Steve Jobs Rigged The First iPhone Demo By Faking Full Signal Strength And Secretly Swapping Devices Because Of Fragile Prototypes And Bug-Riddled Software

Oh, I agree with you! And I'm sure we can have this discussion about almost any current product launch, too.

I agree, but what’s more, I am not trying to defend the behavior of Jobs here. But…to me anyway there is a material difference between say this, where the product did live up to the demo ultimately. In this case the demo was done on pre-release versions and so problems were expected and planned for.

Contrast this with say the cyber truck launch. Similar situation but 1. they failed to properly anticipate and plan for failure (broken window?) and 2. they made promises about wishes and desires, because the delivered product thus far does not live up to the promises.

The whole behavior is shitty to be sure, but I’d be ok going back to demos about planned yet achievable and deliverable features.

Eh I think it's fine because they weren't selling the public engineering samples, they were selling finished devices. As long as the product they sold worked as shown on stage, that's fine.

I had to look up the robot one. I think they tried to get away with it actually being the robot, but since everyone saw through it, they went another route. lmao. It was supposed to be here end of last year too, where is it?

https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a37359183/tesla-robot-human-in-spandex/

It’s not false advertising because it did everything it was advertised to do in the introductory demo when it went on sale six months later. Google is the one faking their demos.

How is that not false advertising? Why should companies be allowed to magic up a fake example of their product actually working, and sell that to customers, when the real product doesn’t actually work yet?

For Apple, we can stop right here, the product worked as described. Apple did the demo, and then released the things they said they would in the time they said they would.

It’s like the Tesla “robot” that was clearly a person in a weird suit. Why are they allowed to advertise things that functionally don’t exist? Why are they allowed to sell unfinished products with promise they may one day be finished (cough full self driving cough)?

Snake oil salesman in the dictionary should just be updated to a picture of Elon Musk. Elon has a long track record of saying shit and not doing it, whether that's full self driving, cybertruck (well, that finally came out), solving world hunger, etc.

I mean holy fuck it’s like Beeper offering paid access to a service that allows Android and PC users to use iMessage, but Apple keeps breaking each new iteration every few days… Like there was no long-term plan to make sure that the service would work long-term before asking people to pay for it.

Yeah, I totally agree.

It would absolutely have been false advertising if the first iPhone hadn’t been the absolute phenomenon that it was. That’s literally how simple it is. Apple delivered.

Beeper stopped charging customers for the time Apple broke their app.

Why should companies be allowed to magic up a fake example of their product actually working, and sell that to customers, when the real product doesn't actually work yet?

The way Apple does things is insane, but they weren't selling iPhones yet.

There's a very simple reason... The world is absurd, and we've designed an idiotic financial system full of issues

Here's the thing... If Apple didn't fool investors into giving them money, they might not have had the money to get through the difficult problem of getting to a production chain. And if Apple was honest and Google staged their demo, investors are going to be drawn to the party faking it

Obviously, there's many problems with this, and the fact that they can just cash out and never deliver cough Tesla cough. There's also the issue that this makes marketing and hype far more monetarily valuable than actual performance... It doesn't matter to investors if Tesla or Apple lies, they made real money if they time it correctly

The government is supposed to put boundaries on this kind of behavior, because if anyone does this, it lets scammers take resources that should go to companies playing honestly and actually making things

But know what else produces extreme return on investment? Spending money to shape regulations

Who's normalizing it?

I have exactly zero control over what these people do. They're gonna do what they're gonna do, and I have fuck all to do with it.

And don't tell me we have influence en masse. If that were true, then this stuff wouldn't be happening. Quite the opposite, clearly most people don't want to look past the smoke and mirrors for the stuff they're hyped about. (We're all susceptible to this kind of thing).

A quote from 230+ years ago kind of sums it up nicely:

Happy will it be if our [decisions] should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected.

He's talking about public good, but you could insert any subject, eg. Perspective on a sales presentation (all of them are lies, to greater and lesser degrees).

I'm sure I could find similar quotes from the Stoics (_{1000 years ago), Sun Tzu (}1900 years ago) or even Hammurabi (~3800 years ago), showing this ain't new. It's part of human nature.

Liars gonna lie, telling myself I can change that is just delusion, which gets me nowhere.

Eh I think it's fine because they weren't selling the public engineering samples, they were selling finished devices. As long as the product they sold worked as shown on stage, that's fine.

That was an early beta of Win95, very iconic. He famously closed the laptop, smiled, and said "I guess that's why we're not shipping yet."

And yes, that's exactly the kind of situation you want to avoid on stage.

Even more worth a laugh is the Surface presentation where both the presentation model and the backup froze within a minute of each other.

A fruitarian diet won't help you against pancreatic cancer.

Or, in other words, you can't fight P.C. with apples.

But are we dead right now, like Steve is? No.

What’s the lesson?

You can't take it with you.

Also, if you have cancer, go to a doctor.

Fake it till you make it?

Not me - I'm learning from Steve's mistake.

Dead people should be shot at birth

idiots who refuse cancer treatment in favor of "alternative medicine" don't live forever...

also, everyone else, really, forever is quite a long time.

deleted

What competition? At that point it was BlackBerry and WinCE. Oh, and PalmPilot.

The difference is that in other systems, when people behave like that, it's then gaming the system. Capitalism is the only system that incentivizes it in rewards it directly, As a matter of principle.

Very interesting, thank you for the hint. However, I would argue that Lysenko(ism) being successful in socialist Russia was an unintended result of authoritarian Idiocracy, while in capitalism the systematic promotion of con artists is a "feature". Sorry Adam Smith but you were quite naïve ...

No, it's not limited to capitalism of course but it's especially rewarded in capitalism. I did not downvote though, in fact I upvoted because your comment is fine to me and it's a legitimate question.

Android's interface was all BlackBerry in terms of UI too. The full touch control came after iPhones launch.

Symbian to this day. It would be hell.

Apple had already done 30 years of development (starting with ARM and NeXT) when he did this keynote, and the product shipped a few months later. It might have been barely ready for the demo - but it wasn't that far off.

I’ve been at Gamescom once where we considered backup consoles and HDMI switches in the cable aisle to ensure we could rapidly switch onto a running game when the first instance crashed. Stability improved enough that it wasn’t required in the end but yeah, software for trade shows was always hot as hell.

Yeah. Am I supposed to be upset by this? Fuggen thing worked when it shipped. Are people angry that the marketing campaign started before every single engineering problem was solved? Why?

Is... Is that something people want?

Reminds me of Elizabeth Holmes. She really really believed it would be built. She just needed more time and money. Sometimes it’s a challenge to accept a failure, and move on.

Somehow it still has a cult like Apple

That is the one single example when a product was unveiled on stage and the presenter perfectly expressed my feelings on it.

Shit take

what's your career?

Found the bullshitter

"The Mythical Man-Month" is a book written in the 70s based on experiences from software development in the 60s, and project managers still cling to the myths about project planning it debunked conclusively.

This is a success because we said so.

I only disagree with the removal of 3.5mm and microSD ports, and removable batteries. Imo the ports are both 100% needed, and the battery would be nice though I understand waterproofing is important. I'm fine with screens and no physical keys, though I would like a camera cover switch for at least one of the two cameras if possible, like laptops are starting to have.

I think given time and the advent of social media Jobs would have ended in the same bucket.

Again, the way they act, the things they do and say are almost mirrors to one another.