People under estimate how hard it is to talk naturally in front of a camera.

There’s a reason why acting as a profession exists.

As someone who has spoken on a lot of stages, it's hard. I do sort of agree that falling back on an obviously rehearsed (over-rehearsed?) style isn't great. Jobs wasn't that way but (mostly) but he was a real talent who could have sold sand to arabia.

I do think there's a general high-end corporate tendency these days to over-rehearse for big stages. I could name some CEOs who were doing it years ago. And I could name some CEOs who were terrible presenters but were very successful at least for a time.

▲

nielsbot 2 hours ago | parent [-]

He maybe didn't present that say but he did rehearse a lot

	▲	ghaff 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Rehearsal is definitely real. I've certainly guilty of running through presentations mentally and then cringing here and there when I actually give them because some stuff that worked in my mind doesn't really work with an audience. They're almost certainly better when I deliver a modified version a month or so later. That said, it's also the case that casually recovering from tech glitches is pretty key.

▲

mikenew an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's true, but if you wanted to boil down the art of acting to one sentence it would be "do not pretend; actually do".

Jobs was a great actor in that he did not pretend to be excited. Whatever coaching is being given here is exactly in the opposite direction of acting.

▲

saghm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Surely they have enough money to hire either someone to teach them to do it better or someone to give the presentation instead.

▲

thdr 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nah, this is a deliberate choice.

▲

paxys an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s also hard to be the CEO of a multi-trillion dollar company. Speaking is part of the job.

▲

Nevermark 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do they?

I think everyone knows how many hours they practiced and the depth of talent they could draw from. The inhuman consistency demonstrates a deliberate choice, that undermines their own message.

Care about impact wasn't just a Steve quirk, it was the reason keynotes were worth having.

Try saying "And one more thing..." in recent-Apple voice, without laughing or crying.

▲

boonzeet 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You can have the best acting coaches in the world and still not get ‘it’.

Comparing anyone at keynotes to Steve is challenging. He really was among the best at presentation.

▲

Nevermark 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree, expecting Steve would be unfair. And trying to duplicate him would be a mistake.

But find a voice that works for whoever is presenting, or get different presenters.

The visuals and videos were excellent. The product was cool.

▲

ghaff 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You're not going to get Steve. For which I'm genuinely sorry.

But, yes, Apple has made the deliberate choice to have presenters who rehearse, rehearse, and rehearse. But many are not natural actors and will never be. You can mix things up a bit on a stage. But Apple does want a smooth production and puts a lot of money and effort into it.

	▲	Marsymars an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I always think of this piece: https://waitbutwhy.com/2016/03/doing-a-ted-talk-the-full-sto... The best presenters are those who have the natural affinity (or enough practice) to do method 2 really well. What we get from Apple (and most other professional-level speakers who aren't willing to take risks) is method 3C.

▲

ricardobeat 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Apple trying to make presenters 'act professionaly' is the problem, not the solution. People just want to hear about the products from the people who made them. Somehow it worked pre Apple campus?

	▲	vegabook 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Infinite Loop seems to have missed somehow. The old Apple with multiple dodgy buildings all over the show was perhaps a bit more chaotically creative. Now it all seems very rehearsed, architected. Too perfect, just like the campus.