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. 

TWIT: The 10th Anniversary episode

Yesterday was the 10th Anniversary of the first episode of This Week in Tech, TWIT's cornerstone podcast.

Ten years ago a half dozen lost souls from the former Tech TV sat around a table slamming beers and musing on the sad state of technology broadcasting. While bemoaning their poor treatment at the hands of corporate media they suddenly found purpose.

The rest as they say, is history...

Which may be apropos to the current state of the network.  Yesterday's episode (506) seemed as it Laporte was preoccupied with the glory days of TWIT's more humble past (aka: cottage days.)

Surrounded by a cadre of "original" TWIT cast members including Patrick Norton, Robert Heron, John C.. Dvorak and others, it was a stark representation of the few remaining TechTV alumnus that still hold any regard for Laporte or TWIT.

I take such a dire tack because mixed in with well wishes from TechTV alumnus (who managed to steer clear of TWIT employment) and TechTV show clips were stills of long departed TWIT hosts. Interestingly, if their names happened to be anything resembling Merritt, Lane or Brushwood they were barely acknowledged and nowhere to be found during the broadcast.  Were the prerecorded accolades of the likes of Morgan Webb and Chris Pirillo  (who've never worked on TWIT) more relevant to TWIT's history than Tom Merritt or Bryan Brushwood?  

Were they even asked?

Perhaps most telling was the on camera chatter before the episode began with Laporte ruminating over past TWIT group photos.  It seemed he could remember every name in every photo except for one,  Erik Lanigan.  I won't belabor that observation other than to say it was a display of bad taste.

Although presented as a celebration of TWIT's longevity the negative pall that hangs over TWIT was undeniable with Laporte spouting self deprecation that bordered on gallows humor at times.  Perhaps that's why the broadcast seemed to conveniently omit the events of TWIT after 2011.

It's clear that the intention was to focus on the "glory days" of TWIT none of which take place in the present.  The constant TechTV clips were soon followed by the announcement of a new show starting on May 2nd, "The New Screen Savers" complete with a campy TechTV-esque show opener.

With G4 now defunct and parent NBC Universal caring little about the former TechTV intellectual property rights it seems it would be the ideal time to resurrect the dead.  To that end it appears Laporte's plan is to reach into the past to try to secure a future for TWIT.

The New Screen Savers will feature rotating co-hosts consisting of current TWIT staff and co-hosts like Patrick Norton, Megan Morrone and Mike Elgan.

Hindsight truly offers superb vision and on reviewing the episode (offered below) it seems Laporte believes he can stop the hemorrhaging by throwing former fans a bone that will obscure their collective memory of the past 4 years.

Unfortunately, bones are all that's left of TWIT but watch for yourself and draw your own conclusions.  The entire episode is offered with commercials edited out and much of the shows Pre and Post chatter from the RAW feed.

Some favorite Onion bits to brighten your day...

Take a break!

Uber

Wolfenstein: New Order 2nd person mode

Fetal Position workers

Apple friend bars

The Emperor has no clothes

It drives me nuts...

Even though I know it shouldn't...

I mean, really now, who cares about one little podcasting network anyway?  In the grand scheme of things such concerns are less than trivial if not inconsequential.  If a beloved icon of tech journalism like Leo Laporte chooses to delude himself while his Rome is burning what business is it of ours if he chooses to believe otherwise?

If TWIT vanished from the landscape of Internet content the number of people who actually cared would be lower than the percentage of LGBT's in the Tea Party.

...and the king of Tech punditry would do just fine thank you...

Still...

Over the past few months I've continued to witness a sea change at TWIT with the most obvious symptom an exodus of popular hosts and programming.  In their place bizarre additions like Marketing Mavericks, a show based on sucking up to the kind of people who dreamed up click-through ads and stadiums named after cell-phone companies.

And then there's the ads!  Oh those god awful ads!  Where do they find these products??

Of course, not everybody agrees with me...

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it people like me!" Stuart Smiley

If you can sift through the barrage of delusional self-affirmation and staunch denial of anything contrarian that pervades today's TWIT, there are still gems to be found on the network. 

Shows like This Week in Law, This week in Enterprise Tech, Windows Weekly and the grand old man of the group This Week In Tech still shine.  Unfortunately, to find them you'll have to ignore the cognitive dissonance that promotes Tech News Today (TNT) as still being relevant or Floss Weekly and Ham Nation as being interesting.  Incidentally, after almost 6 months, TNT still consistently ranks far behind Tom Merritt's Daily Tech News show and has yet to break into the top 10 on most ranking authorities. 

With the often abrupt departures of popular talent like Tom Merritt, Brian Brushwood and even Iyaz Akhtar, the void that remains has been filled (with varying degrees of success) by hosts like:

Father Robert Ballecer,  the affable and upbeat "digital Jesuit" who is increasingly ever present and likely  heir to TWIT if not for his "other" job.  

Chad Johnson, OMGCHAD and newest Laporte protege' who is often called upon to beta test new programming like the short-lived This Week in YouTube and RedditUP (currently in beta.)

Sara Lane, a stalwart TWIT personality and second only to Laporte in the sheer volume of shows she hosts.  As one of the few remaining alumni from Laporte's TechTV days, Lane appears loyal to Laporte but one has to wonder if those convictions have been tested since the surprise departure of so many TWIT colleagues from the network.

And of course, Laporte himself who recently took back hosting duties of TWIT's tech review show Before You Buy after former host and producer Shannon Morse left TWIT's full time employ. 

Shannon Morse, the contractor, now only appears once a week on TWIT as co-host of Coding 101 with Fr. Robert Ballecer.

Morse, known most prominently from Darren Kitchen's Hak 5 was a recent addition to the network in the past year.  Her decision to trade a full time gig at TWIT to be a contract host for one show (while doing at least 2 others for Revision 3) can only be viewed as a foot out the door.

The only time a full time employee converts to a contractor these days is when somebody is on their way out and Laporte taking back hosting duties of Before You Buy underscores just how "out" Morse really is.

But let's be fair here.  While TWIT's apparent missteps are beginning to border on habitual, it's not entirely their fault.  Take a look at those same podcast rankings that are so damning to TNT and you'll find a saturated landscape.  Everybody and their brother seems to have a tech podcast.  Couple that with the fact that the novelty has worn off.  There's very little new information out there and "revolutionary" is just a marketing buzzword.  Technology isn't "magical" anymore and even your grandmother can use an IPad.   

Go ahead, check The Verge, TechCrunch or even TNT (if you can stay awake) and the content is without fail a daily march of ad nauseam reviews of yet another "revolutionary" smart device.  Lest we forget the constant security breaches of well known web properties and tech pundits desperately  inflating their copy by reviving long dead adjectives like, "plaudits."

Not very exciting...

Short term gain leading to long term consequences.

That TWIT advertising has increasingly strayed from a tech focus to products like razors, jewelry and snacks may be an indication that tech just isn't that sexy anymore.  Unfortunately, it also frequently results in content straying from technology to heated debates over single versus multi-blade razors.

Viewer's of TWIT could likely care less about razors, underwear and harvest rice sticks when they're watching Security Now or Windows Weekly.    At times even the hosts seem annoyed as they hawk often ridiculous and contextually irrelevant wares.  With an average of 2 to 4 live ad reads per TWIT show, anything that strays from the content runs the risk of losing an easily fickle audience.

Where TWIT may once have been a destination rivaling its progenitor, TechTV, in the past year it's become more akin to G4.  In case you don't get the analogy, G4 began as a cable channel focused on video games and gaming culture and ended with a schedule largely consisting of Cops reruns and infomercials.

TWIT's bizarre programming changes, a trend of topically irrelevant advertising and exodus of talent paint a dark picture of the network's future. 

It's high time ego and hubris take a back seat. 

Rome is burning and the Emperor has no clothes...

Baby, Bathwater and now the tub...TWIT changes continue

Watching today's TNT episode with new lead, Mike Elgan, at the helm it became obvious that changes at TWIT aren't quite done yet.

With Iyaz Akhtar's sudden departure for CNET last week, only Sarah Lane and Jason Howell of the Merritt era crew remain.

Leo Laporte attempted to soften the blow by heading up the New Years Eve episode of TNT alongside new TNT boss Mike Elgan.  Watching the episode one  thing became clear.  Where Tom Merritt was about collaboration,  Mike Elgan is all about a certain way of doing things...that being,.his way.

Politlely deflecting commentary to the contrary it was obvious that the edict has gone out.  My way or the highway will likely be the order of the day.

The strange thing was, that his delivery was about as interesting as a wet dish rag .  A more passive and submissive tone seems to surface around Laporte's bravado.  His stage presence lacked charisma and at times it seems he'd be more suited to stamping driver's licenses at a DMV window. In short a newsman but not an anchor.

What we do know is that Elgan is a willing tool of Laporte to push his grand plans of recreating TNT as the CNN of tech with a focus on "breaking news"   As such there wasn't anything new there.  It's a mantra that Laporte has droned so many times in the month since the announcement of Tom Merritt's departure.

With a playful yet overt dig at Sarah Lane for breaking into tears during Tom Merritt's last address to TNT fans yesterday (Dec. 30), it was obvious that Laporte was desperately trying to move away from the topic of Merritt's departure.

Soon after came Laporte and Elgan's gentle but obvious chorus of what they thought TNT wasn't doing well enough.

After which the first hints at tension began showing through the cracks when Lane rose to the defense of TNT's previous work.  After Elgan commented that he wanted TNT to be more "global" and didn't want to just be "reporting American tech news for Americans." Lane instantly responded with, " I don't think TNT was ever doing that!".  Elgan's response, "Right"

Apparently, award winning or not, TNT wasn't living up to Leo's expectations under Merritt's rule.
It's obvious that the remaining hosts (Sarah and Jason Howell) will not have as prominent a role as they did under Merritt and it's likely a reason Iyaz Akhtar chose to make such a curiously timed exit from the show.

It makes sense, TWIT has literally thrown the baby out with the bathwater and will have to move fast to fill the vacuum.  That means nothing of the Merritt era at TWIT can remain if they don't want to be constantly hampered by his ghost.  The painful part is to see the significant contributions of TNT crew past and present be devalued for the sake of a whim AKA: breaking tech news.

In the end don't be surprised to see Mike Elgan sitting with a completely different TNT cast by this time next year. Whether that's a good or bad thing is dependent on whether or not you can accept the changes Elgan brings to TNT.

I know what I think but make up your own mind.  The episode in question is provided below... Advance to 36:21 for Elgan's commmentary on the old TNT.

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.

A Taxing Commute

I like technology but like anything else if it comes without an opposable thumb it has no morality.  It's far too easy to overlook a nefarious motive when it comes with a purported benefit.

Have you ever noticed when governments have money problems it's suddenly time for all of us to "tighten our belts?" 

The latest round of whining comes as state governments are coming up short in highway funds from declining fuel taxes thus making them desperate to recapture that lost revenue.  Seems all those admonitions about driving more fuel efficient cars and spending less on "frivolous" purchases like food and shelter have finally backfired.

Capitalism, at least theoretically, is about buyers and sellers.  Offer something somebody wants and you can make a living selling it.  If a lot of people want it you've got room to make a tidy little profit and even kick a bit back to the public coffers to fix all those potholes.  It's seems only fair to give a little back for the  greater good. 

No harm in that but that's not the way it works these days.  While Joe Public is watching his wages fall and prices rise he's got less to contribute to the engines of the economy.  He can't afford the better house or the new car or the family vacation.

Too bad for him, some would say.  In reality it's too bad for everyone.  When nobody is able to buy anything nobody's able to pay taxes for the things we all rely on.  Government revenue shrinks making it harder to meet public obligations. 

Ok, so nothing's free and we all need to pay our share if we want to have nice things right? 

But we still see big oil  enjoying billions in tax breaks claiming the loss of them would be catastrophic to the economy.  They never say "whose" economy, just that layoffs would result.  Of course that would be just fine for them since financial markets always reward "rightsizing."  Put 100,000 people out of work and watch your share price go up 20%.  Blaming public policy for it is just a benefit.

Corporations enjoy tax loopholes big enough to drive a truck through all the while moving ever closer to "personhood" with few of the responsibilities of the label.  Increasingly money=speech and the fatter your wallet the more of the government's ear you get.

So what do you think is going to happen when somebody comes up with a scheme to fleece taxpayers more for doing something they already do every day. 

There's a new movement amongst state governments to try to make up for all those lost highway taxes caused by fewer fuel taxes coming in.  That's right you Toyota Prius and Nissan Leaf owners! You're destroying the economy!

It seems they seek to start monitoring your driving habits and tax you based on them.  All you have to do is just allow them (state governments) to put a little black box in your car about the size of a cell phone.  It's able to record  the number of miles traveled and (potentially) everywhere you went among other things. 

I'll dispense with the privacy argument, it's been a fallacy since the dawn of the Patriot Act. 

We've accepted that our communications are monitored, our speech diminished and our civil liberties curtailed in the name of security.  After all, every great civilization leveraged fear to keep the masses in line.  Rome used armies and the Church used eternal damnation.  Government always finds a bugaboo to prop up. 

But we're not looking for terrorists in your Kia here, we're talking about yet another way to squeeze even more money out of you.  The program supposedly rewards drivers with a lower tax bill if they drive less but states are counting on more not less revenue.  That means the entire premise is  based on punishing drivers for something they have little control over, their commute.  Forget picking up the kids from soccer practice in the minivan, best get them a bus pass!

Now your every move is about to be fair game to be judged for the sake of refilling public coffers .  Let's not forget why those coffers are running dry, however.  A capitalist economy is dependent on people buying things.  When you're broke, you're not buying anything.  Almost everything you purchase has a tax so it follows that with buying down so are revenues.

It comes down to the "fair share" argument and there's a huge demographic that's paying far more than theirs and they're not living in mansions.  Schemes like taxing your driving habits violate not only civil liberties but continue to ignore the core problem. 

It's not the 40K per year cubicle dweller that's to blame.  After all, he did what he was told to do.  He drives a more fuel efficient car and accepts an ever increasing tax burden on everything from his wages to his food.  He can't participate in the economy because he's being subjugated by it. 

Rather it's huge corporate interests dodging their responsibilities, political graft and public projects woefully mismanaged.   In my state, for example,  it's common for public roadways to be built from state tax revenues and bonds instead of Federal funds. 

Rarely do any of these projects come in on budget or schedule and often when you look deeper you see why with millions in wasted public funds if not outright misappropriation.  It's an environment ripe for corruption which only makes the cry of diminished resources from state transportation departments that much more hollow.

All those fiercely independent states who eschew Federal highway funds likely do so to avoid the scrutiny of all of those "outsiders."  

There's 2 things that have become apparent to me as I've watched the population grow in my state.  The first is that it seems the Federally funded roads almost always get built on time and on budget while the state road projects can rarely make that claim. 

The second is that you can always count on there never being enough money for public projects so long as public policy keeps squeezing those who have the least to offer.

It's an economic catch 22.  A vicious cycle easily broken by correcting a lopsided fiscal construct but lacking in the political will to achieve it. 

Remember that change never happens overnight.  It's always a series of subtle events that often go unnoticed.  Paint poor public policy with the brush of patriotism or the public good and bad things will happen. 

Taxing Joe Public more for his commute while ignoring those who refuse to pay their fair share is bad public policy, period.

If technology is the tool, why am I the one getting used?

Technology's great isn't it. 

"There's an app for that" and increasingly there's hardware for it. too.  The next decade promises an explosion of technical doodads that will be able to do anything from having your favorite latte' ready when you wake to alerting you to failing health.

Ain't it grand.  Our entire lives, every need, every whim, every action collected, recorded, monitored and stored.  Today, a newborn baby can expect a record of everything they've ever done from cradle to grave.

How convenient, how secure, how exciting this gilded cage we're making for ourselves.  Until we found out about the antics of the NSA recently, the concept could be brushed off as the ramblings of a crank.  Regardless of the level of technical expertise governments may or may not have, the event shocked a technology addicted populace even if only for a moment.

For the next few months at least, anyone selling anything with the word "privacy" is sure to do well until the next shiny bauble comes along.

Short of an EMP pulse from space knocking us back to the 19th century, change never happens overnight.  It's gradual no matter how exponential Moore's law becomes.  Today it's a fingerprint reader on an Iphone or the convenience of storing your private data in the cloud.  Most people wouldn't give a second thought to what it really means to swap out an Android phone and find all their personal data and settings automatically downloaded to its replacement. 

It's just  cool because it's so convenient.  Never mind someone else has control of your stuff...

All you have to do is stress the utility of that new toy and privacy goes out the window.  That anyone who uses a  Smartphone expects the data on it to be private in the first place is laughable but they do. 

 You can choose not to participate but soon find yourself ostracized.  Socialization, personal economy and even careers increasingly demand you jump on the bandwagon.

Technology isn't a bad thing so long as it remains a tool but it seems we're moving toward an age where the tool is used against us.

Consider a world where your smartphone snitches to your health insurance company via its NFC payment capability while your car verifies your location via GPS.  There's no denying it, you got the supersized fries and your health premium is going up because of it.

Consider your car insurance company monitoring every mile and basing your premium on what they find out.  It's already happening with at least one major insurance carrier.

Maybe you get a discount for driving 5 miles under the speed limit and ordering the salad instead of the burger.  That makes it all ok, right?

It's the small changes in what is considered acceptable that gradually erode personal freedoms and liberties.  Consider that for your discounted premiums you've essentially subjected yourself to a set of values you may not share.  As it becomes a more accepted practice you become more powerless.

Companies are essentially demanding compliance from their customers.  What happened here?  Since when does a customer have to justify themselves to  the cashier?

It's simple really. 

You're a prisoner, worse, you pay dearly for the privilege while the whole time doggedly defending your right to treated as such.

Technology is seductive, slowly evolving our dependency to the point where it's inconceivable for most to live without it.  We're convinced we need it even if we don't.  We must be continually connected and have instant access to everything.

We even create workflows of nonsense just to justify having it.  Is it really that important to be able to talk to Google?  What if all your queries were recorded, compiled and used to create a profile about you that you knew nothing about?

The sad fact is that the services we rely on often don't have our best interests at heart.  Profit and  Philanthropy make poor bedfellows.  So does power.

Once governments discover this voluntary abdication of civil liberties it's nothing for them to exercise control over our cherished providers of our technological fix.

And it is a fix.  If you can't imagine a day without your smartphone you're just as addicted as anyone on crack cocaine.  You think you need it but in reality you don't.

Technology is a tool but there's no reason you should allow yourself to be used by it.  Get your context straight and you won't have to worry about privacy or security.

The good old days.

Vintage Atari Computers and peripherals

I've been rummaging around the house and I came upon a box.

Nothing uniquely special about it but when I opened it I found the contents magical.

It contained a collection of memories in the form of some old Atari computers.  I'm not talking about an old 2600 or a Jaguar but rather a collection of those old 8 bit wonders from the late 70's and early 80's.  They have names like 800, 130XE and 800XL.

I look on them with the same reverence someone a few decades younger may look on a Nintendo 64 or their first Mac.  They represent a time when technology couldn't come close to our imagination but we tried anyway.

I think those of my age are far more fortunate, however.  If you grew up in the late 70's and early 80's and had any interest in computers then you understand what I mean.  I've been privileged to witness the evolution of personal computers from little more than a novelty to an invaluable tool. 

Strange how things have come full circle in the so-called "post-PC" era of tablets and the Smartphone.  To listen to the pundits you'd think we were on the verge of personal computers becoming a novelty again.

To some extent they're right.   There's not much mystery to computers anymore and I doubt anyone will ever look upon their laptop with the same nostalgia I feel for that box full of Atari's.

When I was growing up I was aware that I was in the midst of a sea change.  When I was small there were no electronic games or home computers.  The few that existed  were crude and more expensive than any suburban middle class parent could justify. 

Childhood was occupied by exploring the world contained within a few square blocks of my house.  Friends, adventures and fun were all very much real.  No virtualization allowed aside from what came from my own imagination.

Atari 410 Recorder

When I got a little older I found myself in the middle of an explosion of technology. The first hand held games soon gave way to the first game consoles and finally my box of Atari memories.

 It was nothing short of amazing.  Turn on the power switch and I could play a game or if I had the patience, I could write my own.

I remember spending hours entering hundreds of lines of code from a magazine article knowing that one mistyped character could make it all for naught.

Looking back now, I was a data entry clerk at 12 and didn't even know it.

By today's standards using such dinosaurs was a tedious and laborious affair.  Hours of work could be lost seemingly without reason.  Cassette tapes and later floppy disks made for a poor archive with more than a few hours of feverish work lost because of them.  "Save now and save often" became a mantra.

I doubt today's teenagers would tolerate the shortcomings of early home computers for long.  Maybe that's where I learned the patience that I rarely see in those that came after me.  Today's world is geared toward instant gratification.  Even those of modest means can instantly satisfy a whim with an Internet connected device.  A feat that would take me weeks in my youth if it was possible at all.

Things moved quickly and before you knew it technology was advancing at an exponential pace.  The novelty was wearing off but it was still an exciting time.  The first modems allowed us to reach out to those similarly enamored.  The BBS or Bulletin Board System was the precursor to the Internet most evident in the millions of online forums that exist to this day.

Atari 130XE

It seemed every corner had a computer store and its aisles contained the stuff of dreams.  Computers, Software and periodicals about them seemed to be everywhere. 

Technology itself was the entertainment medium.  Just standing in the middle of a Federated Department store or a Radio Shack was better than a ticket to Star Wars with a free pizza. 

Even movies and television reflected the culture.    Tron was revolutionary for its visual style.  Wargames made millions of parents nervous about their kid's computing habits.  Both films showed how technology had moved out of the dusty confines of universities and corporations and into popular culture.

By the time the 90's came around the idea of personal computing was no longer in the hands of hobbyists or tinkerers.  They were as commonplace as traffic during rush hour. 

Suddenly the computer store on the corner closed replaced by Supermarket-sized electronics stores like CompUSA and Circuit City.  Technology had become commoditized, outsourced and disposable. 

Computers weren't fun anymore, they were just tools.  Cold instruments hailed as revolutionizing a workforce.  In reality, performing the same mundane tasks as their ancestors: pen and paper, abacus and calculator. 

Instead of being a catalyst to our imagination, computers and technology in general rarely rise above the menial anymore.  Smarter, faster but with no imagination there is no substance. 

A faster computer can calculate your spreadsheet in seconds.  A faster Internet connection can connect you to anything the online world can offer assuming there's anything worth seeing. 

Atari 800XL

Technology isn't the catalyst for change I'd hoped for in my youth.  It's little more than a new means to do the same old crap and that's the real tragedy.

Which makes my little box of memories all the more special.

I think I'll keep it.                                         

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...