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.