334: Tina, If You're Tuna…


00:00:00   [Music]

00:00:08   From Relay FM, this is Upgrade, episode 334, and today's show is brought to you by ExpressVPN, Bombus, and HelloFresh.

00:00:18   My name is Myke Hurley and I'm joined by Jason Snell. Hello, Jason Snell.

00:00:22   Hello, Myke Hurley.

00:00:23   I have a #SnellTalk question that requires context. The question comes from Steven, and it is,

00:00:29   "What is 'letterama'?" L-E-T-T-E-R-A-M-A.

00:00:34   The context is, I was streaming last Friday and Jason appeared in the Twitch chat whilst I was streaming,

00:00:41   and his username was letterama. And Jason tried to explain this to me in the Twitch chat and I didn't understand it.

00:00:48   So, Jason, what is your Twitch username is letterama? Why is that and where does it come from?

00:00:54   Letterama is a fallback username that I use when I can't get the normal usernames that I want for a service,

00:01:01   because nobody ever takes it. And the reason that it exists is because when I was in high school,

00:01:08   my friends and I made movies, we made videos.

00:01:13   You made like a Bond movie once, right?

00:01:16   We made so many. We made Bond movies, we made a kung fu movie, we made a noir detective show,

00:01:25   we made a spy series, we did a dumb superhero thing, you name it, we made it.

00:01:32   And in that era, that was the era where I had an Apple II, and we wanted to do like credits for our movies,

00:01:40   like titles and credits and things like that. And in that era, there was no way to do that, essentially,

00:01:46   without expensive hardware. So, what I could do was attach my VCR to my Apple II and use a program called Fontrix,

00:01:57   I want to say, which allowed you to load fonts, basically, and generate a screen on the Apple II.

00:02:08   And then you could save those out as files, as like image files.

00:02:14   And then you could run through a little script or do it manually with the VCR running,

00:02:19   and you could get a credit. It wasn't credit rolling, because you couldn't make them roll,

00:02:23   but you could get them to sort of go from one credit to the next credit to the next credit.

00:02:27   And I ended up doing that for every single person in my high school video production class,

00:02:32   which we had, and all my friends and everybody. I was the guy for a while, until the very end,

00:02:38   where I sort of stopped doing it. And then another guy who was younger than me,

00:02:41   who was still there after I went to college, he kind of picked it up from me. So, we did all of

00:02:45   that. And I decided I was amused by the idea that the title, as is true with regular productions,

00:02:55   that people who do the titles get a credit. And so I invented Letterama as the company that makes

00:03:02   credits, because it's just a bunch of letters, right? So, Letterama, it seemed like this would

00:03:08   be the name of it. It was just a joke, essentially. But I kept at it. And then by the end,

00:03:12   we kept joking about the Letterama credit. And I eventually created a titles by Letterama credit

00:03:19   that was the entire screen. And the letters were in different colors. And literally it was

00:03:23   the Letterama Egomaniac credit screen, because, again, I thought it was just funny. It was all

00:03:31   jokes within jokes within jokes. Anyway, so I had that name and it does not exist. I mean, there is

00:03:38   a company called Letterama that prints signs or something somewhere on the internet, but basically

00:03:43   it doesn't exist in social media logins or other account logins. So, if I can't get

00:03:47   my go-to ones that involve my name, I will just give up and do Letterama, because it's always

00:03:55   available. That's the story. So, Apple II credits. - Yeah, I need to get a little bit of

00:04:01   clarification, because there's something I don't understand, which is, so how did you get the

00:04:08   files you created on the Apple II onto the tape? - So, the Apple II had a composite video out

00:04:17   port. - Right. - So, you plug an RCA cable, composite video out cable, into the Apple II,

00:04:27   and you plug it into video in on the VCR, and then you press record. And instead of recording

00:04:34   what's on the TV, it's recording from the video input, and it's recording, essentially,

00:04:41   it's a screen recording of whatever is on the Apple II at that moment. And then you go into graphics

00:04:45   mode on the Apple II, which makes the text completely disappear and all there are are

00:04:49   graphics. And you can still type on the Apple II in graphics mode. So, you can type in the background,

00:04:54   "load this file," and display it. And it goes, and it sort of fades in, kind of. It's not,

00:05:01   it's like interlaced lines, but it appears. And so, that's what I would do, is I would have a

00:05:05   stack of those on a floppy disk, and I'd start recording, and I'd run through the individual

00:05:10   things. And then that tape would go and be used in the editor. We had an editor at the high school,

00:05:18   so back in those days, editing videotape was literally like two VCRs attached to each other,

00:05:23   and you'd play on one and record on the other, and that's how you'd go from your source to your

00:05:28   final. It was very oldest of schools. But before that, we were just literally bringing two,

00:05:35   like my friend would bring their VCR over to my house, and we'd stick our two VCRs together. And

00:05:39   that's how we would edit our movies together, was just playing one VCR and recording on the other.

00:05:45   So, suffice it to say that I enjoy iMovie and Final Cut to this day, because I remember what

00:05:51   it was like before we had non-linear editors. >> Yeah, because I figured you, well, I knew

00:05:56   that you could connect VCRs together, and cassettes, like I used to do with audio cassettes,

00:06:02   I used to connect two things together to be able to transfer music from one to another. I just had

00:06:07   no idea that you could do this with the Apple II. >> Yeah, that was the standard way you connected.

00:06:14   If you wanted higher quality image, you could get, I had a video card, basically, that attached to the

00:06:20   pins on the motherboard, and I had a color monitor. But the stock kind of composite output was color,

00:06:27   but it was so low quality that you really, for text, you really needed to just be on a

00:06:32   monochrome monitor. So most of those Apple II monitors, like the green monitors that you see,

00:06:36   those are just attached via an RCA cable, essentially coming out of the video app port

00:06:40   on the back. So that was the, before there was a VGA and things like that, there was just a composite

00:06:46   video output port on those computers. >> If you would like to send in a question to help us begin

00:06:52   an episode of Upgrade, you can send in a tweet with the hashtag SnellTalk. You could use

00:06:57   question mark SnellTalk in the Relay FM members discord, or if you are Stephen Hackett, you can

00:07:01   write it into our show document yourself, which is what Stephen did. And that's how I knew that

00:07:05   this question existed. >> Yeah, somebody did send it in as a SnellTalk question after that.

00:07:10   >> Oh, really? >> I noticed. >> That's the more official way of doing it, rather than attempting

00:07:15   to hijack the show. >> It is, but this is the like, you're just, yeah, you're just sneaking in there

00:07:19   and we see that. But somebody did it. Somebody knows the right way to do it. And that was

00:07:24   listener Matt. So thank you, listener Matt. >> I have two very quick pieces of follow-up that

00:07:29   are both upstream related. We spoke about Roku potentially acquiring the rights to Quibi's content.

00:07:35   They did it and it cost them less than $100 million. >> Yes, substantially less than $100 million,

00:07:40   I think is what I saw. What does that mean? $2, $8? >> Yeah, I don't really know.

00:07:45   >> Like, are we, is it more than 50? Like, where is the lower end of substantially and

00:07:51   why does 100 million need to be in the conversation at all? But nevertheless.

00:07:55   And also, Warner Brothers is going to be guaranteeing payments to filmmakers,

00:08:02   regardless of box office, and will quote, "Increase the odds of performance-based bonuses."

00:08:07   So if you remember, there was a lot of furor about the fact that Warner Brothers basically

00:08:13   pulled the rug out from their filmmakers and actors and actresses, cast and crew,

00:08:18   when they took their movies that were supposed to be in cinemas and put them on HBO Max without any

00:08:23   warning to them. And there was a lot of upset about what was going to happen to all of the

00:08:28   people expected to be paid and what box offices was provided them. So they're going to be doing

00:08:34   a bunch of things. Bonuses for good performance in the box office are going to be paid out now

00:08:42   at one half of what the original trigger was. So you make this movie makes X millions,

00:08:48   you'll get your bonus. It's now been cut in half, and they're going to be reducing it if movie

00:08:54   theaters close down more. So they'll keep reducing the point. So like, I guess it's, I don't really

00:09:00   know why they're doing it that way, but they are. And also, so this is one of those funny things

00:09:05   where like, companies paying themselves money. HBO Max will pay Warner Brothers a fee for the 31-day

00:09:11   exclusivity window, which is apparently they're saying going to be a lot of money, and that money

00:09:15   will be shared out with cast and crew. So that's how they're going to make it happen. And we'll see

00:09:21   if that'll all be in the various lawsuits. Yeah, yeah, we're going to see, we'll see how this is

00:09:27   taken to by people in the movie industry. Jason, last week, the Mac App Store turned 10 years old.

00:09:37   There wasn't a ton of coverage about this, which made me kind of want to touch on this a little

00:09:44   bit with you to kind of get your thoughts on 10 years at the Mac App Store. I mean, it's been

00:09:50   a bit of a bumpy ride, to say the least. And ultimately, maybe hasn't done what anybody

00:09:58   would have really expected it to do. So I kind of wanted to get your feelings like 10 years into

00:10:03   the Mac App Store. What do you think about it? I was very optimistic about it at the time,

00:10:11   because, right, we were dealing with the wild success of the iOS App Store, the iPhone App Store

00:10:18   from 2008 on. And so then we get to 2011 Mac App Store. And the thought was like, is the App Store

00:10:30   existence of an easy to use, easy to find bundled with the operating system App Store? The reason

00:10:36   that the App Store on the iPhone was so successful, that brought the idea of paying for and downloading

00:10:42   software out of the kind of nerd realm and into just a very easy mainstream understandable thing

00:10:50   and had the iPhone trained people to think about getting apps using an App Store. And so was this

00:10:57   going to be a revolution for Mac software? That was the thought. And, you know, I would say that

00:11:06   the trajectory of the Mac App Store has not been as bad as the worst case scenario,

00:11:14   but it's also not been the best case scenario. And I think that there's a bunch of reasons for that.

00:11:19   Yeah, it's not the iMessage App Store, for example. Right, exactly. You know, the Mac App

00:11:24   Store exists and there's stuff in it and people do buy stuff in the Mac App Store. And I'm sure,

00:11:29   you know, Apple probably could come up with some self-serving

00:11:32   stats about the success of the Mac App Store and put those out there. But what I would say is that

00:11:40   first off, I think Apple shot itself in the foot. Apple decided that their policies... Apple thought

00:11:47   this was going to be such a wild success, that they decided that they could dictate policies to

00:11:50   Mac developers in the same way that they dictated policies to iOS developers. And there's so much

00:11:59   difference, right? Like first off, iOS developers only really came into existence in the context of

00:12:04   an App Store. Mac developers had been around forever. For ages, they'd been writing Mac

00:12:10   software and selling it themselves. And they had their own business models. They had their own...

00:12:14   They could do whatever they wanted and they got to do that. Whereas the Mac App Store came in and had

00:12:19   all these rules that the iOS App Store had. But the iOS App Store had them from the start as like,

00:12:25   these are things you're not allowed to do, right? And we all have talked about many times how

00:12:30   Apple has set up a lot of rules and we'll probably talk about them later in the show too. A lot of

00:12:34   rules for apps that are in the App Store. You have to follow what Apple... For Apple to sell your app,

00:12:39   essentially, to resell your app, you need to follow a lot of rules. And I think Apple really

00:12:45   believed that there would be a gold rush. Mac developers would be like, "Oh man, we're going

00:12:49   to make money like the regular App Store if we're in the Mac App Store." So they were going to say,

00:12:53   "We're going to also set all these rules and sandboxing and all these things that are very

00:12:59   iOS-like and you're going to do that." And that was wrong on a huge number of levels, right? Because

00:13:07   it was wrong because they didn't have that leverage. That never was a point where Mac

00:13:14   developers were like, "Oh man, I'm really missing out by not being in the Mac App Store." It really

00:13:18   never happened. It really never got the ball rolling to that point. And all of these apps

00:13:23   for the Mac had been conceived of in an open software development ecosystem where you just

00:13:28   made your app work and then you sold it and then people bought it. So a lot of the apps that were

00:13:33   the best apps on the Mac couldn't be in the Mac App Store because Apple had set these incredibly

00:13:40   restrictive rules. And I would argue that if Apple had made the Mac App Store something that was

00:13:47   essentially just a front end for Mac software of any kind to be installed and updated,

00:13:55   rather than it being a curated rule-based thing. And I know why they did that. They wanted it to

00:14:00   have the Apple stamp and all of that. But let's be honest, they also just were accustomed to the

00:14:06   level of control that Apple had over the iOS App Store. And if they had done something that was a

00:14:11   lot simpler and was basically like, "No, if you've got an app that runs on the Mac,

00:14:14   you follow these basic rules and we'll sell it and you get the money and we take our piece." And

00:14:21   I think it actually would have been way more successful. But they nipped that in the bud.

00:14:25   And they basically said, "No, most apps are gonna have to change and jump through some

00:14:30   very difficult hoops that Mac apps had never needed to do before." And so there weren't that

00:14:36   many apps and therefore it was never a place that it needed to be, that everybody needed to be.

00:14:43   And by the time Phil Schiller took over app developer stuff and app store stuff and made

00:14:50   a bunch of changes, and you saw this a few years ago where they made that statement at WWDC where

00:14:55   they're like, "BB Edit's gonna come back in the store." Because BB Edit had tried to be in the

00:15:00   store and Rich Siegel had announced that Bare Bones was at the Singleton Conference, actually,

00:15:05   I think the last one, that they were getting out of the store. And he gave a whole presentation

00:15:09   about why the Mac App Store was just a failure for them because they couldn't make it work.

00:15:14   So Apple makes this big deal, "Oh, Bare Bones is gonna come back in and Panic is gonna come in and

00:15:21   Microsoft Office is in there and look at all the things that are happening." Well, I think that was

00:15:26   helpful. And I think in the last few years, what we've seen from Apple is an actual attempt to make

00:15:30   a whole bunch of new entitlements, as they call them, that basically allow an app developer to say,

00:15:35   "I need to do this in order to be in the Mac App Store." And for Apple to say, "We're gonna create

00:15:41   a special flag that is ability to do that thing." - We're letting you in the side door here,

00:15:47   basically. - Yeah, well, and it's like, we're gonna make another rule here that is you can do

00:15:51   this thing if we say it's okay. And then the developer says, "Is it okay?" And Apple says,

00:15:56   "For you, yes. For you, no." And it's good because they're trying to evolve it and expand it

00:16:03   and let apps, and really look at like what apps can't get in the Mac App Store and why,

00:16:09   and can we get them in the Mac App Store? And so that's all good. And I do buy apps on the

00:16:16   Mac App Store. Some apps are only on the Mac App Store, but I think the Mac App Store has had a

00:16:23   very difficult time ever really transcending the original sin of the Mac App Store, which is Apple

00:16:30   kind of arrogantly brought the iOS App Store model to the Mac and expected the software to just

00:16:35   shoehorn itself inside, but it wasn't exclusive. You could just not use the App Store, and that's

00:16:42   why the iOS App Store was successful is you couldn't not use the iOS App Store. And because

00:16:48   the vast number of pieces of software that were out there for the Mac were written for an

00:16:54   environment where they could do whatever they wanted and they didn't fit inside the rules.

00:16:58   So, that original sin I think has basically made the Mac App Store what it is today, which is it's

00:17:05   around and people use it and it's got stuff on it and you could be a Mac user and just use the Mac

00:17:13   App Store and be fine. But there is a huge amount of rich stuff that is outside of the Mac App Store

00:17:21   that is not gonna go in the Mac App Store. And that's, it never did that. I have not seen

00:17:31   an amazing get rich quick story where it's like, "Oh my God, you have to put your app in the Mac

00:17:35   App Store because then you get featured by Apple and the ball starts rolling and your app is worth

00:17:40   a fortune and you make a lot of money and now you've got a business or whatever." Those stories,

00:17:46   I haven't seen any. And if there is one, it's the exception that proves the rule for the Mac App

00:17:50   Store. So, I think it's unfortunate that it played out the way it did, but that's on Apple. It's

00:17:58   Apple's fault. Mac App Store is what it is because of the decisions Apple has made over the last

00:18:02   decade. Yeah, one of the ones that always sticks out to me is the sandboxing requirements, right?

00:18:08   Where it was like, they introduced the store, it was already not a great deal, but some people went

00:18:14   for it. And then they were like, "Oh yeah, starting from now, there's a bunch of stuff you can't do

00:18:18   anymore." It's like, "What? Now what?" Yeah, like read that part of the drive. And they've, again,

00:18:22   they've got like full disk access and stuff now that they didn't have right back then where it

00:18:25   was like, "No, you can only look in your sandbox." It's like, "But I'm a backup utility." Well,

00:18:31   you can't then, you can't do that there. I'm like, "Yeah, should SuperDuper and Carbon Copy Cloner be

00:18:36   in the Mac App Store? Should they have been there from day one?" Heck yeah. Having a full disk

00:18:42   backup, that's a great Mac utility. No, sorry, we're not going to allow that because of security.

00:18:47   Well, no, that's a terrible thing. And the pricing part, which I didn't mention, but you put in our

00:18:57   show document. I mean, that's the reason that bare bones, one of the big reasons bare bones said that

00:19:00   they were out of it is that the difficulty with Apple's App Store model is the same one that we

00:19:06   had already known about on iOS, which is all these Mac developers, they do a milestone version.

00:19:11   Traditionally, they do a milestone version 3.0, and then you buy that. And then you get 3.1 and

00:19:18   3.1.1 and 3.1.5 and 3.2 and 3.3 and 3.5. And then they say 4.0 is here. And if you buy it new,

00:19:28   it costs this much. But if you already have a license for 3.0, it costs this much. And you

00:19:34   can't do that on the Mac App Store. So like, if you look at what got bare bones back in the Mac

00:19:38   App Store, if you buy BbEdit on the Mac App Store, it's a subscription. You just pay them an annual

00:19:45   subscription. If you buy it from their website, you can just buy it. And then you get upgrade

00:19:49   pricing for the next version. So the business model of a lot of these apps doesn't fit. The

00:19:57   whole approach doesn't fit the way that the Mac App Store is built because the Mac App Store is

00:20:04   built on the iOS App Store, which is built on the iTunes Store, which was a model to sell you

00:20:08   songs and albums. And it still is, kinda.

00:20:13   HelloFresh

00:20:16   This episode is brought to you by our friends over at HelloFresh. With HelloFresh, you get fresh,

00:20:22   pre-measured ingredients and mouth-watering seasonal recipes delivered right to your door.

00:20:27   HelloFresh lets you skip those trips to the grocery store and makes home cooking easy,

00:20:32   fun and affordable. And this is why it's America's number one meal kit.

00:20:36   HelloFresh cuts out stressful meal planning, which is one of the worst things,

00:20:41   so you can enjoy cooking and getting dinner on the table in about 30 minutes or less. Eating

00:20:47   healthier has never been easier with their low-cal, carb-smart, vegetarian and pescatarian options

00:20:53   that you can choose from every week. And no matter what you choose, every single recipe is packed

00:20:58   with fresh produce sourced directly from farmers. And HelloFresh's Easy Eats has an offering of

00:21:04   tons of quick and easy meal solutions like Oven Ready and 10-20 minute meals perfect for your

00:21:11   busy schedule. There is so much choice at HelloFresh, and we were looking over it last

00:21:17   week as we do. I have been a HelloFresh customer, I think, maybe six or seven years now. And it's

00:21:22   been a great thing to expand my palate. I've been learning to cook so much stuff at home. And there

00:21:27   are so many recipes now. We get HelloFresh a couple of times a week, three times a week.

00:21:32   And on the off days, there's now just things I know how to cook because I learned cooking

00:21:36   them from HelloFresh. So like this week, we had a creamy mushroom pasta, refried beans and

00:21:41   halloumi tacos, which were fantastic. And that's something I'm going to remake because I really

00:21:46   loved it. The instructions were easy and it's nicely laid out. HelloFresh continues to improve

00:21:51   my ability to cook, expanding my horizons as well, which is fantastic right now because we're in

00:21:56   lockdown. We can't go to restaurants. We can't very easily try new food. We would otherwise be

00:22:02   missing out on trying new stuff. HelloFresh helps me continue to do that. Go to HelloFresh.com/upgrade10

00:22:09   and use the code upgrade10 and you'll get 10 free meals, including free shipping. Try HelloFresh

00:22:15   today, America's number one meal kit. Go to HelloFresh.com/upgrade10 and use the code

00:22:21   upgrade10, that's upgrade 10, for 10 free meals, including free shipping. Our thanks to HelloFresh

00:22:27   for their support of this show and Relay FM. This is the one we use. It's really good.

00:22:32   It's great, right? That's my promotion. Lots of selection. You can always find things you want

00:22:37   if you're a picky eater. It is wild. Just over the last, say like five years or whatever,

00:22:45   you know, we maybe have like six or seven meals to choose from. It's not like 25,

00:22:49   30 meals or something to choose from. It's wild. It really is great.

00:22:53   All right, so I've got a bunch more product rumors for you, Jason. There seems to have just

00:22:58   been an explosion over the last week and there's just so many things. We'll go through them. We'll

00:23:03   stop and talk about any that interests us along the way. But it's just, I like doing these earlier

00:23:09   in the year. So it sets up kind of where we're looking at, aiming at over the next 12 months.

00:23:14   So DigiTimes is reporting that Apple is about to enter the quote second phase of development on AR

00:23:20   glasses. Second phase testing takes a couple of months. Then there's third phase. Then there's

00:23:24   about six to nine months of engineering validation. So it's about a year at least before they would be

00:23:30   happy to even think about a product. Apparently both weight and battery life are being focused

00:23:36   on most right now. But it is worth noting that these are AR glasses. While many rumors have

00:23:42   suggested that there would be an AR headset announced before glasses. So all of this is to say

00:23:48   if these supply chain rumors are true, something's happening. And the idea that we will hear about

00:23:55   something in 2021, which I think is what Mark Gurman originally predicted, like a headset in

00:24:00   2021 with glasses in maybe 2022, 2023, it's feeling more and more likely all the time.

00:24:06   Because unlike the Apple car rumors, which at some point we will get to, it's not today,

00:24:14   the timeline on these things seems much closer to where we are now and where it is in the process

00:24:21   feels a little bit more real. Yeah, I'm gonna, given the Ming-Chi Kuo

00:24:28   saying that they would ship something in 2021, I'm just gonna throw out there again what I mentioned,

00:24:37   I think in the Upgrady's episode, which is what if the headset is a developer kit?

00:24:42   And then there are glasses that will come later, but that if you wanna like do a mixed reality AR

00:24:48   kind of thing, what if there's a headset? I have a hard time seeing Apple sell a headset as a

00:24:52   consumer product, although it's possible. Like I bought an Oculus Quest 2, so sure. But I could

00:25:00   definitely see it as a developer pitch device that they then follow up with a device that actually is

00:25:06   consumer friendly that goes down the road. But something is happening with AR.

00:25:09   I think that makes more sense. I think that makes a lot of sense because like,

00:25:12   what would Apple's pitch for a headset be? Like sit in front of your computer with this on your face

00:25:19   and look at your computer? Like it seems weird because I can't really imagine gaming being the

00:25:27   thing unless they're hoping a lot of iOS developers will move to some VR gaming or AR gaming platform

00:25:36   that they've created. But I don't really imagine how it would translate over unless they, you know,

00:25:41   like the current AR games on your iPhone working. But it just doesn't feel like a compelling product.

00:25:48   Like this is a product that, you know, I think that they will probably try and pitch, like they

00:25:55   pitch the original Apple Watch, right? Which is like, this product does everything, right? Which

00:26:02   is not the pitch for the Apple Watch now. But I can imagine maybe something like glasses you wear

00:26:09   on your face being able to provide that experience more seamlessly than the original Apple Watch.

00:26:18   The Apple Watch is also the key for your hotel room, right? Like that was the kind of stuff

00:26:25   they were originally promoting. And they don't really focus on that anymore. But maybe this is

00:26:29   that kind of product. And a headset isn't that kind of product, but AR glasses more so.

00:26:37   - Yeah, I do wonder what, this was the clockwise question last week. One of them was, what's the

00:26:46   killer app for Apple's AR glasses? And that's why I keep talking about Developer Kit, because I feel

00:26:52   like Apple probably have some ideas of things that are extensions of Apple's existing structure,

00:26:57   whether it's fitness or maps or whatever. But I don't know, if you're Apple and you're going

00:27:03   into this space, you've been trying to prime the pump with ARKit and all sorts of iPhone and iPad

00:27:08   things. And I think one way to discover what the killer app is would be to lean on the developers

00:27:16   to, 'cause Apple's developers have a history of embracing new platforms and coming up with good

00:27:22   ideas. So if you can open it up to the developers so that when you launch a consumer product,

00:27:29   you've got a whole bunch of apps ready to go, if you think back to like the iPad launch when

00:27:34   there were so many iPad apps ready to go on day one, it might be a strategy that they would take

00:27:41   on to do something that's not quite a product. Just like HoloLens is not quite a product, right?

00:27:46   And use that and get that out there, but not, by phrasing it as a developer something,

00:27:53   it's not a consumer product. They're not trying to convince consumers yet. This is just a run-up.

00:27:59   It's version zero, right? And then they go to version one. It's just an idea. They could,

00:28:06   like I've said about that Oculus Quest, Apple could make a VR headset that did gaming and some

00:28:14   other stuff easily if it wanted to. It's got all the technology to do it. It's just like,

00:28:19   it seems like a weird product for Apple to do. So I keep thinking that the AR stuff is better.

00:28:24   - Phones pretty much, right? - It is. It's an iPhone that you wear on your head,

00:28:30   right? That's what it would be. And that's what the Oculus Quest is, is it's an Android phone that

00:28:35   you wear on your head and play games on. So they could totally do it. But I have a harder time

00:28:43   seeing that as an Apple product than an augmented reality product from them. And maybe that's just

00:28:47   a lack of imagination on my part or some skepticism about what's available on the iPhone as a platform

00:28:53   that would make you want to use, play iPhone games like you play Oculus Quest games or something.

00:29:00   I don't know. - And this does fit the idea of them pre-announcing a product in this way, right?

00:29:08   They've done this kind of stuff in the past. When there isn't an existing thing that Apple does that

00:29:14   will be cannibalized, they do talk about these things in advance. They did it with the Apple

00:29:20   Watch. They've done it with the iPad, as you say, right? Like here's this thing.

00:29:23   - Yeah, Apple TV, which is just 10 years old now, they pre-announced that in the fall,

00:29:26   didn't even give it their final name. They called it ITV. And then they shipped it in the spring,

00:29:31   or they shipped it in Macworld Expo in January. So when you're not cannibalizing an existing

00:29:38   product, you can pre-announce all you like. Or do developer kits like the Intel and Apple Silicon

00:29:45   developer kits that existed that were pre, you know, those products existing, they made special

00:29:51   hardware and got the developers really excited. So there's lots of ways they could do it.

00:29:54   - If they did create that hardware, they're announcing a product that they're doing, right?

00:29:58   Like, "Hey, we've created this AR headset. Don't worry about what it's for. Just make apps for it."

00:30:05   - Right. But I don't think that would stop them from saying, you know, "We've told you a lot about

00:30:10   the importance of augmented reality, and we're serious about it. And in 2022, we're gonna ship

00:30:14   an augmented reality headset, but we want you developers to get started today." And everybody's

00:30:18   like, "Oh my God, Apple, the thing we already have been talking about for two years, that is Apple

00:30:23   working on AR, they've confirmed the thing we already knew for a year from now." Like, I don't

00:30:28   know. I think Apple's game plan has changed enough that they recognize that they could do something

00:30:33   like that, and it literally wouldn't make any difference. - Mako Takara had this vast selection

00:30:40   of rumors and supply chain info. The first is that an iPad Mini refresh is in the works. So

00:30:49   this is half, I think, of what a lot of people wanted. So this is a big change to the iPad Mini,

00:30:58   but bringing it more akin to the most recent iPad of last year, not the iPad Air. So

00:31:05   shrinking the bezels down on the sides, resulting in an 8.4 inch display, but still with bezels on

00:31:12   the top and bottom. So there's still gonna be a home button, still gonna be a lightning port,

00:31:16   and looking at a March kind of timeframe for a release. So interesting, the iPad Mini's still

00:31:24   around, but kind of making really like classes of iPads now. You know, like if they do this,

00:31:30   you've got the iPad and the iPad Mini, and they look like older devices, and then you have iPad

00:31:36   Air and the iPad Pro as these more, they have their own design language. - And you can see how,

00:31:43   obviously, a year or two hence, two years maybe, then the iPad and the iPad Mini get the touch ID

00:31:51   button or something, and they get a little bit smaller, but they're always gonna be behind,

00:31:55   because they're the low-end models. Yeah, makes sense, makes sense to me. Fans of the iPad Mini,

00:32:00   probably. I don't know, happy that it still exists and that it's getting an update. Sad that it's not

00:32:05   getting like face ID or something, but you know. - Yeah, and like edge to edge screen would be

00:32:11   beautiful, but this is something, this is looking for a March timeframe. Makatokara is also reporting

00:32:19   a ninth generation iPad, so the brother of the iPad Mini. Now what's gonna happen here is some

00:32:26   dimension changes. It's basically looking exactly the same, but it's gonna get thinner. It's

00:32:30   currently 7.5 millimeters, it will go down to 6.3 millimeters. This is still not as thin as the

00:32:36   current iPad Pro. It will get lighter from 490 grams to 460 grams, but the biggest thing is this

00:32:42   will also apparently bring a price drop. Now this is the part that I'm less convinced over, right,

00:32:48   because pricing is not set in the supply chain if that's where this information is coming from,

00:32:53   but we don't know where it's coming from, but this would apparently drop the price from $329

00:32:59   to $299. A sub-$300 iPad is a cool thing to have. - You can see why they'd want to do that,

00:33:08   right? That's obviously one of the goals of the iPad, the just no name iPad is to have it be

00:33:16   relatively cheap compared to the rest of the line and get people to buy it. It's the entry iPad.

00:33:23   And also you could use it for education and getting the price down for education is also good.

00:33:27   - I mean, I don't know, like maybe get to closer to like 250, 260 in education?

00:33:33   - Could be. - That'd be wild. All right, and then, so that's March and then also in March,

00:33:38   so I think we're looking at an event in March, Jason, that we can kind of put our eyes to.

00:33:43   New iPad Pros or Pro. All right, so there is apparently going to be new iPad Pros,

00:33:52   but they're going to be, it seems like they're going to be different. So the 12.9 inch iPad Pro

00:33:58   is going to get half a millimeter thicker. The 11 inch iPad Pro is going to be the same thickness.

00:34:06   So I guess what we're looking at here is the larger iPad Pro getting some kind of new display

00:34:14   technology. And we're expecting that to be mini LED, but the 11 inch, maybe not so much. And we've

00:34:21   seen this in the past, right? The bigger iPad Pro getting, or at least iPad Pros being on different

00:34:27   kind of release cycles for technology. And it looks like that might be what's happening here.

00:34:31   - Right, well, remember the larger iPad Pro came out first and then the smaller iPad Pro came out

00:34:37   later with some features that weren't in the larger, but the larger had features that weren't

00:34:41   in the smaller and then they synced them up. So this would be an interesting thing if a few years

00:34:45   later on they decide to make, are they going to call it the iPad Pro Max? Oh God, I hope not.

00:34:53   - The rumors don't seem to suggest that there will be multiple 12.9s, but there could be.

00:34:59   - Well, I'm just saying if the 11 is the iPad Pro and the 12 is the Pro Max.

00:35:05   - Maybe.

00:35:05   - Thumbs down, I don't want to own a Pro Max. Mini LED is this technology that's supposed to

00:35:11   dramatically improve the control of the backlighting on the display so that you could

00:35:17   probably, they could probably call it an HDR display, which they can't now. I don't know.

00:35:23   Interesting idea to bifurcate the line like that. I think that's been an open question,

00:35:28   especially when the iPad Air was updated. It's like, okay, how is the iPad Pro different?

00:35:34   And how are the two models different? Are they different other than in size?

00:35:39   - Yeah, I would find it a shame if they do rev these out of sync again.

00:35:45   Because I, at the moment, I'm using the 11 inch mostly. Like that's the iPad Pro that I'm using

00:35:52   most of the time is the 11 inch. - Right, because you're in trouble.

00:35:54   - And I also, yeah, I also think it is the best one. So I think it would be a shame to not rev them

00:36:01   at the same time. There have been many other rumors citing like larger, sorry, like better

00:36:07   processors, all that kind of stuff. But this thickness rumor would seem to suggest something's

00:36:14   going on. I can't, I don't really imagine a scenario where they have to make one of them

00:36:19   thicker and one of them can stay the same, but they both get the same technology. That would be

00:36:24   weird to me. So it seems like that there is going to be some kind of split. A redesign of the AirPods

00:36:29   Pro case for a second generation model is apparently coming and also a second generation of

00:36:34   iPhone SE, both due for April. No more real detail shared than that. - I wonder what it means,

00:36:41   redesign of the AirPod Pro case for a second generation model. Does that mean that they're

00:36:46   going to redesign the case now for the first generation model so it will also fit the second

00:36:51   generation model? Does it mean that they're redesigning the case and there will be a second

00:36:56   generation model, but they don't know what the second generation model is only that they're

00:36:59   redesigning the case? I don't know. - So I have my theory, all right. So the case is getting

00:37:04   same thickness, but it's getting a little taller and wider. I think it's MagSafe. So it fits on

00:37:13   MagSafe, like in connects. - 'Cause you can lay one on a, you can lay the AirPods Pro case on a

00:37:19   MagSafe now and it works, but it doesn't connect. - So I'm wondering if it's that. They're making

00:37:23   the surface area like bigger, which is weird. - All right. I think it's, well, they did with

00:37:32   the AirPods original, they did update the case, and they updated the model later and it was the

00:37:39   same shape so that you can have the Qi charging case with the first ones or the second ones.

00:37:45   So I guess they could do something like that. - No idea, but I have no real idea.

00:37:49   The last thing, the iPhone 13, yes, iPhone rumors, is to feature a narrower notch,

00:37:58   but the phones will get 0.26 millimeter thicker with a slightly thicker camera bump.

00:38:05   But it said that the design of the camera bump is going to change. So no longer having those

00:38:12   tiers, it would just be covered, the entire camera unit covered in one piece of Sapphire glass.

00:38:18   - Interesting. So the idea there is you'll just have a presumably like square camera bump instead

00:38:26   of what we have now, which is a bump with little bumps inside it. - Yeah. And that set of rumors

00:38:32   also predicted what you were saying, I think it was maybe last week or the week before,

00:38:36   that the iPhone 13 Pro is likely to get the sensor shift. - Yeah, there you go. - So that might be

00:38:44   part of the reason for thickness changes as well with the phones. It's going to be a busy year

00:38:50   again, I think. - I think so. I think we're going to spend the year waiting to see where the signs

00:38:57   of the sort of reduced work because of COVID have hit Apple's plans, but it's going to be hard to

00:39:03   see them. They seem to, you know, possibly because they work so far out in advance that

00:39:09   they're able to disguise that and ride it out a little bit better. - You can spread stuff maybe,

00:39:16   right? - We know the Mac is going to have a very interesting year, but the iPad Pro is really do a

00:39:22   proper update and then they don't leave the iPhones laying there for a year. That doesn't generally

00:39:29   happen. And so there you go. Now we're in a busy year. - So do you think, let's assume that we're,

00:39:36   I mean, I expect that even the AirPods and the iPhone, if they're for April, I expect that they

00:39:42   might be getting announced in March, kind of like all this stuff together potentially. And let's

00:39:48   say maybe do some press releases in April for those products. Do you think that they would do

00:39:53   the Macs and the iPads together in March at an event? - A Mac and iPad Pro event,

00:39:59   iPad Pro especially, in March, but Macs and iPads in March. Like they've done Mac and iPad together

00:40:05   before. That was the Brooklyn event, was Mac and iPad. So they could totally do that. - I

00:40:12   don't think it makes sense. - Yeah. - All right, this episode is also brought to you by Bombas.

00:40:17   Bombas make the most comfortable socks in the history of feet. They've rethought every single

00:40:22   detail of the socks that we wear to make them more comfortable. And these socks do way more than just

00:40:28   comfort and coziness. They also help give back to the most vulnerable members of communities.

00:40:33   Because for every pair of socks that you purchase, Bombas donates a pair to someone in need. And

00:40:38   thanks to the generosity of Bombas' customers, they have donated over 40 million pairs of socks

00:40:45   and counting through the nationwide network of more than 3000 giving partners. And the impact

00:40:50   is more powerful than ever to those experiencing homelessness. These socks represent the dignity

00:40:55   of some clean clothes and there's a small comfort that is especially important to people right now.

00:41:00   Now when you buy these socks, you not only get that great feeling of knowing that you've helped

00:41:05   someone out in the world, you get fantastic socks for your feet. I love my Bombas socks.

00:41:11   I am a huge fan of their ankle socks. They are the most comfortable that I have ever used.

00:41:19   But it's not just about comfort. They also have great designs. They have great partnerships as

00:41:22   well. And they have some really fun designs you can check out on their site. They have loads of

00:41:26   great selection. I am a big, big fan of their product. And I know that you're going to be too.

00:41:32   So give a pair when you buy a pair and get 20% off your first purchase at bombas.com/upgrade.

00:41:38   That's B O M B A S.com/upgrade for 20% off your first purchase. One last time, B O M B A S.com/upgrade.

00:41:47   Trust me, you are not going to regret this. Like they are super, super comfortable. Give yourself

00:41:53   a little treat and go get them today. Our thanks to Bombas for their support of upgrade and all

00:41:57   of Relay FM. Yeah, socks. Woo! Jason loves socks. We're going to talk about something that's super

00:42:06   delicate right now. Oh boy. With a lot of ramifications, but it's important to technology.

00:42:11   So we're going to discuss it, but I ask you to bear with us as we try and get through this.

00:42:15   Basic timeline. Last week, President Trump and his cohorts arranged a protest on the day of

00:42:24   President-elect Biden's confirmation, which incited violence and anger. Trump's followers

00:42:29   stormed the US Capitol building in what can best be described as an insurrection.

00:42:34   Trump did not firmly condemn these actions and in fact chose to tell these people that he loves

00:42:40   them and they're special. Twitter and Facebook use this as a reason to suspend Trump from their

00:42:45   platforms. Facebook then decided to permanently suspend him until at least after he leaves office.

00:42:51   Then Twitter followed suit of a permanent suspension and said that he cannot be on the

00:42:56   platform in any guise. After this, many assumed that he and his followers would leave Twitter

00:43:02   to the Parler social network. And this is a thing that people were trying to drum up.

00:43:06   Google and Apple removed Parler from their app stores due to the content on Parler and its lack

00:43:12   of moderation or plan to change that. Then Amazon's AWS hosting service terminated their contract with

00:43:18   Parler, rendering it useless. And it's very likely now that Parler will not be able to recover from

00:43:23   this if in any reasonable timeframe. And then today when we were recording, some people basically

00:43:29   stripped a bunch of information and personal information out of Parler because of bad security

00:43:34   practices. And services like Shopify terminated agreements for fundraising. Reddit and Discord

00:43:41   and others closed down forums for discussion amongst the most extreme supporters of Donald Trump.

00:43:49   All of the cards fell. It took the attack on the Capitol to be the thing that would push at least

00:44:01   one company over the edge. And then once one company could do it, then the rest can follow

00:44:09   suit. I think this was maybe a thing that was always waiting. Everyone was waiting for somebody

00:44:17   to take the first step. And between Twitter and Facebook, they were basically egging each other on

00:44:25   to the point that then all of these other companies not just moved against Donald Trump

00:44:32   specifically, but also the most extreme of those who follow him. So I want to have a conversation

00:44:42   about this because it's really big news for technology. Because there are a lot of

00:44:47   ramifications from this. And I think there are a lot of questions about it. Just at a very basic

00:44:53   level, is it okay to remove the President of the United States from social networks? Is that an

00:45:01   okay thing to do? It's a difficult thing, for sure. I wouldn't want to have to make that decision.

00:45:06   Well, right. I've been reading a lot of Ben Thompson's writing about this. And what I

00:45:11   appreciate about Ben writing about this is that he makes a point that I think doesn't get -- lots

00:45:17   of dialogue does not get said enough, which is it's complicated and hard. And for people who are

00:45:25   like, "Oh, there's an easy answer here," I don't think there is an easy answer. And his argument

00:45:31   is -- and this is so complex -- but his argument is basically that in general, what you probably

00:45:39   don't want is big companies controlling what people can see. Because the more of that there is,

00:45:50   the more control and power is invested in big companies, largely who answer to no one.

00:45:55   His point, especially about Facebook, is Facebook is structured in such a way that Mark

00:46:01   Zuckerberg can do -- I almost forgot his last name. Boy, what a world it would be if I could

00:46:06   forget who he was. How could you do that? Mark what's-his-name? Mark Rutherford,

00:46:13   as I'm going to call him from now on. Mark Zuckerberg, he can do whatever the hell he

00:46:19   wants with Facebook. And no one can stop him, short of laws. No one can stop him.

00:46:25   >> He really is one of the most powerful founders of a company, because he's retained enough

00:46:32   control of his company to be able to make his own decisions.

00:46:35   >> Yeah, he controls the stock. Investors don't get to tell him what to do. He just does whatever

00:46:38   he wants, and they can't throw him out. And Ben's point is not that Trump is great, but that

00:46:44   do you want somebody who has nobody who can tell them what to do, an unelected person, control

00:46:55   discourse, because there's lots of bad ways that could go. And you could argue that the history of

00:47:04   Facebook is a history of all the bad ways that it could go, in fact. And so it makes it really scary

00:47:13   to talk about these companies exerting this control, because they are not democratic

00:47:20   institutions. They are just profit-seeking private corporations. That said, I've been a community

00:47:29   moderator for a lot of years in a lot of different places, and I know for a fact that communities

00:47:33   have to have rules, or they descend into madness. >> Yep. Almost like the real world.

00:47:40   >> Just, yeah, you need rules, or it descends into madness. And I'll put out there another thing,

00:47:46   which is, you know who can't, in the United States anyway, you know who can't set the rules?

00:47:51   The government, because the First Amendment very specifically says that the government

00:47:58   cannot regulate speech. Now, there are exceptions to this, including things like inciting violence,

00:48:04   which is what happened last week. That's not protected speech, believe it or not. But

00:48:12   people seeking the government to, it's like, "Oh, these big companies aren't democratic,

00:48:17   and we must let the people decide." It's like, well, no, in the United States, at least,

00:48:23   you can't do that. You can't have the government do a moderation policy. It's not constitutional

00:48:30   to do that. So the problem I see here is largely that there is so much power invested in these

00:48:40   individual companies. The beauty of it is there are other places on the internet you can do stuff,

00:48:45   but I think you could argue, when you look at what happened with Parler or Parley or whatever it is,

00:48:50   that, and I would say corporations should be able to decide who their customers are. And if somebody

00:48:59   is radioactive, not because they have a political view, but because they've advocated for the violent

00:49:05   overthrow of the United States government and the invalidation of actual valid elections because

00:49:10   they didn't like the result, that's a really good reason for a company to say, "We're not interested

00:49:14   in doing business with you. We don't want your service, which allows people to plan insurrections,

00:49:18   to be on our platform. That's bad for business." That is something that should be allowed.

00:49:25   If you're worried about the power that Twitter or Facebook has, I would say the problem lies with

00:49:30   allowing, with the regulators allowing them to be so powerful. Because that's what has gotten us

00:49:38   where we are, is that we've allowed these giant companies to have so much power that there aren't

00:49:44   necessarily that many alternatives, although I suspect, just like 4chan, Parler will find someone

00:49:52   somewhere, a server in Russia or something, that allows them to get back online.

00:49:57   Yeah, but I've seen a lot of people who seem very smart say, "Even if the kind of resources required

00:50:07   to change a hosting platform on a moment's notice is not an easy thing to do." So it could take them

00:50:15   a long time before they're able to come back, if ever, because they may run out of money during

00:50:20   this period of time. And that's what happened with 4chan and all of its successors, is that they're

00:50:25   like, you squash them here and they end up popping up somewhere else, but it can take time. And it's

00:50:31   like BitTorrent sites, it's the same thing, right? It's just like, well, they get squished here,

00:50:35   "Oh, look, they're back," but they have a slightly different domain name and a different host. Well,

00:50:38   now that host has shut them down, and now they've moved to somewhere else. And that's things that

00:50:42   are kind of renegade things on the internet, can find places to go. But, you know, and I would say

00:50:48   this as a larger thing too, is a society has got to have its standards. And there is a place that

00:50:58   you have to draw the line between political viewpoint and something that goes beyond that,

00:51:04   something that is a view that is not considered valid in a polite, legitimate society. And I would

00:51:13   say advocating violence, I would say racism, white supremacy, those are on the list of things that

00:51:22   businesses should look at and be like, "No, we don't want to be involved with those people at

00:51:26   all. We're not interested." But also inciting violence is a pretty simple one. And that was,

00:51:31   I thought, the most interesting thing of the whole event last week of the tech part, I'm not going to

00:51:37   talk about the rest of it right now, but of the tech part, was the end of Twitter statement,

00:51:42   because they banned Trump for 12 hours and then said, "He can come back, but if we see any more

00:51:47   behavior like this of inciting violence that we considered inciting violence,

00:51:51   we're going to turn off his account." And then they did. And what they said in their statement was,

00:51:56   the tweets he sent out not could be interpreted, but we can see them being interpreted by people

00:52:10   as a message to plan more violence. And whether he intended it that way or not,

00:52:19   if you're Twitter and you're saying, "The tweet that says I'm not going to the inauguration,

00:52:24   but I love you and you people should keep up what you're doing," not only could be interpreted as,

00:52:30   "It's okay to commit violence at the inauguration because I, your leader, will not be there,"

00:52:35   but that they were seeing on Twitter and elsewhere people absolutely taking it to mean that.

00:52:41   And I have very little sympathy for the people who say, "Oh, woe is me. I no longer have a platform,"

00:52:48   whether it's the President of the United States or the junior senator from the state of Missouri,

00:52:52   because you're famous politicians, you got lots of ways to get your message out.

00:52:57   I think it's fascinating that Trump hasn't done more since getting kicked off Twitter to

00:53:04   communicate to people. I think maybe that says something about the nature of how he used Twitter

00:53:11   and how maybe, like, they got it exactly right, which is Twitter was a way for him to

00:53:17   throw lobs and bombs into the public discussion and send messages that his supporters could read

00:53:24   how they wanted to. And, you know, going to a podium and giving a statement while the press

00:53:29   yells questions at him is not something that he wants to do, but he can do it. He can get his

00:53:34   message out in lots of different ways. There are plenty of ways for him to get his message out.

00:53:40   So I roll my eyes at the idea that you're suppressing the communication from some of

00:53:45   the most powerful people in the world. They can get their message out if they want to.

00:53:49   So it's a difficult situation. It's a very complex situation. But I do think that if you want to talk

00:53:56   about the big -- and there's a lot of Republicans who are talking about, like, "Oh, we got to change

00:54:01   the laws about what platforms are responsible for." Anybody who knows anything about platforms will

00:54:08   tell you what will happen if you change the laws like that, which is the platforms will disappear,

00:54:12   or they will be so moderated that nothing will get through. It won't become a parlor-like free

00:54:19   forum where people can say anything, including advocate for assassinations, because they're not

00:54:27   going to be able to withstand the legal scrutiny of that. So instead, you'll get less speech,

00:54:31   not more speech. But that's not really what they care about. You know, that's not really what they

00:54:35   care about. They're mad because a lot of politicians have made hay stoking up fear and anger,

00:54:41   a bunch of group of people feeding them lies, making them believe things that are just not true

00:54:46   and act on them because it benefits them politically, not thinking that the consequences

00:54:52   might rain down on them. And what we saw last week is that a violent mob approached the Capitol

00:55:01   and went inside, including a lot of those politicians who did that. It turns out that the

00:55:06   mob was turned back on them, the mob, the monster that they created, the vampire that they invited

00:55:11   in. So there are a lot of politicians running for cover now because they stoked all of these flames

00:55:19   and don't want to deal with the consequences. And then there are also, you know, like you're

00:55:25   saying, like a lot of the complaints from people about thinking that these social networks either

00:55:32   have kicked them off or will kick them off for something like this is they've made a business

00:55:39   over the last few years of creating this type of anger and upset and it's performed very well for

00:55:45   them. And I assume that they don't want to think that they're going to be in a situation where

00:55:50   they're not allowed to do that anymore. If I have one hope of what will come out of this, and I have

00:55:54   more than that, but I'll throw this one out there, which is I would hope it might teach some

00:55:59   politicians the lesson that lying to people and telling them that essentially

00:56:08   our democracy has died and the only response is going to be an armed uprising is not just

00:56:14   something you say because it's politically expedient to feed your base. It's something

00:56:18   that has direct ramifications. And if what you're truly advocating is the dissolution of democracy

00:56:26   in the United States, then I guess you'd nailed it. But if you were just mealy-mouthed, you know,

00:56:34   lying about it in order to make your, throw some red meat to your constituents, you bear

00:56:41   responsibility. I mean, you do either way, but that way you bear it as a fraud. So, yeah.

00:56:46   >> You didn't get away with it. >> Well, no, I mean, we've seen it now.

00:56:51   And that was the sea change in the last week is that Trump has been saying he didn't lose the

00:56:56   election and saying lies about how he won by a lot of votes for ages now. And everybody's just rolled

00:57:01   their eyes because, let's be honest, he's been doing it for four years. The last election, which

00:57:06   he won in the Electoral College, even then he lied about how many popular votes were cast because he

00:57:14   was embarrassed that Hillary Clinton beat him in the popular vote. So he just said, "Oh, those

00:57:18   votes don't count. Those were illegal votes." So he's questioned the voting, democratic voting

00:57:24   in America for four years now, more than four years now. So this is not new, but people went

00:57:32   along with it saying, "Well, this guy, yeah, he's a liar and an egomaniac, but he's our liar and

00:57:37   egomaniac, so we're just gonna go along and he'll go away." And it all came to roost last week,

00:57:43   all of those things, because he's been speaking to people and lying about this being some sort of

00:57:50   stolen election in order to basically make himself feel better. But it's had the net result

00:57:57   of energizing a whole cross-section of people, including racists and conspiracy theorists and

00:58:06   other kind of disaffected people who believe it's true. And honestly, it's sad because

00:58:13   if you believe, let me put it this way, if I believed that the election had been stolen

00:58:21   and that Trump had not won, you know, but he had gotten, let's say it, like he had gotten

00:58:30   all of the places where he lost to be invalidated and declared himself the president, when we all

00:58:35   knew that it wasn't true, would I be outraged? Would I say now is the time where we as people

00:58:42   have to go into the streets and stand up because we can't allow this travesty of democracy to

00:58:48   happen, this undemocratic thing that's going to destroy our country? You're damn right I would.

00:58:52   The difference is not subtle, though, which is it didn't happen. It's not true. Every single court

00:59:00   case, every single attempt to ask them to provide evidence, they don't have any. It's all sophistry.

00:59:06   It's all lies. There is no evidence. The people who are angry are angry about lies. I would say

00:59:13   that people who commit violence are responsible for their actions, but also the people who lied

00:59:17   to them to make them angry are responsible for their actions. So that is, and last week it all

00:59:23   came home to roost, and last week it was very hard for the social media companies to deny

00:59:28   their participation, not only in the promulgation of those lies over the course of years,

00:59:34   but in very specific planning of these people, radicalized by their services, planning violence.

00:59:41   And they should have drawn the line sooner? Yeah, yeah, I think so. But at least they drew the line

00:59:50   finally. And I think, honestly, I think the biggest thing Twitter and Facebook are doing

00:59:55   now is trying to make it harder for people to plan more attacks, not about looking back,

01:00:01   about looking forward, that more attacks are being planned by these radical people, and

01:00:09   they need to deplatform the people who are coordinating or inspiring and planning those

01:00:16   attacks. The question about, like, should Trump have been removed sooner is one that I've seen

01:00:24   a lot, and it's quite a complicated one, really. Because there are many arguments you could make

01:00:31   for why, you know, he should have been taken off of social media a long time ago, but this also

01:00:37   does feel like a really good time to have done it. So Ben, Ben Thompson's argument that he got a lot

01:00:45   of pushback from, including from John Gruber on their podcast, is this idea of dust in the light.

01:00:50   It's the idea that when your public officials say things, there's value in having them be

01:00:58   out there because it allows it to be criticized, and you end up with people on Facebook and Twitter

01:01:07   and places like that saying, you know, "Trump said this," and then people quote it and they say,

01:01:11   "This is a lie. This isn't true." They do it in newspaper websites. They do it on the services

01:01:16   themselves. And that public officials should be given a little bit of leeway to say those things

01:01:24   publicly and not suppressed by corporations, because in the end what you really want is not

01:01:30   the corporations making that decision, but the, forgive me, marketplace of ideas to be able to say

01:01:36   that he said this thing, it's dumb, here's why, right? And I get that argument to the point,

01:01:43   but I think the big problem with Donald Trump is he was being treated, the weight given to him was

01:01:49   that he was the President of the United States, which does bear weight, but there wasn't enough

01:01:55   weight being given to the fact that he's a troll and a liar and was using social media in a way

01:02:04   that no previous senior government person has ever had. He is, because, okay, I'm going to insult

01:02:09   Donald Trump a lot, but let me give him a little credit here. He knows exactly what he's doing. He

01:02:14   is a master social media troll. I've kicked these people off of so many message boards in my years.

01:02:21   He is a master social media user and troll. He absolutely is. And that's the part that didn't

01:02:27   get enough weight, I think. I think that in the end they're like, "Well, what do you want us to

01:02:31   do? He's the President of the United States." It's like, yeah, but this President of the United

01:02:35   States is not doing president things all the time. He's doing bad stuff using your network as an

01:02:42   engine. But there's no easy answer here. Again, come back to it. I think there's no easy answer

01:02:47   here. However, I will say incitement to violence pretty starkly changes things. And private

01:02:56   corporations should be able to always decide who gets to use their platforms, use their services.

01:03:03   And if you have a problem with that, I would say look within yourself and say, "What are you willing

01:03:10   to give the government power to do?" Because I suspect a lot of the conservatives who are very

01:03:16   upset about Twitter and Facebook and Amazon aren't big fans of the idea that government can just

01:03:25   take what any private corporation does and stop them from doing it. There was a tweet that went

01:03:30   out last week from a conservative politician who said getting, you know, kicking them off of these

01:03:36   services is like something that happens in China. I think it was Nikki Haley who said that. And

01:03:40   somebody else said, "Well, no, actually the government demanding that a private corporation

01:03:44   send out the messages of the government's leaders is what happens in China."

01:03:49   - It's like this time, all of this stuff happening at this time is a good time for it to happen, as

01:04:04   he is in his final days to stop him having a time afterwards.

01:04:12   - Yeah. Well, I think that that is another calculation here, right? Is it turns out that

01:04:17   the real danger that they see is a president who's about to lose power increasingly encouraging

01:04:28   violence and unrest for him to steal back his power. And constitutionally, his power ends in

01:04:37   nine days. And so there's definitely an idea of sort of like, we got to get through this part.

01:04:44   - And then also stopping him from being able to sow doubt in who has power after those nine days.

01:04:51   - Yeah, I mean, I'm sure what he wants to do is to continue to call himself the president.

01:04:58   - And honestly, if it was just Donald Trump bleeding about how the life is unfair and he

01:05:03   didn't lose, it would be okay. The problem is that the entire right-wing media sphere

01:05:16   has amplified. They're deathly terrified of going against him. I saw one report that said that a

01:05:22   reporter talked to Republican members of Congress who had voted in Trump's favor on all this

01:05:27   election stuff and said, "Of course, it's not true, but I'm afraid that if I vote the other way,

01:05:31   my family will be in danger." That's tyranny. That's tyranny. And that's the difference here,

01:05:36   right? Is him having his lie about him losing because he feels bad because he's an egomaniac

01:05:44   and a narcissist is one thing, but it's the whole rest of it, which is convincing millions of people

01:05:52   that there's been some sort of shenanigans and he really did win, and not just win, win by a lot.

01:06:00   It didn't happen. It didn't happen. And then having them react with violence. And even if

01:06:08   it's not overt violence, also the place that leaves the United States where you've got

01:06:13   millions and millions of people who believe that the government is illegitimate, and what is that

01:06:18   going to spawn in terms of future behavior? So, you know, yeah, it sucks. It's a bad situation.

01:06:25   And I would say, again, I think it does point out that some of these tech companies do have

01:06:33   too much power and don't answer to anybody. But in this case, they did do the right thing.

01:06:38   You know, if we've learned anything about corporations over the years, and I've worked

01:06:41   in a bunch and you worked at a bank, you know this too. It's like, they don't do stuff unless

01:06:46   they really, really have to, unless they're really put on the spot. And guess what? Last week,

01:06:50   we put a lot of corporations on the spot. And maybe it's good in the end that there was a little

01:06:55   bit of a refresher about the difference between we support politicians from both parties in the

01:06:59   US to the people we won't support or the people who are lying to their constituents and advocating

01:07:06   the abandonment of democratic norms. Those people are not part of the conversation anymore.

01:07:12   - There is another side to it though, right, where, like the events of maybe even the last,

01:07:18   like, four days. This has been a very long week. - Oh, wow. It's been a long year.

01:07:24   - It's not even January 15th yet. - The events of the last few days,

01:07:28   like watching all of these companies use this as their excuse to act, right? You end up with this,

01:07:36   like, the domino effect, right? This company shuts this down. This company shuts this down.

01:07:43   This one does. This one does. This one does. Like, you could argue AWS would not have shut Parler

01:07:49   down if Google and Apple hadn't kicked it off the store, right? That, like, there's a domino effect.

01:07:55   - Right. We didn't even mention this. Like, we talk a lot. People are like, "Oh, Apple

01:08:00   and Google, they're so bad and they've closed the door." Well, first off, there's the web. There's

01:08:03   always the web. But secondly, how many times have we talked about Apple having exacting standards

01:08:09   and kicking apps off for no good reason, right? Well, you look at Parler and you're like,

01:08:15   "How did they stay on so long?" And I think the answer is they were trying to not be seen

01:08:19   as being biased, even though Parler was probably in violation of a lot of its rules that would

01:08:26   have kicked almost any other service off. They're like, "Yeah, but politically..."

01:08:29   - If Apple would have done this on their own, right, it would have looked... It would have been

01:08:34   covered very differently. And, you know, all of these tech companies are all trying to skirt

01:08:39   around these antitrust lawsuits that come in their way. And so, like, they would have been...

01:08:45   They would have seen it as politically difficult to do it, right? But this kind of domino effect,

01:08:51   I wonder if it makes the situation worse in some ways? Because to people that feel affronted,

01:09:00   it's like, all of a sudden, they're all clamping us down. Like, now Biden's coming in,

01:09:07   they're all like... Now they're exacting their control over us, right? And I'm not saying that

01:09:14   it is... It was the right... I mean, as I say, right, like, a lot of this stuff should have been

01:09:18   done a long time ago. It is the right thing for these companies to take this time as the time to

01:09:24   make these changes, because it really has gone too far now. Like, it's been too far for a lot

01:09:31   of time. Now it's like really too far. But there is this concern I can see of, like, does this

01:09:40   make some stuff worse in the short term? Well, and I think the way I would phrase what you just said

01:09:47   is, I think a lot of these hosts and services gave them latitude and said, "Okay, it's politics. We're

01:09:53   gonna let it go because it's politics." And I think what has happened in the last week...

01:09:56   And we don't wanna control politics and all that. Yeah, I get it.

01:09:59   That is super important, is you gotta draw a line and say, "Beyond this point, it's not

01:10:05   politics anymore. Beyond this point, it's trying to conspire to commit violence to overthrow an

01:10:14   election. That's not politics anymore. That's not acceptable." That is, you lost an election,

01:10:21   and now you're going to attack the people whose job it is to go on with government because you're

01:10:27   unhappy with the results. That is a line that I think a lot of people didn't wanna draw.

01:10:34   Or, and I guess I think there's cowardice here too, right? It's like, "I just don't want the bad PR,

01:10:38   and I don't want them making speeches about me, and so I'm gonna let this one go." And they let

01:10:43   a lot, they let too much go. And now they have to redraw that line. It's just like I saw a,

01:10:47   was it Teespring this morning put out a press release saying, because they found out that the

01:10:52   anti-Semitic pro-Holocaust t-shirt being worn by at least one person and photographed in the riots

01:10:58   was a Teespring shirt, I believe. And they were very apologetic and were like, "We've shut this

01:11:04   person down and we've deleted all the things and we feel really bad and we do have a lot of

01:11:07   moderation, but stuff gets through and we're sorry and we're gonna make donations and all of that."

01:11:12   That's probably true, but it's also probably true that they let a lot of stuff slide because they

01:11:17   don't- - There's just so much

01:11:18   copyrighted stuff there. It's just terrible. - Yeah, right. So they make money and they let

01:11:24   it slide until there's bad publicity and then they have to tighten it up. And there was a lot

01:11:28   of that in the last week too, make no mistake. There was a lot of, "We let this stuff go."

01:11:33   And I think it was the boiling frog a little bit. You could ratchet it up more and more and

01:11:37   everybody just let it go because they knew that they were gonna get screamed at for suppressing

01:11:43   speech on their own platforms until, and it took a violent mob trying to get into the, succeeding,

01:11:52   to get into the Capitol of the United States during the Congress trying to do their constitutional

01:11:57   rights to verify a free and fair election for them to all realize, "Oh yeah, that's too much."

01:12:04   Yeah. - I don't really have

01:12:09   anything else to say on this. - Well, so what I would say is it'll

01:12:12   be interesting to see where this goes from here because you are in a place where a lot of

01:12:17   different people's political takes are torn up and thrown into different places. So like I said,

01:12:23   now you've got conservatives complaining about private companies exercising their rights about

01:12:29   what happens on their platform by complaining that it's a violation of free speech, which of course,

01:12:34   the First Amendment doesn't guarantee speech on private platforms, only that the government

01:12:37   doesn't regulate it. So now you've got people who are theoretically sort of no government control

01:12:42   over business as people saying, "Oh, we gotta stop Twitter and Facebook," right? And then you've got

01:12:48   Democrats who have taken a different tack to big tech who applaud these moves. And so I think in

01:12:55   the going forward, all of us expect big tech under the Biden administration to get looked at

01:13:02   for new regulation. The Democrats are gonna control Congress. He's ultimately gonna be able to

01:13:11   nominate people to the various commissions. What happens in the next four years and beyond in terms

01:13:17   of what that big tech regulation looks like? Because I would argue it's a place where right

01:13:23   now it seems a lot of the old standard lines have been put in a blender. And I don't know what's

01:13:30   gonna come out of there because it would be very interesting as it's been the last few months to

01:13:35   see senators and representatives advocating for governments to tell private companies what to do

01:13:41   on the Republican side because that's supposed to be their thing not to do that, but they want to do

01:13:45   it in this instance. So I don't know where that's gonna go in the long run, but I do hope that this

01:13:51   gives a little more of a backbone. You know, we had this... MacWorld had message boards for almost

01:13:58   the whole time I was there. And we had... Chris Breen was tweeting about this this weekend because

01:14:04   some of the people involved in this remind us of the people we had to deal with back then. It's

01:14:08   very much like, "Oh, they're at the Capitol now. Okay." And you learn that you have to have

01:14:16   standards for your communities and you have to have rules and that people are gonna break it

01:14:20   and they're gonna try to avoid your rules. And I think this last week has reminded a lot of these

01:14:28   companies that have public platforms and that profit off of having platforms where the public

01:14:33   can come in and do things. That their line of what is acceptable and their methods of determining

01:14:43   who's violating their rules is not in the right... They're not in the right place. And that they are

01:14:50   responsible for things that happen on their platforms. And let's just say it. If... There's

01:14:55   a lot of responsibility to go around, but if Twitter, for example, or a Facebook group,

01:15:01   was responsible for coordination that led to, I was gonna say, the murder of a member of Congress,

01:15:08   but let's say the murder of a couple of police officers. Does that social media platform that

01:15:15   hosted the conversation bear responsibility morally for that conversation being allowed to happen?

01:15:24   I'd say yes. I'd say yes. And I think the solution is they need to look at their standards.

01:15:32   They need to look at their standards. And they're not gonna say... You're not gonna stop everything.

01:15:37   You're not gonna stop everything. And I'm not saying they should be held responsible by

01:15:40   government for it as much as that they need to look within themselves and say, "We can't be a

01:15:44   party to this level of planning, of violence." That we need to... We gave them... I hope the

01:15:55   lesson from the last week is we gave these people a little bit of slack, and they took it,

01:16:00   and they pushed it, and they went to very bad places. However, let me give you the converse

01:16:08   now, which is none of these companies have proven that their moderation policies can be consistent

01:16:13   or effective in any way. So... What will they do with that knowledge?

01:16:18   - Start getting into the conversation around end-to-end encryption.

01:16:21   And then we're off to the races, right? Like...

01:16:25   - Yeah, it's different though. It's just as different as Trump not being able to tweet.

01:16:30   Creating end-to-end encrypted message groups that... Or messages that are secret, that are

01:16:39   doing bad things. It is a realm for law enforcement, but it's also not public anymore. It's not public.

01:16:45   Just like, you know, Klan meetings aren't public either, right? Which makes it less likely to

01:16:53   spread. It doesn't mean it's not a problem. It doesn't mean law enforcement doesn't have to be

01:16:56   involved and find informants and worm their way into those groups just as they do now.

01:17:01   But it does make it harder for it to just be out in the open for people to find and for it to be

01:17:07   recommended to your grandma on her Facebook feed. - Right, yeah, because you have to know or get

01:17:12   invited by the person to join it. It's not like this is just spread out into your social graph

01:17:18   because your friend liked it and retweeted it or reshared it. And now you can join it because

01:17:24   you're a little bit annoyed too. And then you end up getting radicalized from seeing this group and

01:17:31   everything that's in it shared to you all the time. You already have to have gone over a certain level

01:17:36   to walk into a closed door kind of thing, right? As you say, I imagine probably very rare for

01:17:46   somebody to stumble their way into a Klan meeting, right? And then sit down and join in.

01:17:51   - I'm reminded of Buck O'Neill, the legendary Negro Leagues star, told the story about how

01:18:04   he was a scout after his playing days for the Cubs, I want to say. And he was scouting a player. He

01:18:09   was trying to find where a player was playing in this little town in the south. And they said

01:18:14   they're out at the baseball diamond. And he got the directions to the wrong baseball diamond. And

01:18:18   it was this baseball diamond that was down a country road. So they drive down the country road

01:18:22   and they pull into the parking lot. And the baseball diamond was being used for a Klan rally.

01:18:29   So these two black guys drive their car into the parking lot for the Klan rally. And one of the

01:18:34   guys who's sort of at the entrance of the parking lot was like, "Probably not what you're looking

01:18:40   for." And they're like, "Indeed, it's not. Thank you very much." And they drove the other way. So

01:18:44   I'm just saying you could stumble into a Klan meeting, but probably not.

01:18:48   - But you're not going to take a seat.

01:18:49   - Probably not going to take a seat. Probably not.

01:18:53   - All right. This episode is brought to you by ExpressVPN. How do you choose which internet

01:18:59   service provider to use? The sad thing is most people don't get a lot of choice because ISPs

01:19:04   have controls in certain regions and what can be used, what you can sign up for. And this control

01:19:10   could be used to take advantage of customers, like putting data caps in. Things that if you don't

01:19:15   have a competition, you don't have to think about customer experience, that kind of stuff, right?

01:19:20   But also your internet activity could be taken and sold to companies or advertisers. You can

01:19:26   protect your devices with ExpressVPN because your ISPs can't see your internet activity. I

01:19:33   use ExpressVPN myself for many reasons. It's a really great service. With ExpressVPN,

01:19:39   it's super simple to connect and you can have all of your network data tunneled through a secure

01:19:44   VPN server so that your ISP can't see any of your activity. You can also use it to change

01:19:50   your location if you want to be able to consume different content that might be locked out for you.

01:19:54   Being here in Europe, sometimes there are articles that I can't read because a website,

01:19:59   it's just like, "You're in Europe. We don't want to deal with your data laws."

01:20:02   - GDPR away.

01:20:03   - Yeah, we'll just turn you off. So I can say I can connect to ExpressVPN and say that I'm in

01:20:08   America and read the article from just like an American newspaper about some kind of law

01:20:13   or whatever. It's a very peculiar thing, but it's something I can use ExpressVPN for. Just think

01:20:18   about how much of your life is on the internet. Every site you visit, video you watch, message

01:20:22   you send could be tracked and then that information could be used against you. You can use ExpressVPN

01:20:28   and I use ExpressVPN as a way to keep my internet activity to myself and away from people you don't

01:20:35   want to have it. Just download the app, tap one button on your device and you're protected

01:20:39   and ExpressVPN does all of this about slowing your connection down. And it's why it's rated

01:20:43   the number one VPN service by CNET, WIRED and many more. So stop handing over your personal data to

01:20:50   ISPs and other companies who mine your activity and sell off your information. Protect yourself

01:20:55   with the VPN that I trust by going to expressvpn.com/upgrade. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com/upgrade

01:21:04   to get three extra months for free. One last time, that is expressvpn.com/upgrade right now

01:21:11   to learn more. Our thanks to ExpressVPN for their support of this show and RelayFN.

01:21:15   All right, let's do some #askupgrade questions to finish out today's episode of the show.

01:21:21   D. Cats asks a question that kind of goes back to one of our opening topics today.

01:21:27   Do you think that we'll see a shift towards properly universal apps across iOS and Mac

01:21:32   now that this is becoming more of a possibility or do you think that developers will stick

01:21:36   to multiple versions on multiple platforms?

01:21:38   What do you think?

01:21:41   I think that newer apps, yes, especially companies that or individuals that maybe grew up in from

01:21:49   either age wise or in their business through the iOS model, that they may just be like,

01:21:55   this is a known entity for me. I know how to do with Apple's platforms. I know how to deal

01:22:00   with the App Store and all of the business stuff. I know. And also my app is a subscription app

01:22:06   because this is the easiest way maybe for me to make money on iOS. So I'll just have my Mac app

01:22:12   be a universal app built with these same underlying technologies, put it through the App Store. It's

01:22:18   a subscription anyway. Easy peasy, right? I can imagine that. And I'm seeing that. I see that

01:22:24   more and more now. Like you see applications that are new and they're on every platform and they're

01:22:30   using maybe Mac Catalyst or they're using SwiftUI or a combination of all of them. And they have a

01:22:36   subscription that underpins the whole thing. So they can be on all these platforms and it's easy

01:22:41   for them. I do not think this is going to push companies that have separate iOS and Mac versions

01:22:48   towards this model unless they've already decided that they want to go the subscription route.

01:22:55   I don't think it's going to change a lot of behaviors.

01:23:00   Yeah, I agree with everything you said there. I think going forward, people are going to look at

01:23:05   this and new apps will be more likely to be built this way. And there are probably some developers

01:23:13   who have a Mac app that's kind of obligatory, but they really, their focus is on iOS where they're

01:23:20   going to be able to over time drop the Mac app and just base their code base. They'll still have

01:23:25   a Mac app, but now it will be based on the iOS code base. I think that's absolutely going to

01:23:28   start happening where why should we develop two in the long run when we can develop one?

01:23:33   I think there are some places where you're going to say, we should also say you can actually keep

01:23:39   them separate if you want to. You could develop a Mac app based on iOS and just not connect it to

01:23:48   the iOS app if your business model doesn't work that way. So there are ways to do it that way if

01:23:54   you really wanted to. But yeah, I think in the long run, this is going to be a more likely path.

01:23:59   And then as we see Swift UI come along and all of that, I think it's going to just continue happening.

01:24:03   The end goal is that Apple will have one software platform across all its devices, but it's going to

01:24:11   be, I think, for maybe forever almost that the Mac is running all sorts of different kinds of apps,

01:24:18   native Mac apps and Mac apps brought over with catalyst and some iOS apps with, you know,

01:24:25   iPad flavoring and other stuff. I think that's just going to be how it is going forward and the

01:24:31   stuff that's incredibly complex and based on AppKit, the original Mac stuff is not going to,

01:24:35   it's just going to continue kicking around as it is until it can't anymore. And that may never happen.

01:24:43   Tuna asks, "When Jason reviewed the upgraded 27-inch iMac, he recommended that if you had

01:24:49   to have a new Mac, then it was a goodbye. Now that you've had a chance to try to use the M1 Macs

01:24:55   thoroughly, would you still recommend this Intel iMac or should I wait?" I had a friend ask me this,

01:25:03   not named Tuna, this week because her iMac is dying. And what I said was, "Can you wait?"

01:25:15   And she said, "I might not be able to wait." I said, "All right, well, first off," I said,

01:25:20   "I'll look at your Mac if you want, bring it over and we'll decontaminate it. And then I'll look at

01:25:24   it and I'll see if I can figure out if it's the drive or if we can just wipe it and it'll be

01:25:29   better or what is going on with this Mac. Is it something physically wrong with it or is it

01:25:33   just that you've got a slow old drive that's dying?" But when she was saying, "I don't think

01:25:40   it's going to make it," I'm like, "Well, you could get an iMac, but you really shouldn't

01:25:43   because we're in this transition now." And what I actually told her is, "If you can't wait,

01:25:48   I don't think you should buy an iMac. I think you should buy a monitor and a Mac Mini."

01:25:53   And everybody knows their own use cases, but at this point, I don't think I would recommend

01:26:00   anybody buying an iMac, an Intel iMac, unless they had absolute reason for having Intel features

01:26:07   or they're deathly afraid of first-generation hardware, which are fine. If you've got those

01:26:17   issues, then fine. But for a regular person, I don't think I can do it. I don't think I can

01:26:23   recommend it. If I had to buy a replacement for my iMac today because it exploded, I would get a

01:26:33   monitor and a Mac Mini or I would just attach my MacBook Air to it. But that's just a question,

01:26:37   "Do you want a laptop attached or do you just want a desktop?" But that's what I would do.

01:26:42   >> Yeah, I think you're right. I don't think there's a good reason to buy

01:26:47   any Intel Mac right now for a regular consumer.

01:26:51   >> Yeah, I mean, I have an iMac Pro, but she's not going to buy a high-end iMac. She's going to buy

01:26:57   a mid-range iMac. It's going to be so much slower than getting an M1 Mac Mini and a monitor.

01:27:05   So much slower. So I can't. I just can't. So that's what I told her is don't buy an iMac.

01:27:12   So Tina, if you're listening, she's not listening. You can bring your iMac over. I can see if it's

01:27:19   broken or not. >> Maybe it was. I mean, this person's called Tuna. >> Oh, maybe Tuna is Tuna.

01:27:24   >> Maybe. >> Oh, man. Well, Tina, if you're Tuna, why didn't you just text me?

01:27:29   And Tuna, if you're not Tina, you're keeping great company, I guess. Yeah. >> Doug asks,

01:27:39   "What do you use to track your list of what you want to watch, read, play, etc.?" >> I don't.

01:27:48   I don't. >> You don't? >> I don't. >> What, really? How do you keep track of all of the things? >> I've

01:27:55   tried. I've tried all the apps to track TV and I never stick with them. Books, generally,

01:28:03   I either put them on my library queue list or my Amazon queue list or I just buy them and send them

01:28:10   to my Kindle. If somebody recommends a book to me, I will generally just buy it or check it out from

01:28:17   the library. >> If you're a writer, now you know how to get your numbers up. Just recommend your

01:28:23   book to Jason. >> Well, I'm not going to, like a random writer saying, "Buy my book," I'm not going

01:28:29   to buy their book. I'm sorry. >> You have to, as a random writer, convince someone who's a friend of

01:28:34   Jason's. >> Yes, exactly. That's the trick. >> I'm surprised about this. >> I don't. I've tried.

01:28:42   I've tried. I've tried. And I'm at a point now where I'm like, "Wow, what are we going to watch

01:28:45   next on streaming?" And I think, well, if I had been compiling a list, I would know. But the fact

01:28:51   is, I've tried all of those things. None of them have worked for me. Mostly, I've tried the ones

01:28:58   that are a lot of work where you have to log what episode you've watched. It's too much work. I get

01:29:04   behind and then it's like, "Oh, you have 19 episodes of this show to watch." I watch them all.

01:29:07   >> Yeah, I've had that problem with this stuff too. >> And I've tried the make a note in Apple

01:29:13   Notes with a list of shows you want to watch. And then I never go back there and I find it

01:29:17   like weeks later and I'm like, "Oh, right, here are all these old shows." So I don't know. I have

01:29:24   yet to do it. The right way to do it is to use an interface for it. But as we know, and I will,

01:29:31   I will add things as favorites or to my list in various streaming service apps. The problem is

01:29:37   that they're not unified because on Apple TV, Netflix stuff doesn't show up. I have done that

01:29:43   more often now with Apple TV stuff and other stuff where I can see it in the Apple TV interface,

01:29:48   and I do add things to my list on Netflix and they show up there and that's a reminder to watch them.

01:29:53   Like we were watching Taskmaster and realized that one of the comedians had a Netflix special

01:29:57   and added that to the list. And then it was like, three weeks later, we're like, "Oh, yeah,

01:30:01   there's the comedian from Taskmaster. Let's watch her Netflix special." So that will happen too. So

01:30:06   I guess that's my answer really is that I will favorite things that are recommended to me

01:30:12   in the Apple TV interface and maybe they'll float back up. That's it.

01:30:18   - Me and Adina have a shared Apple note where we put things in,

01:30:24   but realistically, most of the time we don't look at that note when we want something new.

01:30:34   Because for me, I am very like, probably annoying when it comes to like new TV shows and movies,

01:30:43   because I really feel like I have to be in a mood for something. Like whether I want like comedy or

01:30:51   drama or whatever. And I tend to most of the time, and especially over the last year, veer lighter on

01:30:58   my entertainment choices are like just nice things, simple things, things that don't have a lot of

01:31:05   stakes to them. And so having that list isn't necessarily useful because it's a list of just

01:31:14   everything and I don't necessarily know what I'm feeling. So for me, when it comes to content,

01:31:19   really it's like, what do the streaming services recommend to me knowing my habits?

01:31:27   And maybe that's something that I want to watch. So we just started watching,

01:31:33   I think it's called Pretend It's a City on Netflix, which I'm not surprised was recommended to me

01:31:44   because I've watched probably everything that Martin Scorsese has been involved in on Netflix.

01:31:53   And this is like a series that he directed, which is Fran Lebowitz, who I was only like,

01:32:00   I was not super familiar with, but was somebody that I knew of.

01:32:03   - She was on David Letterman's old late night show a lot back when he was on his 1230 at night.

01:32:09   - I figured you would know because I kind of looked her up. I did some research about

01:32:13   Fran on Wikipedia afterwards and saw that she'd been on a lot of Letterman episodes.

01:32:19   - Yeah, back when that was a second tier talk show, they would have authors on, which talk

01:32:25   shows don't have authors on much, but they would. And she's in New York, so I think she's probably

01:32:30   also available. But yeah, I remember Fran Lebowitz from that, from the old Letterman show. So

01:32:34   that's great. - It's hilarious by the way.

01:32:37   - That's a good recommendation. - It's very good.

01:32:40   - I wish maybe that should be a new thing that we do sometimes in upstream is mention things

01:32:46   that we've seen that we've liked, because people are always looking for recommendations.

01:32:49   - Yeah, that's probably a good idea. - And Joel asks, "I'm setting up an old

01:32:56   television in the garage." I mean, I assume this is just as like a den situation. Joel didn't really

01:33:04   expound on that. I assume it's probably not for the car to watch TV or whatever. And Joel said,

01:33:10   "Should I buy a Roku stick now that comes with AirPlay 2 and HomeKit and wait for a new Apple TV,

01:33:17   or just spend the money on the current Apple TV?" - Joel, I have a great answer for you, because

01:33:22   I was setting up a TV in my bedroom because I have an Amazon Fire Stick, and my daughter came home

01:33:31   for about a month, just left. And she wanted to watch stuff in her bedroom where we put a TV

01:33:39   for my son to play video games when she's not here, but then she comes home and is like,

01:33:42   "Isn't it great that you put a TV in my room?" I'm like, "Yeah, okay."

01:33:44   So I got her, I had an Amazon Fire Stick on my TV, so I plugged it into that TV. And then I thought,

01:33:50   "Well, what I want is something that does AirPlay. I should just get a Roku, a little Roku box,

01:33:59   and attach that to my TV in the bedroom." And so I did. So Joel, that's my answer,

01:34:07   is don't wait for a new Apple TV. Buy one of these $30 Roku boxes that does AirPlay and HomeKit,

01:34:13   and also has all of the apps that Roku has, and just stick that on there, because that's the

01:34:18   cheapest solution. It'll get you almost everything you want. And unless there's a very, very specific

01:34:22   Apple TV-only feature that you need for this old TV in the garage, I wouldn't bother. I think the

01:34:27   Roku is a very good deal, and it's a better deal than the Amazon Fire Stick, mostly because of the

01:34:32   support for AirPlay. The AirPlay thing made a difference for me. That's what always frustrates

01:34:37   me when I encounter a Fire TV stick, is you can't AirPlay to it, but the Roku stuff you can AirPlay

01:34:45   to. I've got a Roku TV in our living room, and it also has AirPlay, and it's great. So that's what

01:34:50   I would recommend. And then go into the settings and turn off all of their ad options, I would

01:34:56   recommend also. But I think unless you're really worried about Roku or you're really committed to

01:35:03   something on the Apple TV, I would just buy a Roku box for a crappy garage TV to get all the features

01:35:10   you want. Just do it. That's the way to go. Seems like a good deal right now, especially because

01:35:14   it's kind of unknown what a new Apple TV could realistically be that would make it that much

01:35:21   better than this anyway. Because the content, it's all about the content ultimately, and all of the

01:35:29   content that you can get on an Apple TV, you can get on a Roku TV, and it has all the additional

01:35:36   functionality you want like AirPlay, HomeKit. So go for that. If you would like to send in a question

01:35:43   to help us close out the show, you've got something you want to know, something you want to hear us

01:35:47   expound on, maybe a topic that you would like to hear us discuss, the best way to get it to us is

01:35:52   to tweet with the hashtag #AskUpgrade or use question mark #AskUpgrade in the Relay FM members

01:35:58   Discord. If you would like to get access to the Relay FM members Discord and get a special feed

01:36:05   of upgrade that includes additional content and no ads, go to getupgradeplus.com and you can sign up

01:36:14   for our monthly annual plan there and you get additional content with Upgrade Plus. That is

01:36:20   getupgradeplus.com. I would like to thank everybody that does support us already. Thank you so much for

01:36:27   helping us produce the show every week and ExpressVPN, Bombas and HelloFresh for their support

01:36:33   of this episode too. If you'd like to find Jason online you can go to sixcolors.com,

01:36:38   incomparable.com and Jason hosts many shows here at Relay FM as do I. You can go to relay.fm/

01:36:44   shows not only to see the shows that we produce but we have shows from many talented individuals

01:36:50   here at Relay FM and I invite you to peruse them and pick one out at your leisure. I guarantee there

01:36:55   is at least one more show for you in that list that you're not listening to already. Jason is

01:37:02   @jsnell, J S N E double L and I am @imike, I M Y K E and we'll be back next time. Until then,

01:37:08   say goodbye Jason Snow. Goodbye Myke Hurley.