Siri-ously Flawed

A New York man filed a class action lawsuit against Apple because the Siri program on his iPhone didn't respond to him the way the product was advertised on television. Oh, what a shock! A product doesn't perform or look as advertised.

For those unfamiliar with Siri, it is a speech-recognition computer application built into Apple's iPhone 4s that responds to your questions or commands. I am not qualified to analyze the technical operation of the application's programming, so in short...you speak to Siri, and Siri speaks back. Albeit, not always flawlessly. According to reports, the plaintiff "realized that Siri was not performing as advertised" shortly after he purchased it. An example stated when Siri was asked for "directions to a certain place, or to locate a store, Siri either did not understand what Plaintiff was asking, or, after a very long wait time, responded with the wrong answer." Guys, feel free to insert your wife/girlfriend comment or joke now. Ladies,...yeah, pay no attention to us.

In my opinion, I don't think the man has a case. Apple tells customers right up front Siri is a Beta program, meaning it's still in development, that there may be bugs to be worked out. Even if it was close to being whatever comes after Beta, there's no way Siri is going to be spot-on accurate. It's not going to catch every word coming out of every mouth right off the bat. Linguists estimate there are something like 25-50 dialects of English spoken in the U.S., and I'd bet half of them come just from the east coast alone. I worked for 6 months with a guy from Boston. It took me five to ten minutes listening to him speak every day so I could reasonably understand him the other eight to ten hours we were together, so I can see a computer having issues. The other reason I don't think the guy has a case is because he believed what he saw in a commercial, and the commercial had a disclaimer.

Disclaimers are the "I-told-you-so" defense that companies use to get around false or misleading advertisements. They need these because commercials are bullshit. The fundamental nature of advertising is to get you to want what they're selling. Companies have roughly 30 seconds to make you believe their product is great. If I asked you to tell me how great you are in 30 seconds, I bet half of what you tell me would be bullshit, too. So to make the most of their time, advertisers embellish. And you can't spell embellish without the letters L-I-E. Advertisers have to cram as much puffy, fluffy, feel-good crap into such a short span of time that there's no way all of it can be true. But there are some people out there, and apparently some of them living in New York, who get all upset and want to sue because they felt they were misled by a commercial. And it's because of them that you can't just watch a commercial, you also have to read along.

Car commercials are a perfect example of this. Watch a company sell a car on T.V. Every time the announcer makes a statement, a disclaimer flashes on the bottom of the screen. "Your actual mileage may vary." "Based on J.D. Power blah, blah, blah." "0% interest for qualified lessees." There's so much reading involved it gets confusing. They ought to just write "Nah, not really" for everything that comes out of their mouths to make it easier for us to keep up. Otherwise, we'll end up going to the dealer to buy a car and they'll say something like, "Sorry, sir, that price was only good for midget transvestites born on February 29." Then the salesman will show us the commercial and we'll scratch our heads and wonder, "Shit, how did I miss that?"

Or there's the hot car zipping across a dry lake bed, rear wheels kicking up the dust as it cuts tracks in the scorched earth. The driver starts making a sweeping turn that becomes a drifting slide. There's the slow motion scene during the overhead helicopter fly-by and you can almost count the tire rotations. On the bottom of the television picture are the words, "Professional driver on closed course." And why do we need this? Because there are people out in fantasy land who don't understand that delivering pizza in your car does not make you a professional driver, nor does the empty Walmart parking lot at two in the morning qualify as a closed course. But even that's not good enough any more. The ad people have included "Do not attempt" because when Johnny wraps his hot car around a light pole the automaker can say, "We warned you not to do it," then settles out of court for less.

When I was a little kid there was one disclaimer and only one: "Batteries not included." That's it. I think every commercial I saw for any toy or game that Milton-Bradley sold, the commercial ended with "...a Milton-Bradley company" and the last thing you heard was "batteries not included." And it was quick, almost an afterthought, but we knew. Even when the commercial was cut short. Sometimes they didn't even get to the "T" in "not" before cutting back to the show. We still knew. So did our parents. We could tell they were paying attention when we found a pack of batteries in our Christmas stockings. That's when us kids got all excited because it meant we were eventually going to open something to put them in.

One of the deleted sequences from the "Rock God" commercial.

Apple included a disclaimer for their commercial stating the sequences in the Siri ad were shortened. Good enough for me. That's them telling me that if I buy their cool phone with this awesome feature it may or may not work the way they're showing it to me. If I buy it and it doesn't work, I'll go back to the store and tell them it doesn't work. I'm tech-tarded, so there's always the possibility that I'm the problem. I would argue that when our plaintiff bought the phone and discovered Siri didn't work "as advertised" he should have taken it back and either asked for assistance to see if he's using it properly, or asked for a refund. If he doesn't get one or the other, then sue. But to come right off the checkout line and go straight to a con man with a bar card...man's only fucking it up for the rest of us because the only thing we're going to get out of this is more shit to read. The guy wasn't traumatized. He's suing for an inconvenience. I think a person with a stutter would have a better case for getting a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act against voice recognition products than this guy does for false advertising.

We're out of control. We sue for everything, including our own ignorance. How's that work? "Your Honor, I'm suing because I'm stupid, but the Defendant should have known I'm stupid." I would think a person wouldn't want a transcribed court document existing that legally identifies them as being stupid. Or fat. Or short. Or...whatever. But it'll never end. Then again, who knows? Maybe it's a good thing if it doesn't. Maybe we need people dropping writs or injunctions or whatever for the dumb shit so the rest of us can stay focused on the important, day-to-day survival of the species issues. Maybe we need more disclaimers, more definition in our lives. Maybe we need the line between fact and fiction drawn for us with a heavier crayon. Or...maybe we just need an all-encompassing disclaimer that could apply to anything. Just take the best ones out there and put 'em together. Here's the one I'm working on:

Grainiums disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the author are not those of the blog provider or any persons or companies associated with the blog provider. Unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this blog, in whole or in part, without the expressed written consent of the author is strictly prohibited. Past performance is not an indication of future results. Use only as directed. If you experience an erection lasting longer than four hours, consult a physician.

(*batteries not included)

Words, Part 3: Sense and Sensability

It's not only an admonishment for my blog posts, it's also etched inside my wife's wedding ring.

Blogger's note: "Words" is an ongoing feature in which I take a look at special qualities and misrepresentations of the English language, how much fun it is to play with its words, and why it reigns as one of the hardest languages to master.

By definition, this is a stereotype

used as sarcasm in a satirical form,

which may or may not be humorous

depending on your point of view.

Stereotype - noun; 1. a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image, 2. one that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.


Sarcasm - noun; 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony, 2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark.


Satire - noun; 1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc., 2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule, 3. a literary genre comprising such compositions. 


Hypocrisy - noun; 1. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety, 2. an act or instance of this.

I previously posted my 25th blog entry, making this my 26th blog post. And that means...nothing. It's like a 51st birthday, which is only notable for meaning you made it past 50. But 25 is a quarter of some sort that people generally identify as a cause for celebration. I could have celebrated my 25th posting on my 25th post, but that's cheating. That's like me someone buying years of service credit toward my their retirement and counting those years as years I they actually worked. To be fair, I posted a true 25. Now I have 24 more posts to justify shortchanging the next 25.

For #26, I'm taking a look back at where I started, not so much at the blog posts themselves but in my style and creative process holding true to what I anticipated them being. There should be no confusion as to what my writing is about. There's a description of what motivates me and influences my writing style in the right hand margin, a sort of mission statement. But before a reader is able to read that or anything I've posted, there's a content warning that has to be accepted before proceeding. Even if the reader doesn't know me personally, he/she gets the "look before you leap" admonishment. 

(You may take a short pause at this time to allow yourself an opportunity to read or re-read the "About Grainiums" side note. Or have someone read it to you.)

So why open with definitions? Because when presenting an opinion, editorial or formulating discussion open for debate, I believe it's important that I let anyone participating know which end of the gun the bullets come out of. As I am also a participant, it's important that I know, too, so I don't accidentally shoot myself. I hold myself accountable to the definitions dictating my actions, and my expectation is that others not only hold me true to that accountability but hold themselves true to it, as well. To that end, my process is a simple one to me: 1) find a topic, hopefully one that's made the transition from common to non sense, 2) establish a basis for my point or counterpoint, 3) present that point via example, satire or sarcasm, and 4) draw a conclusion that is every bit as far to one side as the topic is to the other. Load, aim, fire. The rules I set for employing that process are even simpler: 1) be able to support what I write, 2) be prepared to take my lumps for what I write, and 3) while I may have to make some personal compromises, don't be a hypocrite.

In writing what I do, I set my goal as being like the kid in the story who points at the Emperor and says to the crowd, "He has no clothes on," then goes on to point at the Emperor's dick and asks everyone if they think it's that cold, too. That's important, as it's sometimes the little things that are overlooked when it's the little things that make the biggest statement. Everything that is open for public consumption should also be open for commentary. And when I say everything is open to commentary, that includes me. I have no problem with that. I am just as fallible and affable and full-of-bull as the next person. Granted, some topics tend to be off limits, like special needs kids - not retards, they're entirely different. While I wouldn't poke fun at a special needs kid, I would poke fun at the ridiculousness of the retards who perpetuate the concept that the rest of us shouldn't keep score and that everyone deserves a medal.

I was compelled recently to look in the mirror and ask myself if I had been conforming to the guidelines I'd set for my blog. I asked myself if I thought I'd crossed the line at any point. The honest answer was "sort of" in the sense that I saw myself crossing to an opposing line in order to regain a sense of moral equilibrium. (Picture a ship listing to one side and me going to the opposite side, hoping the ship will level off...and that the ship's captain is not Italian.) Here's an example: I didn't post about this, but the animal activists at PETA filed a lawsuit basically seeking rights for animals based on the 13th Amendment. For those who didn't realize there were any constitutional amendments beyond the First and the Second...surprise! The 13th was the one that abolished slavery - of people - and PETA wanted to apply it to orcas at Sea World. To me, PETA went way past the line of sensibility and was deserving of having their noses rubbed in their shit and told, "No!" So when an organization or an airline or a legal process or an opposition to gay people or opposition among gay people strikes a ridiculous chord, I wanna join the band. I want to play their song in a different key, maybe change the tempo. I want to play Stairway to Heaven with a kazoo.

Meanwhile, back in front of the mirror...did I conform to my rules? Yes, I believe I validate what I write where it needs validating or, at the very least, I support my opinion with an explanation. Yes, I'm prepared to take the criticism that may come from what I write. I welcome it and would enjoy more of it because it tells me what the voices in other peoples' heads are saying, and I'd love to set up a play date between their head voices and mine.


Am I a hypocrite? That's tough to answer. I think asking a person if they're a hypocrite is like asking a person if they're modest. If they say yes, they're immodest because a person who truly is modest can't say they're modest. It's like a nickname...only other people can put that tag on you. So, similar to modesty, you can't answer the hypocrisy question for yourself. Being a hypocrite is one of those things that others tell you you are, and something you generally can only acknowledge after you're told you are one. On the other hand, wherein modesty can be a trait, I believe hypocrisy to be situational, therefore an individual can make an effort to avoid placing him/herself in that position. So my best answer is that I try not to be, which is why I stand prepared to take my lumps. When I write something I put some considerable effort into reading what I wrote several times over and asking if I went too far or if this makes me look like a hypocrite before I post. I also look at how I've reacted to past situations (part of that research I mentioned) to ensure I'm not making room in my mouth for one or both of my feet. They're big. 

So in the reflection of my 25 posts, I'm satisfied that my fly is up and I have matching socks. Yeah, my tie is a little crooked, but overall I think I've maintained a consistent appearance and I find myself looking forward to the next 25 posts with confidence so when I look in the mirror again I'll just need to comb a few hairs down to be presentable. For those of you who have gained enlightenment from what I've presented, you're welcome for the insight. For those who found a chuckle, I thank you for the encouragement. For those who took offense, well, there's that red admonishment button you clicked, so...

I gotta go. Celebration's over, and I've got some writing to do. Besides, I'm hogging the mirror and others need to use it.