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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] officemonkey|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] d_r|14 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] blub|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidhansen|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] andrewfelix|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raganwald|14 years ago|reply
Based on his track record, I would not be surprised to see a follow-up addressing the accuracy or otherwise of the quoted words.
[+] [-] briancooley|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] smackfu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] resnamen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carldall|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
Like I say here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3329327
I think this is by design.
[+] [-] damncabbage|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benatkin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gautaml|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gonzo|14 years ago|reply
Thanks for the correction.
[+] [-] brudgers|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] _ea1k|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] RobAtticus|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] billmcneale|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blub|14 years ago|reply
Furthermore, I do not think it is desirable for Google (or Apple) to own a majority of the market.
[+] [-] corkill|14 years ago|reply