this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
713 points (91.0% liked)

Technology

59161 readers
1813 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

• Steve Jobs faked full signal strength and swapped devices during the first iPhone demo due to fragile prototypes and bug-riddled software.

• Engineers got drunk during the presentation to calm their nerves.

• Despite the challenges, Jobs successfully completed the 90-minute demonstration without any noticeable issues.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 175 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (10 children)

I know it's already normalized, but...

Maybe it's just me, but maybe we shouldn't be normalizing outright deceiving people when you're selling a product.

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?

Just because it's "perfectly normal" doesn't make it okay to peddle propaganda and lie to people for profit.

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)?

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.

It's all fucking bonkers, man. We've just allowed snake-oil salesmen to rule the roost. The bigger the lie, the bigger the profit.

[–] PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world 49 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 25 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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?

If when they ship the actual thing to the customer it's not like they claimed then it's fraud (or "false advertising" which is the lenient version).

Strictly for presentation ahead of time I think it's borderline. Negative hype can kill a product that could have been good. Sure, complete honesty would be ideal, but if you say "well it sucks right now but we promise it will be ok when you buy it", not many people would rush to order one. Many good products never made it to market because of insufficiently good perception. On the flip side, creating positive hype out of smoke and mirrors can be used to kill a competitor's product for no good reason, so it's not quite ok either.

[–] 1847953620@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Negative hype can kill a product that could have been good.

Positive false hype can deceive people into wasting money.

Sure, complete honesty would be ideal, but if you say "well it sucks right now but we promise it will be ok when you buy it", not many people would rush to order one.

And they shouldn't. It's just another way of saying "people acting rationally based on truthful information"

Many good products never made it to market because of insufficiently good perception.

That should be a separate issue. It's not the only available path, just one often taken because it's the most forgiving of shoddy business practices, doesn't justify its existence, either.

On the flip side, creating positive hype out of smoke and mirrors can be used to kill a competitor's product for no good reason, so it's not quite ok either.

I think people are starting to realize the depth of corporate deception and bad-faith practices and how that affects everyone at large, and so they're rightly tired of them and trying to reset it all back to simple, effective, and fair ethical standards.

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Strictly for presentation ahead of time I think it's borderline.

I disagree, I think this is equally as bad. These presentations are still false advertising, just to a different audience.

These presentations are selling investors and press and attention on something that doesn't exist yet. Sure, sometimes it works out where the product works, but other times, it's wasted money from investors and attention from the public that wasn't warranted.

I don't see this any differently than the current shit show with The Day Before. Both are promising smoke and mirrors. Apple succeeded and is praised and people are here defending it saying it's okay. The Day Before didn't, and everyone's at their throats saying it shouldn't be allowed and that they should be sued for false advertising and for the amount of time wasted on hype for something that never came.

[–] 4grams@awful.systems 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] dave881@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think that's kind of rhe point of these sorts to demos to begin with.

The company says we're developing a product that, we are not ready to ship today, but will be this awesome. Give us some money and you can see how awesome it will be.

I generally assume that anything a company says about a product/service that is not shipping today is the best possible spin on the best version of what they'd like to sell. What you buy probably won't be what is shown as an early demo

[–] 1847953620@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Just because you've adapted to the lies doesn't make them ok, nor the best version of what is possible

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 18 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago

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/

[–] GuyFleegman@startrek.website 10 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[–] whofearsthenight@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] ultra@feddit.ro 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So each time Apple breaks it, they have to stop charging customers? Sounds like a real winning business plan to lose money each time you need to code up a new solution to the original problem. /s

[–] ultra@feddit.ro 11 points 10 months ago

That shows they actually care about billing their users fairly. They lost some money but gained some trust, just like how Apple would've lost some money if they didn't fake their demo

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago
[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.