I used to think those people were lying to take advantage, but as I've gotten older I have come to recognize that these 'yes' people get promoted a lot. And for some of them, they really do believe what they are saying.

As an engineer I've found that once I can 'calibrate' someone's 'yes-ness' I can then work with them, understanding that they only make 'wishful' commitments rather than 'reasoned' commitments.

So when someone, like Steve Jobs, says "we're going to make it an open standard!", my first question then is "Great, I've got your support in making this an open standard so I can count on you to wield your position influence to aid me when folks line up against that effort, right?" If the answer that that question is no, then they were lying.

The difference is subtle of course but important. Steve clearly doesn't go to standards meetings and vote etc, but if Manager Bob gets push back from accounting that he's going to exceed his travel budget by sending 5 guys to the Open Video Chat Working Group which is championing the Facetime protocol as an open standard, then Manager Bob goes to Steve and says "I need your help here, these 5 guys are needed to argue this standard and keep it from being turned into a turd by the 5 guys from Google who are going to attend." and then Steve whips off a one liner to accounting that says "Get off this guy's back we need this." Then its all good. If on the other hand he says "We gotta save money, send one guy." well in that case I'm more sympathetic to the accusation of prevarication.

If others own the patents, Apple can still open Facetime with the requirement the anybody who wants to use it has to go to the patent holders before it can be made into a product.

And they could open source it and leave it to the community to handle licensing but you'll eventually end up with fragmentation as some clients implement features that others won't.

Suppose your wife is less prone to accusations (admittedly you know her better than I). Instead of calling you a liar straight off, she simply reminds you, "You didn't take the trash out."

You ignore her.

She then asks, "Are you still planning to take the trash out?"

You ignore her.

She starts getting irritated. "Look, you said you were going to take the trash out. Obviously, you lied. And I'm really upset you won't talk to me about it."

You could try to say that you just hadn't gotten around to it yet, or that you had better things to do than explain this to your wife.

But you're still probably spending the night on the couch.

A casual reply to your wife is not the same as walking out on stage in a high profile event as a CEO for a company and stating "I will take the trash out". External third parties don't depend on you taking the trash out either. Investors aren't making decisions based on you taking the trash out. Consumers aren't buying phones based on you taking the trash out. All these things matter and that's why CEOs become legally liable for things they say and commitments they publicly make.

I think on this count there would be room for a class action from consumers who feel they bought iPhones on the basis that they would be able to video chat with other phones and now find that they can't because Apple has failed to make good on a public commitment.

Also: I’m pretty sure that the author of this article actually believes that Jobs was lying. It’s not linkbaiting if the headline reflects the author’s beliefs.

I'm not a FaceTime user but seems like a year after "we're going to start tomorrow on an open standard", it's not unreasonable to expect more to have happened.

edit: to all the downvoters, pick up a dictionary

By going along a strict definition of a lie being "an inaccurate or false statement," I think it is misleading especially compared to the other definitions: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood" or "something intended or serving to convey a false impression;"

These other definitions relate to intent, which is a factor in determining whether a statement is a lie or not.

No, whether you like to hear it or not (which you clearly are a person who does not want to hear it) you lied.[1] There is no other noun/verb in the English language to describe the act of telling a false statement.

Naturally, telling a false statement with intention to deceive is morally unethical, whereas just being the bringer of false statements is not. I think that's where you and everyone else gets hung up on the word "lie" because you firmly attach the notion of intent to the word. That is not the case with every lie, and if I need to reference the dictionary to show that you are wrong then so be it. It is just often the case that a lie said with intent to deceive, but it by no means is the rule.

If people would work as hard to remove the negative connotation around the word rather than trying to do mental gymnastics to get out of being labelled with it we would all be more honest and better off. We all lie sometime, after all, but what we can always avoid is intention of deceit. Doing some mental gymnastics to try and avoid being labelled a liar actually, in itself, makes you deceitful.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

You can design something very intentionally without ever having compiled a spec for it. There are certainly design notes, e-mail conversations, and, of course, the code itself to document the protocol for internal purposes.

Which makes me question how hard it could possibly be to submit an open draft to a standards body.

Assuming FaceTime has an internal spec, that does not mean it is in any shape ready for public consumption. For example, the spec could leave unspecified various things that Apple's particular implementation did not have to address. It could be written very informally. It could have fallen out-of-date as the protocol evolved.

None of this would mean that FaceTime was designed "willy nilly." There are processes less than ideal but still perfectly acceptable.

But I agree the article is underwhelming. I wish someone would compile a list of the best lies Apple (and other companies) have told the last decade.. would be entertaining.

Sure, but then no one will read it. Sensational headlines is the way the internet rolls.

Your wife didn't bought products based on your well intentioned promises to take out the trash. There's laws against that.

If you buy snake oil from the back of a wagon because the seller truly believes it cures cancer and hangovers, suit yourself.

Me: I'm going to start working on my PhD tomorrow.

My wife, tomorrow: Did you finish your PhD yet?

Me: Lol wut?

My guess is he was shooting from the hip and then discovered that it was a much bigger pain in the ass than he realized.

edit: wow, lots of grammar errors.