TWIT: Does anyone care anymore?

How the mighty hath fallen...so to speak.

I don't watch TWIT much these days and when I do I'm frequently disappointed.  Which in itself is a surprise since I didn't think things could get any worse.  Looking at the holiday offerings this year for example was much like last year.  Just a bunch of "Best of's" which were compilations of anything but.  Where were the Holiday themed episodes?  The special round tables with the likes of John Hodgman and Jonanthan Coulton?  Where's the New Year's Special!

Oh yeah, Leo don't do that anymore...

Truth be told, the promise of the TWIT was always far more grand than the product delivered.  Big dreams, the resurgence of a 90's tech icon.  A network built on a small but vocal demographic of those for whom their mantra, their religion, their dearest wish was all things tech.

It wasn't a hard sell for devotees of the defunct TechTV ( formerly ZDTV) basic cable channel.  Leo Laporte was an affable "every-man" who just happened to have a silky smooth presentation and at least an idea of what he was talking about.  

You never saw him confuse a Hard Drive with a Video card.  He was someone you felt you could trust.  A family man, someone like you and me.  A trusted friend you drag along with you to CompUSA.

Yes, I'm dating myself but only in so much as the era where Laporte was relevant.


Now?

NotsoMuch...

A check of the current TWIT schedule reveals just how bad things really are.  Entire days of the calendar are blank with most having maybe 2 shows recording and of those only a few stalwart remnants of the near-glory of the network's past.

Nostalgia wasn't enough and even Laporte's attempt to rekindle the vibe of his TechTV days has fallen flat with the announced cancellation of "The New Screen Savers."  Gone as well are the Iyaz Akhtar created, Know How which in later years found itself increasingly squeezed to the margins and finally choked out of existence with the exit of replacement host Fr. Robert Ballacer.  

The good Father's charisma was the only thing keeping many shows afloat in the past few years as he played stand-in for Laporte and other popular (mostly departed) hosts.  His exit in June of 2018 might as well have been the death knell for the network with Laporte the only recognizable face left.  

Those that might have taken up the reigns and brought the network to the lofty heights envisioned by its founder like Sara Lane, Tom Merritt, Brian Brushwood and Shannon Morse now long since gone.  

Their content and audience driven programming replaced by bland, also-ran drivel only an advertiser could love.  

It's not unlike so many popular YouTube channels that now focus their content almost exclusively at the pleasure of their paid sponsorship.  Don't expect a sour word about a Geforce Card from a YouTuber with NVIDIA sponsorship for example. 

So it is with TWIT.  That which destroyed TECHTV has ultimately destroyed TWIT.  It is now an also-ran competing with YouTube channels produced in somebody's garage for the same advertiser dollars.  Laporte has admitted as much saying his reason for cancelling the New Screen Savers was he was trying to... 


"do a network television show on a podcaster’s budget."

And the now all too familiar excuse for any show's demise on TWIT....

“The New Screen Savers” just hasn’t developed a big enough audience to pay for itself.". (source)

Yes folks, that's an admission of what TWIT is today.  A lowly podcast channel with the overhead of a network broadcaster and every show under the gun to perform.  Or so we would be led to believe.

Yet by Laporte's own admission the network was pulling in 13 to 14 million a year (source) which far exceeds 99% of even the largest YouTube channel's revenue.  Apparently that's not enough as the studio moved to a smaller location in 2016 and has since axed or put on hiatus at least half a dozen shows.  

Still it seems there's never enough money for TWIT and every show has to carry it's own weight.  Yet inexplicably shows like Floss Weekly and Ham Nation continue unabated even though they cater to a subset of a niche at best.  

Meanwhile shows more in line with TWIT's general demographic like Coding 101, Know How, This Week In Law and Game On get the axe.

That pool of money is a lot more contentious than it used to be too.  In at least that much we can cut Laporte some slack for TWIT's failure.

TWIT is now competing for advertisers with those same YouTube channels (some led by former TWIT hosts) with far less lofty ideals but a far more consistent viewership. 

A quick peek at the ads you'll see on the average YouTube tech channel are also found on TWIT.  With most TWIT shows struggling to break into a 4 figure audience per episode no matter where you watch them (most are low 3 figure BTW) it's not TWIT dictating the terms anymore.  Advertisers can find far greener pastures elsewhere.

Let's also not forget that YouTube creators don't have the overhead of TWIT (maybe) and can survive on much thinner margins (definitely) while providing the same mediocre content. 

That said, none of the supposed financial strife at TWIT seems to have stopped Laporte and wife/[sic]CEO  from extravagances like month-long European vacations or purchases of luxury items like his Tesla Model X (source)

There was a time when Laporte chafed at the idea of TWIT as a podcast network.  Now, he clings to it for every bit of relevancy it can afford him.

And that aint much friends.

TWIT is now like a favorite TV series that over the years has replaced the entire cast and writing staff.  Nothing remains but the set pieces and it's just not enough.

TWIT isn't dead but it's been a slow roll down the slope to the graveyard and we're far closer than we've been before. 

Products aren't revolutionary, get it straight!

The term "revolutionary" is overused.  Changing your form of government from a monarchy to a representative Democracy is revolutionary.  Browsing the Internet from your tablet instead of your PC is not. 

Revolutions are about upheaval not convenience.  Changing your method doesn't change the context.   The core of the word "revolution" is "revolt."  "Evolution" is just another form of "evolve." 

Simply put, revolution and evolution are not interchangeable terms regardless of anything you see in a Microsoft or Apple advertisement.  When you buy an IPAD you're not revolting against anything, not even Microsoft. 

There's nothing wrong with evolving, it's the reason we aren't still beating our clothes on rocks or retiring to a little wooden shack with a moon carved in the door when nature calls. 

Yet the word "revolutionary" gets thrown around quite a bit.  Maybe that's because the so-called developed world has long since moved on from debates over social justice to be replaced by the most popular color of Iphone. 

Perhaps the misuse of the term stems from our fascination with technological doo-dads.  They need do nothing more than change their shape or offer a bigger screen to suddenly find themselves on par with a certain conflict in 1776.

It's more than a question of semantics, it's a potentially dangerous devaluing of the term.  If a regime change is on par with the latest "product" we become desensitized to both.  That's fine for the crap found on late night infomercials but not for events that potentially affect the human condition. 

I'm probably screaming into the wind but it seems obvious that the more we muddy the meaning of what we say the less value our words have. 

Think about that the next time you're browsing the wares at your local best buy or Amazon.com.

Microsoft's new CFO and why Wall Street cares

Article first published as Microsoft's New CFO and Why Wall Street Cares on Technorati.

Amy Hood, Microsoft's new CFO.   It's a name I'm sure nobody knows outside of financial circles.  To the executive suites of Microsoft, however, nothing could be further from the truth.  After all, her last job was CFO of the  business division which just so happens to be the most profitable but the least glamorous. 

Let's be honest here, it's unlikely  Chairman Ballmer will be leaping across a stage to announce a new server product anytime soon. 

If you're a Microsoft shareholder fatigued over an incessant news cycle bent on denouncing Windows 8,however, it's likely you're delighted.  Hood not only oversaw the primary cash cow that nobody talks about, she also served as Chief of Staff for the Server and Tools unit. 

More than just chief bean counter her job was to set the tone for Wall Street in all things Microsoft Enterprise and she knew from whence she spoke.

Now her job is to do the same thing companywide and she's perfect for it.  Microsoft owns the Enterprise for most of the Fortune 500 and that's the story they want to tell.   Consumers likely won't care about who's CFO but they don't buy Microsoft shares either.

Let the pundits go on about the botched launch of Windows 8 and an interface only a video poker machine could love.  In the end it's the enterprise that will keep Microsoft viable long after Windows 8 is as distant a memory as new formula Coca-Cola.

New Media is older than you think - Part 2

YouTube is perhaps the most blatant example of the "New Media" hypocrisy. Their motto is "Broadcast Yourself" although it's hard to find on their webpage anymore.  Here's their current claimed reason for being...

Founded in February 2005, YouTube allows billions of people to discover, watch and share originally-created videos. YouTube provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small.

The real truth is that only thing YouTube cares about since the Google acquisition is becoming the Internet equivalent of NBC. They've invested a few million in a Los Angeles production studio called the "Creation Space" supposedly to support the YouTube community.  What you find in the small print, however, is that you don't get to use it unless you've been "invited."    

To get that golden ticket you need to  have at least 300,000 average views with the first crop of "invitees" being closer to a half million or more.  Check out the bulk of the channels and  you're going to find a lot of crossover from old media interests, entertainment figures and those with a popular following elsewhere. 

Sorry guys, your chances of getting in on the new digs is pretty slim with videos of your new kittens produced with Windows Movie Maker.

By the way, a common thread among successful YouTube channels is a partnership agreement with an even  larger channel. 

Oh yeah, and being a pop star with a record company backing the production of your new "Internet only" video wouldn't hurt either.

So what exactly is this New Media then?  A shortcut for old media billionaires to make more money by spending less on production?

Seems that way which means supporting your tiny channel is not their focus.  In fact since the Google acquisition, the service has become increasingly hostile to small content creators.  The recommendation is to sign up with bigger partners if you want to increase your views. 

That means revenue sharing or basically paying the bigger partner a percentage of your monetized views on top of YouTube's normal cut.  Kind of like a pyramid scheme.  Paying for views, by the way, is something YouTube actively discourages anywhere but partner agreements.  They can't turn a profit outside that structure so they make sure you don't either.

The only thing YouTube is nurturing is its own fortunes.  Don't expect to get a call to reserve your slot in the "Creation Space" if you're not in the less than 1% of YouTubers able to live off your partner income.  It's not going to happen for smaller channels simply because their take isn't lucrative enough for them.

YouTube will reap millions from its relatively paltry investment in facilities and you're going to pay for it with deeper cuts into your monetization.  Even if you never get to use it.  So much for their philanthropic motives.

Why?  Simple, it's a corporate interest and  you're just a consumer of their product.  Your "partner" status just gives them license to hijack your content for their own ends with minimal benefit for you.  So while you spend hours hoping that all that slaving over the perfect upload will go viral, know that YouTube has your back.  Well at least so long as they can turn a profit on you.  Oh yeah and you don't do anything to threaten the sensibilities of their advertisers or even suggest the possibility of a copyright infringement. 

Do either of those and you'll quickly be branded "Not Advertiser Friendly" which at the minimum denies your videos monetization or at worst gets them pulled down.

Sound familiar?  It's the same dynamic that got your favorite show kicked off of network TV and drove innovative cable networks like TechTV into the ground. 

So dry your tears New Media pundits, it's the same old crap in a new package.  Nothing's really changed as the same "old media" gatekeepers are still collecting the tolls.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from engaging in this "New Media" just don't believe everything you hear about it.  It's definitely fun but it's far from free and not as lucrative as it seems so don't quit your day job.   

You can start a blog, post hundreds of videos on YouTube and spam all your Facebook friends with them  and still not earn a dime.  Without the backing of the gatekeepers you may as well post your blogs on telephone poles.  Just remember the "New Media" isn't all that new so take it with a grain of salt.  Most of the hype you're hearing is the same kind of noise you get from an "Internet Millions" infomercial. 

              

Taking the tech pundits to task

If you're at all like me you'll find yourself regularly sampling the tech podcast offerings from places like TWIT, Revision 3 and whatever strikes your fancy on YouTube.  Being interested in tech not to mention making a living from it, I'm an obvious part of the target audience. 

If you've read any of my previous articles it's likely I may seem a bit, "snarky" in my views.  It's not that I'm some disagreeable "troll" rather I'm just annoyed at the sheer volume of BS that comes out of the tech punditry.  It seems the Internet is a haven for insecure egomaniacs with just enough personality to attract a following.  There's so much of it that it's hard to separate real content from all the parroted noise and groundless opinion.

The worst offenders are in the tech "news" sphere.

It's good to keep abreast of new developments but I've learned to take tech news with a grain of salt.  Don't expect to find much objectivity in podcasts even if the presenters profess high minded, journalistic ideals.  They don't exist simply because they can't.  The topic of discussion won't allow it. 

Keep in mind that most tech journalism is based less on factual information than press releases and personal opinion.  The sad truth is that every tech podcast is little more than a poorly researched editorial.  The dearth of real information and an imagined "nanosecond" news cycle has prevented anything resembling journalism.

No matter how professional the delivery, the minute they start quoting some article from Ars Technica or The Verge it's no longer journalism but rather an op-ed piece.  Journalism requires tracking down real sources and verifying a story before reporting it.  Anything less is just parroting somebody else's information.

This is the trap many podcasters fall in to, especially the ones that make a good living at it.  Pick a tech news podcast and you'll undoubtedly find 3 or 4 pundits tossing topics around the set and playing journalist.  That's all they're doing by the way, playing.  Their opinion is no more valuable than the guy in the Blue shirt at Best Buy.  And why not? Their information comes from the same place, a carefully prepared marketing brief designed to be easily digested and regurgitated. 

It's not that an opinion is a bad thing so long as you have a foundation of knowledge from which to form it. 

Most pundits don't and it drives me nuts.  

I don't cut any slack to the so-called tech "veterans" either.  Just because you've been practicing a pseudo-journalistic binge and purge for decades doesn't make your information any more valuable.  If in the course of your reporting your viewpoint becomes the most critical component of the story, you're of no use to me.  Op-Ed pieces get a pass on this but you have to make it clear that's all it is right up front instead of passing it off as news.

Look,  nobody cares about your opinion on the merits of replaceable CPU's on Intel motherboards if your experience with CPU's is limited to reading copy off your MacBook Air.  I'd also rather not hear about "value" from someone with a six figure income.  I'm sorry but whether you spend your vacation in Paris or Greece for the holidays is not a dilemma your viewers would identify with. 

I understand why this happens, though.

Let's face it, most people in the technology industry (no pundits allowed here) have the personalities of a brick.  That doesn't make for an interesting podcast unless you're in dire need of a cure for insomnia.

It's the same on the cable news networks where we suffer the glittering "personalities" fronting seriously named news "programming" like "The Situation Room" or "On the record".  Devotees undoubtedly care more about the presenter's Facebook page than the veracity of the "news" being reported on any given day.

In a world that tolerates an ever decreasing attention span it's really no surprise.  30 second sound bites are even too long now, unless we can use part of it as a ringtone.

They drone on and on and the longer they're in the "biz" the more convinced they become of their legitimacy.  When they finally reach the exalted ranks of "the punditry" their egos begin to trump the value of their reporting.  They are the geek equivalent of rock stars living the in the bubble of their hipster fantasy, drunk on their own popularity. 

Oh but when they fall...

And they will. 

Cronkite, Murrow and Winchell are the standard by which journalistic integrity will be measured for at least the next century.  Nobody will ever hold up Leeza Gibbons in the same light.

Yes, you've likely already guessed where I'm going with this. I am in fact saying that most tech podcasters are no more relevant than Leeza Gibbons.  You're not as attractive either.  When the fickle tastes of the Internet no longer have use for you, your day if not your "career" is over.

Perhaps it's wiser to be more Cronkite than Felicia Day.  At least reserve your "enlightened" opinion for those topics in which you're really enlightened.

If you do a podcast on social networking and you actually use it, your information is relevant.  If, however, you do the same podcast and offer "expert" commentary on the merits of fuel injection over carburetion you're just polluting the topic. 

Remember the basic tenet of any presentation, consider your audience first.  We're a fickle bunch...

Living in the Silicon bubble, the Sequel

I would dearly love to live in the world of tech commercials.  I'd never see a landscape that wasn't a scenic vista. Every city street would be a model of urban renewal with stylishly clad inhabitants happily dancing through the day with their Smartphones and tablets at the ready.

Business professionals would conduct high level meetings in their Speedos comfortably reclined on some sunny tropical beach.   The view only temporarily obscured by perfectly toned examples of the human form interrupting the crashing waves.

This is the world promoted by tech pundits.  Pseudo journalists who often forget that they're living the dream that few of their followers could ever enjoy.

Oh! what horror it must be to cover a Smartphone launch or have to spend a week in Vegas covering a tech toys convention.  

So when a recent Saturday night Live skit shone a light on the tech punditry by mocking their surreal point of view, the punditry could only chuckle nervously.  If you missed it the skit focused on a fictional panel discussion with three tech pundits airing grievances about the shortcoming of the Iphone 5.  Later 3 Chinese factory workers countered with sarcastic responses citing inhumane working conditions

We'll leave alone the hypocrisy of the stereotypical Uber humanitarian Iphone Devotee embracing a product whose very creation advocates abject slavery for Chinese workers on the line.    Oops,  I guess I didn't leave it alone ah well, moving on...

Response from the punditry ranged from tepid amusement to complaints that the pundits in SNL's skit looked like "they were out of the 80's" and not consistent with the "real" punditry.  Actually, the depictions were fairly accurate if you watch enough tech podcasts. 

That's the problem with living in a bubble, you start to lose touch with how the rest of the world sees you. 

Perhaps, like many others, I'm making more of the SNL skit than it deserves but I think it was a perfect depiction of the techie mindset.  Gross consumerism and perpetual upgrade cycles trump ordinary reason.  Only the device matters. The next killer app is always just around the corner promising to let you do absolutely nothing with greater speed and utility. 

Who cares if the factory that made it employed abject slavery to make it, your world view is safe right?  Worse, who cares if the mechanisms to produce the next killer device were devastating the economy of those not so blessed to be in the tech punditry.  Hey there are plenty of jobs at Starbucks and Amazon warehouses right?

I've noticed a new wave of complaints from the punditry lately.  Suddenly they feel unfairly trolled and will go so far as to call the Internet "mean".  

I'll clue you in punditry, the Internet isn't "mean" it's just worried about its next paycheck.  It's growing incredulous at your denial of reality.   Tech toys are expensive for the rest of us but you seem to be oblivious to that fact and prefer instead  to cite your distorted reality as the de facto norm.   

I thank the pundits for their input and appreciate the information.   What I don't appreciate is the assertion that their lifestyle in any way reflects that of their audience.  It doesn't.  Perhaps when you realize that you'll be able to graduate from podcasting to actual journalism.

The Silicon Valley Bubble

The silicon valley bubble.

I'm a tech guy,  been in IT for most of my adult life.  I've worked for companies both great and vile and  when I finally got sick of being used, went into consulting.  Most of my consulting career has been  working for small companies with generally good people. 

In an environment like this it's a blessing to be able to just do what you do best and not be subject to the petty power struggles of the cubicle bound.  That's how I can say they're mostly good people because I didn't have to live with them...

I'm not so fortunate to have grown up in the progressive forward thinking panacea that is the Silicon Valley.  Or at least that's my impression of it. 

Forgive me if this next part is a bit autobiographical, it's necessary to avoid the moniker of a "troll" that may give you cause to ignore my message.

Troglodyte I can tolerate, however.  After all Troglodyte means "Cave Dweller" and as far as I know people who lived in caves stayed dry in a thunderstorm and didn't get eaten by Saber toothed tigers...

I grew up in the gun toting, bigoted, false-faced, chauvinistic mentality of Phoenix Arizona.  In an ultra conservative landscape where any alternative to the nuclear family is frowned upon, my upbringing was challenging to say the least. 

My childhood experiences formed my opinions just like everyone else but things were a bit different in my case. 

I was raised by well meaning incredible people in the persona of my family characterized by unsung heroes. 

My mother, who conquered the sexist biases of the glass ceiling even within her own family and achieved more than it's likely I ever will.

My  grandmother who's depression era wisdom guides my choices to this day. 

My aunt whose free spirit taught me that it was ok to say the hell with what people think you SHOULD be instead of what you WANT to be. 

Lest I forget my Uncle who was the only strong male influence that ever meant a damn to me. 

By the way, I admit there is a bit of a conflict between my aunt and my grandmother's influence....

Of course, where I lived there was a missing character in my upbringing that often left me isolated and ridiculed.  Apparently a fatherless (we won't go there) child in Arizona must automatically be relegated to something less than deserving.  I grew up being chided by other boy's fathers as being homosexual  (at the age of 8) or disallowed from associating with their "normal" offspring for fear that I might "infect" them.  The cruelty of their children is a given and I should add that none of them were ever in danger of either "aberration." 

In case you're still wondering, yes I like girls...

So much for the glorious childhood of my memories.  I couldn't wait to get out of it...

Even  with all that baggage,  I'm not looking to go anywhere else mostly because I've been here so long that I know my enemy too well to chance a new one anywhere else.  Besides, the few good friends I have here are far too important to me to abandon to this wasteland.  If I could take them with me I'd leave in a heartbeat.

Such is my fate but I still cling to the hope that I can somehow effect some change in this unholy backwater if for no other reason than to make it a little easier on my own existence.   

As I write this I'm sitting in a house that's approaching 100 degrees because I can't afford to turn the Air conditioning on.  To do so would bankrupt me.  Not that there aren't a dozen other things threatening to do the same.  That is mostly the result of a crippling economy and a bias against those who exhibit a tendency toward independent thought where I live.

Obviously, things used to be better but there's no sense on dwelling on it.

As an IT guy I've been responsible for everything from an office set up above someone's garage to a multi-million dollar law firm whose very whim could affect public policy.  Well, at least on a local scale...

Even in the backwater that is Arizona we still get news here.  It's just that most people here ignore anything that isn't self indulgent or threatening to their pro-life convictions.  I, however, do not.

Still there is some benefit to living in a place where all is never so rosy.  I've gained a sense of cynicism that allows me to cut through the hype of gross consumerism.  It's not that I've embraced the role of staunch pessimist.  I just have insight into what level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs other people are operating on.

So finally we get to the bubble. 

Being in IT I know I'm not in the most ideal locale to embrace all that technology has to offer.  So I recognize that the tech pundits who orbit the tech havens of Silicon Valley and Austin are fortunate to be able to operate at the higher levels of Maslow's construct.

Where I live being an IT professional offers little in the way of creative thought.  It's little more than a 21st century auto mechanic fixing what's broke for a set price.  The kind of intellectual freedom espoused by tech pundits is viewed as threatening to the local status quo.  Talent isn't cultivated or nurtured it's bought, used and discarded.  That's not pessimism, it's fact.

Talk to most people who live in the "Bubble," however, and you find an idealism that borders on the naive and to be honest it irritates me.

What most in this group consider profound suffering I'd consider a bad hair day. 

I would dearly love to live in a place where I could fully indulge in the higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy but alas I do not and likely will not as the opportunity has never presented itself.  Not that I've ever been in a position to take advantage of it if it did.

You can shelve your admonitions of pulling one's self up by their bootstraps by the way.  My boots are in hock.

It's not unlike the mid-level manager who's never been without a steady income and could never contemplate otherwise.  Our priorities naturally tend to shift upward in the hierarchy of needs since those who can reside there can take the lower levels for granted.  Unfortunately, it also tends to blind us to the realities clearly visible before the rest of us.  We rationalize those not so fortunate as somehow less deserving or lacking ambition.  As much as you deny it, it's only human nature in spite of our high ideals.

Those within the bubble operate at such a high level that an event such as, say the wrong salad dressing in their garden salad qualifies as a crisis on par with the Holocaust.  First world problems indeed....

So I find myself frequently irritated when assumptions made by these "Bubble People" are promoted as reality for the rest of us.   

The fact that it's not really necessary to replace a perfectly functioning phone because a new model came out is on par with blasphemy to them.  Consumerism goes hand in hand with technology it seems and is the guiding mantra of the "Bubble People". 

In short, they don't get it because they don't see it anymore...

Therefore I place no more value in their assertions than a Metacritic.com review of a Broadway play (they don't do plays...).

If there is a social elite it doesn't belong to the old money of New England or the 21st century Wall Street barons.  No, it is the naiveté of the "Bubble People" who unwittingly advance consumerism to the exclusion of all detractors.

Perhaps if I had grown up in such a sheltered and "normal" environment I too would argue the merits of unbridled optimism and the promise of technology.  Unfortunately, I've seen little personal benefit from it.

Technological advance is a panacea only to those who can focus on it.

The easy answer is to just ignore the "Bubble People" but that's not possible.  They drive popular culture even if it's to our own detriment. 

I'm a fan of Star Trek and the world it proposes as are the "Bubble People."  The difference between me and them is that I know we haven't even started down that road.  They believe we're already there.

There's a place for the firmly optimistic but it has to be tempered with the realities that must be conquered to make their assertions true. 

By the way, the bubble isn't limited to technology.  It's easily applied to other dogmas like religion, politics and cultures.

The French revolution dealt harshly with those who ignored the realities of their own environment.  Bubble people should keep that in mind lest they find themselves on the guillotine of public opinion.  But then, the public only concerns themselves with the latest shiny object don't they...

Nothing's more debilitating than having one's bubble burst...