater do you have to be before you include Nook and Kindle in the tablet market to argue that the iPad share is actually close to 50?

Quite a large one, I'd imagine. The Nook and Kindle are a pretty far cry from the iPad in terms of capability. To me it seems like it's a very close parallel to a smart phone vs. a feature phone.

Have you actually compared the Nook Color and the iPad (version 1)?

They're very close on raw specs, e.g. both have Cortex A8 chips, the iPad running 200Mhz faster, and some of the specs are actually better on the Nook e.g. screen quality or memory (512 vs 256).

It's more like iPhone 3GS versus Nexus One than smartphone versus featurephone.

Re: Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth

#166

Post by wmeredith » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 8:40 PM UTC

NickPollard wrote: post #18

wmeredith wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a large one, I'd imagine. The Nook and Kindle are a pretty far cry from the iPad in terms of capability. To me it seems like it's a very close parallel to a smart phone vs. a feature phone.

So you're saying the iPad has sold more than 90% of all devices that are like iPads? Seems verging on tautological to me.

Yep, that's right. And the only competitors are the streak and Xoom in those terms.

Re: Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth

#167

Post by thenduks » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 8:41 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #147

phatbyte wrote: post #139

I hate when people compare Apple products specs with the other competitors. I mean, if a device runs smooth including apps, and no crashes. Why the hell do I need to know if Xoom as 1GB and iPad2 has only 256mb ? This will only shows that the iPad was better developed in terms of memory optimization then any another other >= 1GB device that does the exact same thing.

I suppose the article talks specs because in the keynote the specs of the competition were being dissed. Reap what you sow. Actually, the one spec that REALLY matters to me is resolution of the front facing camera. A smooth tablet is a nice gadget, but I really NEED a skype capable device for my mum, so that she can chat with her grandchildren. It seems the iPad 2 is actually losing out in that spec comparison.

Honestly? That would have to be a really crappy camera if it wasn't good enough for basic video chatting. You wont even notice unless the resolution is lower than the resolution of the device (highly unlikely).

Re: Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth

#168

Post by dean » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 8:42 PM UTC

wmeredith wrote: post #16

Jun8 wrote: post #12

How much of an Jobs/Apple hater do you have to be before you include Nook and Kindle in the tablet market to argue that the iPad share is actually close to 50?

Quite a large one, I'd imagine. The Nook and Kindle are a pretty far cry from the iPad in terms of capability. To me it seems like it's a very close parallel to a smart phone vs. a feature phone.

Yes, I have to agree. I like my Kindle, but I wouldn't call it tablet. The Kindle is the equivalent of a single app on an iPad.

Re: Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth

#169

Post by kbutler » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 8:44 PM UTC

taken11 wrote: post #92

jimbokun wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So you're saying the iPad has sold more than 90% of all devices that are like iPads?" Or to put it another way, there are no other products like iPad.

hm, whats with the other 10% if there are no other products?

100% is "more than 90%".

Re: Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth

#170

Post by nooneelse » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 8:44 PM UTC

kmfrk wrote: post #65

It's a great piece, but I don't agree that Jobs focuses on specs. Apple is great in that they do their utmost to explain what is good about their products and simplifying the purchase and customization options for the user. The iPhone 4 wasn't interesting because it had x more DPI clocking in at a total of y; it was interesting, because they had achieved so many DPI that the average person would not be able to discer…

> "The iPhone 4 wasn't interesting because it had x more DPI clocking in at a total of y; it was interesting, because they had achieved so many DPI that the average person would not be able to discern the pixels."

That measure of achievement is entirely dependent on the distance between the eyes and the screen. I went around measuring a couple of days, many people with smart phones already had non-discernible pixels at the distance they held them in late 2009, before the iPhone4 (by Apple's measure of non-discernible). Why pick one arbitrary distance over another and call that the interesting transition?