Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s.
September 2017 will be remembered as one of the most consequential months in the short history of the modern technology industry — and not entirely for the reasons the industry would prefer. It was a month of genuine brilliance and genuine catastrophe, arriving almost simultaneously, as though the calendar itself had decided to stress-test our relationship with the digital world all at once. An iconic product was reborn. A resurrection story reached its climax. And somewhere in the background, undetected for months, one of the largest data thefts in American history was finally, reluctantly dragged into the light.
To cover September 2017 honestly is to hold two radically different stories in the same hand. One is the story of technology at its most aspirational — sleek hardware, audacious engineering, a company celebrating a decade of cultural transformation with a product that genuinely delivered on its own mythology. The other is the story of technology at its most negligent — a company entrusted with the most sensitive financial data of nearly half the American adult population, sitting on evidence of catastrophic intrusion for forty days before saying a word. One story unfolded on a sun-drenched stage in Cupertino. The other unfolded in boardrooms and congressional chambers, under the ugly fluorescent light of accountability.
We cover both, without apology and without euphemism. That is, we think, the job.
A Theater, a Ghost, and a $999 Phone
On September 12, the tech press descended on Cupertino for the first event ever held at the Steve Jobs Theater — the jewel of Apple’s new 175-acre Apple Park campus, a 165-foot glass cylinder perched on a hill above the meadowland surrounding the main ring building. The choice of venue was not incidental. Tim Cook opened the proceedings by dimming the lights and playing a recording of Steve Jobs’ voice, asking attendees to close their laptops as Jobs’ words about craftsmanship and care drifted over the room. It was, whatever one thinks of such moments, effective. Apple was framing the afternoon as a tribute, a culmination, a tenth anniversary of the device that remade the world.
What followed lived up to that framing more than most product launches deserve to. The iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus arrived first — solid, sensible upgrades to the established formula, with glass backs enabling wireless charging, improved cameras, and Apple’s new A11 Bionic chip. They were good phones. In any other year, in any other context, they would have been the headline.
They were not the headline.
“One More Thing” Returns
Announced at the Steve Jobs Theater alongside the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus, the iPhone X marked the first complete design overhaul of Apple’s flagship since the iPhone 6 in 2014. It introduced a full edge-to-edge OLED Super Retina display, removed the physical home button entirely, and replaced Touch ID fingerprint authentication with Face ID ,a depth-sensing facial recognition system using Apple’s new TrueDepth camera array. Starting price: $999. Release date: November 3, 2017.
Tim Cook called the iPhone X “the biggest leap forward since the original iPhone,” and it was difficult to argue the point on the merits. The removal of the home button — the single most recognizable interface element in a decade of smartphones — was a gamble of genuine courage. The OLED display, sourced from Samsung of all companies, offered a contrast ratio of one million to one. Face ID worked by projecting 30,000 infrared dots onto the user’s face to build a depth map, then comparing it against a stored mathematical model. Apple claimed a one-in-a-million chance of a stranger unlocking your device — versus one-in-fifty-thousand for Touch ID. These were not marketing numbers dressed in engineering clothing. They were engineering.
The price — $999 in the United States, considerably more in most other markets — provoked the predictable reaction. Twitter declared that Apple had lost its mind, that $999 was obscene, that the company was testing the limits of consumer tolerance. It was, of course, all performative. Pre-order demand immediately outstripped supply. The iPhone X would go on to become the best-selling smartphone of the first quarter of 2018. Whatever the tech commentariat thought of the price, the market delivered its answer with characteristic bluntness.
iPhone X marks a new era for iPhone — one in which the device disappears into the experience.
What is worth noting, in retrospect, is how much of what Apple introduced in September 2017 became the template that every other smartphone manufacturer would spend the next several years chasing. The notch. The gesture-based navigation. The camera system with portrait mode as a primary feature rather than an afterthought. The Animoji — face-tracked animated emoji that used the TrueDepth camera — were dismissed by serious people at the time as a gimmick. The technology underlying them became the foundation of augmented reality applications that are still being developed today. Apple rarely invents things outright. But it has an uncanny talent for assembling existing technologies into configurations that turn out to be inevitable, and September 2017 was a masterclass in exactly that.
The Note 8 Arrives Without Incident
For Samsung, September 2017 carried a weight that had nothing to do with competition and everything to do with survival. Exactly one year prior, the Galaxy Note 7 had become the most spectacular product disaster in consumer electronics memory — a phone so prone to catastrophic battery failure that airlines banned it from flights, Samsung issued a global recall, and the phrase “Galaxy Note” briefly became shorthand for corporate humiliation. The question hanging over the Galaxy Note 8, formally announced in late August and hitting global shelves in mid-September, was not whether it was a good phone. The question was whether Samsung had earned the right to be trusted again.
Galaxy Note 8: Samsung’s Most Important Phone Since the S2
After the Note 7 disaster, Samsung shipped the Note 8 globally in September 2017 with a deliberate emphasis on safety engineering, premium build quality, and a new dual-camera system. The phone featured a 6.3-inch Super AMOLED display, Qualcomm Snapdragon 835, 6GB of RAM, an improved S Pen with finer tip and enhanced pressure sensitivity, and a dual-camera setup with optical image stabilization on both lenses. At launch, Samsung CEO D.J. Koh acknowledged the Note 7 publicly: “None of us will ever forget what happened last year.”
After the Note 7 disaster, Samsung shipped the Note 8 globally in September 2017 with a deliberate emphasis on safety engineering, premium build quality, and a new dual-camera system. The phone featured a 6.3-inch Super AMOLED display, Qualcomm Snapdragon 835, 6GB of RAM, an improved S Pen with finer tip and enhanced pressure sensitivity, and a dual-camera setup with optical image stabilization on both lenses. At launch, Samsung CEO D.J. Koh acknowledged the Note 7 publicly: “None of us will ever forget what happened last year.”
The answer, delivered over the weeks that followed launch, was a cautious yes. The Note 8 was not flawlessly received — its battery, deliberately and conservatively sized in the wake of the Note 7’s combustion problems, drew criticism from reviewers who found it insufficient for the phone’s power-hungry screen and processor. The price, at $929, positioned it uncomfortably close to iPhone X territory while lacking the headline-grabbing novelty of Apple’s offering. But it worked. It did not catch fire. Its dual-camera system — both lenses equipped with optical image stabilization, a first for any smartphone — was genuinely excellent. D.J. Koh, Samsung’s mobile president, acknowledged the Note 7 openly at launch, saying the words that corporate executives almost never say about their own failures. The honesty was noted.
That Samsung managed to launch a credible, premium flagship phone in the same month that Apple debuted the iPhone X, and still receive respectful reviews, was itself a remarkable achievement. The tech press in September 2017 was not in a generous mood — but the Note 8 earned its notices. For a company twelve months removed from its worst moment, that was enough.
The Equifax Catastrophe: Negligence at National Scale
And then there was Equifax. On September 7, 2017, one of the three major American credit bureaus — a company whose entire value proposition rested on the trustworthy management of extraordinarily sensitive personal data — disclosed that it had suffered a data breach affecting an estimated 143 million Americans. That number was later revised upward to approximately 148 million. The breach also exposed data on 15.2 million British citizens and roughly 19,000 Canadians. The information compromised included Social Security numbers, birth dates, home addresses, driver’s license numbers, and credit card details. The kind of data that, once stolen, cannot be changed. The kind of data that follows a person for the rest of their life.
The mechanics of the Equifax breach were, in the end, almost banal in their familiarity. A publicly known software vulnerability. A patch that was issued, documented, and distributed. An internal instruction to apply it. A failure to follow through on one critical system — the Automated Consumer Interview System, the very application consumers used to dispute credit report errors. Attackers walked in through the unguarded door, moved freely through the network using credentials harvested from one system to access others, and for seventy-six days extracted data at will. The monitoring that might have caught them earlier was offline because an SSL certificate had expired. No one had noticed.
Equifax discovered the breach on July 29, when the expired certificate was finally renewed and suddenly suspicious activity became visible. What followed was arguably as damning as the breach itself. The company spent forty days conducting internal investigations before notifying the public on September 7. During that window, several senior Equifax executives sold company shares worth millions of dollars — a fact that triggered immediate insider trading investigations. They were eventually cleared on the grounds that the executives in question were not aware of the breach at the time of their trades, which, depending on how charitable one feels about corporate communications, is either exculpatory or additionally alarming.
The public response to the Equifax disclosure was fury, and it was entirely proportionate. This was not a startup without resources or a mid-sized company caught off-guard by a sophisticated zero-day exploit. Equifax was a company with revenues exceeding three billion dollars annually, specifically in the business of data security, which had been notified by a federal agency about the exact vulnerability that was then used to breach it, and which had failed to act. The breach was not sophisticated. It was preventable. It was prevented everywhere else that applied the patch. Equifax simply did not.
The Equifax breach will be studied in cybersecurity curricula for decades, and it should be — but not as a story about the sophistication of the attackers. It should be studied as a story about what happens when an institution has no meaningful accountability for failure. Equifax did not lose customers when the breach occurred. It did not lose revenue in any sustained way. Its executives who sold shares before disclosure were investigated and cleared. The FTC settlement that eventually followed paid most claimants between five and twenty dollars. A $125 per-person fund was capped so severely by the volume of claims that the advertised amount was never realistic.
We are asked to believe that market incentives will discipline corporations that mishandle data. The Equifax story is the definitive empirical answer to that argument. When a company suffers no lasting commercial consequences for losing the Social Security numbers of half the adult American population, market discipline is not functioning. The question that September 2017 should have forced into the center of the policy debate — and largely did not — is what regulatory framework is actually capable of making the alternative cost more than the negligence.
The technology industry celebrated a $999 phone that September. It should also have been asked harder questions about the infrastructure of trust on which the entire digital economy rests — and what happens when the custodians of that infrastructure cannot be bothered to renew an SSL certificate.
Facebook vs Russia
September 2017 was also the month in which Facebook’s ongoing Russian advertising problem began its full public expansion. The company disclosed that a Russian-linked operation had purchased approximately $100,000 worth of targeted advertisements during and around the 2016 presidential election — a figure that, even then, seemed too small to be the whole picture. Researchers and congressional investigators were already arguing that the free, organic reach of the Russian-linked accounts — which generated tens of thousands of posts — likely reached far larger audiences than the paid ads alone. Those suspicions would be confirmed in subsequent congressional testimony: Facebook would eventually acknowledge that the content may have reached as many as 126 million Americans through organic distribution.
Facebook announced in September 2017 that it would block ad targeting based on derogatory ethnic and racial categories, following investigations that revealed its targeting technology could be used to reach users defined by discriminatory criteria. The company also announced it would substantially increase the number of human reviewers overseeing its advertising business. The Russian ad-buying disclosure triggered congressional hearings that would extend into 2018.
The simultaneous revelation that Facebook’s ad-targeting tools allowed advertisers to reach audiences defined by derogatory racial categories — terms the platform had generated algorithmically from user behavior — added a separate and uncomfortable dimension to the month’s social media coverage. The company’s response was to announce policy changes and additional human oversight. Whether those commitments represented genuine reform or managed public relations was a question that September 2017 was too early to answer, and one that subsequent years would answer in complicated ways.
The Apple Watch Grows Up
Amid the noise of iPhone X and Equifax, the Apple Watch Series 3 did not receive the attention it deserved. The headline addition was cellular connectivity — for the first time, the Apple Watch could make calls, stream music, and receive messages without an iPhone anywhere nearby. Tim Cook’s COO Jeff Williams summarized it simply at the September 12 event: “Now you can go for a run with just your watch.” It was an understated but meaningful moment in wearable computing. The Watch had spent two years as an iPhone accessory. Series 3 was the first version that could plausibly stand on its own.
The cellular implementation was imperfect — battery life with LTE active was notably reduced, and the implementation required the Watch to share the iPhone’s phone number via carrier agreements that were not universally available. But the direction of travel was clear, and it pointed toward a future in which the phone in the pocket was a productivity device and the watch on the wrist was the primary communications interface. Whether that future has arrived in the years since is debatable. That Series 3 moved meaningfully toward it in September 2017 is not.
Month That Asked What the Industry Is For
Taken together, the events of September 2017 posed a question that the technology industry has never fully answered. The iPhone X represented what the industry is capable of when it is at its most intentional — a decade of accumulated engineering and design knowledge expressed in a single object that genuinely advanced the state of the art. The Equifax breach represented what the industry becomes when accountability is absent — a company trusted with irreplaceable personal data, treating the infrastructure of that trust as an afterthought, and suffering consequences so mild as to be invisible against the scale of the harm caused.
Both stories were happening simultaneously, in the same news cycle, competing for the same column inches. The industry preferred to talk about the iPhone. The country, whether it knew it or not, needed to talk about Equifax. The tension between those two conversations — between the genuine excitement of technological progress and the genuine cost of technological negligence — is not a tension that September 2017 resolved. It simply made it impossible to pretend it did not exist.
“We got a phone that knew your face and a breach that gave strangers your identity. September 2017 contained both, in the same thirty days.”
The smart home sector was also making steady noise in the background of a busy month. Amazon’s Alexa platform had, by autumn 2017, accumulated tens of thousands of skills and established a dominant early position in the voice assistant market. Google Home was mounting a credible challenge. Apple’s HomePod was announced but not yet shipping. The race for the living room was well underway, and each of the major platform companies understood that whoever established the default voice interface in the home would have an extraordinary amount of leverage over the next decade of consumer computing. September 2017 was not the month that race was decided — but it was the month it became impossible to ignore.
Cryptocurrency, meanwhile, was beginning its ascent toward the extraordinary bubble that would define the end of 2017. Bitcoin, trading below $5,000 in September, would reach nearly $20,000 by December. The coverage in September was still largely skeptical, still largely confined to specialist outlets and financial pages. Within three months, it would be unavoidable. The seeds of that mania were being watered in the background of everything else this month, and the absence of adequate coverage was itself a journalistic failure worth acknowledging in retrospect.
In Summary
September 2017 delivered a genuinely extraordinary piece of consumer hardware, a credible act of corporate resurrection, a social media reckoning that the platforms were still not taking seriously enough, and the single largest exposure of American financial identity data in history. It was a month that asked more of the technology industry than the technology industry was prepared to answer. It was a month that showed, in the same calendar span, both the ceiling and the floor of what this industry is capable of.
The floor, it turned out, was very low. The ceiling, at $999 with Face ID and an edge-to-edge screen, was genuinely impressive. The job of covering the technology industry honestly requires holding both of those facts at the same time, without allowing the excitement of the ceiling to obscure the damage done by the floor. September 2017 was a test of that capacity. We are still, in some ways, taking it.
