AI/Kasper/Jobs/PDA: The Myth
I'm "reviving" this topic since the June 7, 2004 misinterpretation of Steve Jobs' quote by Kasper has taken on mythic proportions, from what I can see. (I'd wager 90% of "avid" Mac news readers read this ? elsewhere on the 'Net, if not here ? and believe it's true.)
With the recent cupholder patent referencing devices other than iPods ("variety of devices"), I want to minimize any more spread of The Myth if I can.
What Kasper wrote:
What was really said (well, assuming we can believe the WSJ and Mossberg over Kasper):
(italics not for hilighting - jq)
Now, I'm not at all saying Apple didn't in fact design and build an Apple PDA and maybe they were so far along as to have to decide whether or not to ship it. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Who knows. That's not the point. It's moot.
But the Kasper story leapfrogs what was actually said. People have taken Kasper's simple bullet point and it's spread across the Mac/PDA world to the point that it is always quoted as fact.
If AppleInsider wants to be a trusted, credible news source, I'd say that a retraction or correction would hit the spot, despite how late it is.
With the recent cupholder patent referencing devices other than iPods ("variety of devices"), I want to minimize any more spread of The Myth if I can.
What Kasper wrote:
Quote:
Jobs stated that he is proud not only of the products Apple has shipped, but also the products Apple has decided not to ship. When asked to elaborate, Jobs replied, "an Apple PDA."
Jobs stated that he is proud not only of the products Apple has shipped, but also the products Apple has decided not to ship. When asked to elaborate, Jobs replied, "an Apple PDA."
What was really said (well, assuming we can believe the WSJ and Mossberg over Kasper):
Quote:
MOSSBERG: Does that mean that you?d be interested at least in looking at some of these other products over time?
JOBS: We look at a lot of things but I?m as proud of the products that we have not done as I am of the ones we have done.
MOSSBERG: What's your favorite thing you?ve not done?
JOBS: A PDA. We got enormous pressure to do a PDA and we looked at it and we said, ?Wait a minute, 90% of the people that use these things just want to get information out of them, they don?t necessarily want to put information into them on a regular basis and cellphones are going to do that.? So getting into the PDA market means getting into the cellphone market. And you know, we?re not so good at selling to the enterprise where you've got, in the Fortune 500, five hundred orifices called CIOs. In the cellphone market you?ve got five. And so we figured we're not going to be very good at that.
MOSSBERG: Does that mean that you?d be interested at least in looking at some of these other products over time?
JOBS: We look at a lot of things but I?m as proud of the products that we have not done as I am of the ones we have done.
MOSSBERG: What's your favorite thing you?ve not done?
JOBS: A PDA. We got enormous pressure to do a PDA and we looked at it and we said, ?Wait a minute, 90% of the people that use these things just want to get information out of them, they don?t necessarily want to put information into them on a regular basis and cellphones are going to do that.? So getting into the PDA market means getting into the cellphone market. And you know, we?re not so good at selling to the enterprise where you've got, in the Fortune 500, five hundred orifices called CIOs. In the cellphone market you?ve got five. And so we figured we're not going to be very good at that.
(italics not for hilighting - jq)
Now, I'm not at all saying Apple didn't in fact design and build an Apple PDA and maybe they were so far along as to have to decide whether or not to ship it. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Who knows. That's not the point. It's moot.
But the Kasper story leapfrogs what was actually said. People have taken Kasper's simple bullet point and it's spread across the Mac/PDA world to the point that it is always quoted as fact.
If AppleInsider wants to be a trusted, credible news source, I'd say that a retraction or correction would hit the spot, despite how late it is.
Comments
I just don't want what is perhaps AI's most famous "exclusive" to be an overzealous (if well-intentioned) misinterpretation.
Funny sidenote: Mossberg later (on some website) insisted that Jobs did say "orifices":
Mossberg: I assure you that Steve Jobs really did use the word "orifices" when referring to CIOs and cell phone carriers in his onstage interview with me at our
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't get it. What's the difference between AI's version and the real version of what happened?
I don't see a difference either.
When in fact, Jobs never said that there was an Apple PDA... Merely that he was proud of not shipping one.
JOBS: We look at a lot of things but I?m as proud of the products that we have not done as I am of the ones we have done.
MOSSBERG: What's your favorite thing you?ve not done?
JOBS: A PDA. We got enormous pressure to do a PDA and we looked at it and we said, ?Wait a minute, 90% of the people that use these things just want to get information out of them, they don?t necessarily want to put information into them on a regular basis and cellphones are going to do that.? So getting into the PDA market means getting into the cellphone market. And you know, we?re not so good at selling to the enterprise where you've got, in the Fortune 500, five hundred orifices called CIOs. In the cellphone market you?ve got five. And so we figured we're not going to be very good at that.
This might be parsing over words too much for one's liking but that's what's needed in this case.
By the way, I had forgotten until just now, that the title of Kasper's article is "Jobs: Apple developed, but did not ship Apple PDA" which was really the truly distorted part and hence the gossip mills ran with it. It wasn't merely the bulletpoint that was the offending part.
"we looked at" != "Apple developed" (from Kasper's article's title)
"we have not done" != "but did not ship"/"decided not to ship" (from Kasper's article's title/article's bulletpoint, respectively)
An example of a reasonable interpretation is from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton
In June 2004, Apple CEO Steve Jobs indicated that he was proud that Apple resisted pressure to market a new handheld computer. While a small group of Mac faithful consumers have lobbied Apple to sell such a device, the worldwide market for PDAs was in a decline at the time, and Apple chose not to develop the device because demand would have been inadequate.
Although I'm leery about that last bit: "because demand would have been inadequate"; not sure where they got that. More like "because Apple deemed the PDA market too difficult to enter into, citing the rise of cellphone usage for most consumers' portable information needs".
As to how widespread the misinterpretation has become, I'll try to post some choice links in the future.
This isn't about subtle rewording and standard summarization techniques, this is about changing the meaning of what was said, ie., bad journalism.
It's called "English". When used correctly, original meaning can be conveyed accurately, despite rewording. This isn't grammar or punctuation nitpicking.
If you don't want to "give a shit" about reading news articles (Kasper is a "journalist") that are accurate as opposed to just made up or sloppily misconstrued, then go wild.
I like Mac news, this site, journalism, English and reasonable accuracy enough to give a shit.
Kasper saying:
"Jobs: Apple developed, but did not ship Apple PDA"
...is worlds apart from the reality of:
"Jobs: Apple 'looked at' getting into PDA market; He's 'proud' they didn't." (or similar summarization - roll your own
...in meaning and implications.
Kasper/AI has been quoted and being presumed to be an influential, accurate news source. But this is a case of hearing what he wanted to hear, I'm afraid. (Same goes for those that took his article's accuracy at face value. But many never took the time to read the Mossburg article - which was the closest thing to a transcript that could be found.)
Part of being a responsible journalist is owning up to inaccuracies, making corrections, or citing original source material for summarizations.
I wouldn't care about the odd rumor being false or quibble over a typo or some such. I just think this one needed addressing over the last year or so and it hasn't been. And it seems to only be getting further perpetuated among various sites/blogs and forums.
Interesting phenomena anyway.
Originally posted by johnq
To summarize my "beef": (
Kasper saying:
"Jobs: Apple developed, but did not ship Apple PDA"
...is worlds apart from the reality of:
"Jobs: Apple 'looked at' getting into PDA market; He's 'proud' they didn't." (or similar summarization - roll your own
...in meaning and implications.
Kasper/AI has been quoted and being presumed to be an influential, accurate news source. But this is a case of hearing what he wanted to hear, I'm afraid. (Same goes for those that took his article's accuracy at face value. But many never took the time to read the Mossburg article - which was the closest thing to a transcript that could be found.)
Part of being a responsible journalist is owning up to inaccuracies, making corrections, or citing original source material for summarizations.
I wouldn't care about the odd rumor being false or quibble over a typo or some such. I just think this one needed addressing over the last year or so and it hasn't been. And it seems to only be getting further perpetuated among various sites/blogs and forums.
Interesting phenomena anyway.
And what does it means for SJ to say : Looked at Getting into the PDA market ?
May be they did more,than just a market study. The problem is that you will never know this : Apple will keep that secret.
Even if according to your sources, Kasper did not done the best quote, it's not really a big deal.
The word retraction is a little bit too much in my book : we are not at a witch trial in Salem.
-
-