Speaker 1: Get a text technology with tech Stuff from stuff dot com.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tex Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland, and we are going to do a brand
Speaker 1: new Predictions episode. You may remember that the last episode
Speaker 1: I played was a rerun from two thousand eleven where
Speaker 1: Chris Pallette and I decided to kind of guess what
Speaker 1: the Internet would be like in about five years time. Well,
Speaker 1: now we're gonna look another five years into the future.
Speaker 1: And Chris could not be here, but I brought on
Speaker 1: a good friend of mine up here, a guy who
Speaker 1: works for cen Net. Very clever dude, who's got it
Speaker 1: all together. I as actor, How you doing, I'm doing
Speaker 1: really well. Thanks for having me on today. Thanks for
Speaker 1: being on the show. And I as is sounding very formal,
Speaker 1: but trust us. We we're we're buddies. We often give
Speaker 1: each other the business as it were. Of course, of course,
Speaker 1: Mr Strickland, we always give each other business. Uh. Those
Speaker 1: those those plain envelopes filled with dollar bills will continue
Speaker 1: to come to you. I as, so we we wanted
Speaker 1: to take a look and kind of just have a
Speaker 1: casual conversation of what we think the internet and our
Speaker 1: interactions with the Internet might be like in another five years,
Speaker 1: so in twenty twenty one, and uh, we're just kind
Speaker 1: of shooting from the hip here. We're not not really
Speaker 1: consulting any gurus or anything like that, but we did
Speaker 1: come up with a bunch of little questions that we
Speaker 1: thought would be good starters for this kind of thing.
Speaker 1: And one of the points we made in the two
Speaker 1: thousand eleven podcast that Chris and I did was that
Speaker 1: we both felt that mobile browsing was definitely going to
Speaker 1: be increasingly important, that we would see desktops and laptop
Speaker 1: traffic on the Internet get surpassed by mobile devices. And
Speaker 1: in fact, that did happen. And uh, it wasn't like
Speaker 1: we were sticking our next really far out or anything.
Speaker 1: That it was pretty clear that that was the trend
Speaker 1: even when we started back then. Now, I as, do
Speaker 1: you think that's gonna be something that we'll see continue
Speaker 1: That will will mobile devices continue to be one of
Speaker 1: the most important, maybe the predominant way that we interact
Speaker 1: with the Internet, at least on a on an active scale. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think the mobile devices, I mean, they've shown how
Speaker 1: important they've been over the years. And the thing is,
Speaker 1: for a lot of people of their phone is their
Speaker 1: first real personal computer. So what I'm expecting is essentially
Speaker 1: laptops and desktops not as important, but we might actually
Speaker 1: have the ability to have in five years now where
Speaker 1: you have your phone, it's your brain for all your
Speaker 1: other little systems, because I think other smart devices like
Speaker 1: watching his glasses, other devices and form factors that we've
Speaker 1: even thought up yet, those things will be around, but
Speaker 1: they're really gonna be powered by your phone, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: So that that makes sense. Like even stuff with Google
Speaker 1: Glass that was something that you used a Bluetooth connection
Speaker 1: with the phone. The phone ended up doing most of
Speaker 1: the processing. The glass was just kind of a interface
Speaker 1: and display, and you still were relying upon the actual
Speaker 1: connection with your phone to grab the data from the cloud.
Speaker 1: And that does make sense. I mean you that way
Speaker 1: you remove the need for the more powerful processors and
Speaker 1: the various antenna that you would require to to tap
Speaker 1: into those networks. You can offload that. You just need
Speaker 1: that Bluetooth interface in order for it to to communicate
Speaker 1: with the devices the real brain. Also, I'm noticing I
Speaker 1: just notice recently a video that kind of blew my
Speaker 1: mind because it reminded me of something we saw at
Speaker 1: CS many years ago, and it was a video of
Speaker 1: a new product where you use your smartphone to act
Speaker 1: as the processor for what was really just a terminal,
Speaker 1: but it looks like, you know, a laptop computer and
Speaker 1: you dock your phone into it and that essentially ends
Speaker 1: up being the brains behind your computer. And I can't
Speaker 1: remember you you might I as I don't know, but
Speaker 1: I can't remember the name of the the thing that
Speaker 1: was essentially that same idea from several years ago where
Speaker 1: your your smartphone and uh could just dock into a
Speaker 1: docking station and power a laptop. Um to me, it
Speaker 1: was interesting to see that idea come back again because
Speaker 1: it didn't seem to go anywhere after that initial c
Speaker 1: e S debut. But it does kind of fall into
Speaker 1: that same idea that the the smartphone will be kind
Speaker 1: of the the center of a of a hub of devices,
Speaker 1: all of which will rely very heavily on it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the device I think you're talking about the motto atrix,
Speaker 1: a phone that were plug into a docking station that
Speaker 1: kind of makes it a laptop. It wasn't elegant at all.
Speaker 1: It didn't work with every single docking station. Need to
Speaker 1: get a proprietary thing, so that kind of takes people off,
Speaker 1: I know, the Kickstarter you're talking about or Indigogo. Not
Speaker 1: sure which crowd funding site it is, but I mean, well, also,
Speaker 1: I would imagine in five years we would have more
Speaker 1: smart devices that can be on their own. But I
Speaker 1: still think that having a the power and all the
Speaker 1: brains on a singular device driving the other the other
Speaker 1: devices makes more sense because, like you were mentioning other radio's,
Speaker 1: other antennas, other battery concerns. To have all of that
Speaker 1: and each self contained object you're talking about a lot
Speaker 1: of items you have to keep charged all the time,
Speaker 1: it seems like I don't know if five years is
Speaker 1: enough time for this to really get mature. Maybe ten
Speaker 1: years from now and now we're going too far. But
Speaker 1: if battery technology moves ahead, maybe what we would see
Speaker 1: these devices that are I guess cloud connected, So you're
Speaker 1: the brain is still a computer somewhere, it's just nowhere
Speaker 1: near you, right, I think. Also another important element to
Speaker 1: take into account is cost, and by having your phone
Speaker 1: be the primary brains behind all these different devices, it
Speaker 1: helps bring the cost down to each of those individual devices.
Speaker 1: They don't need as many expensive components and that will
Speaker 1: make adoption um less difficult. Right, It's still gonna be
Speaker 1: a barrier, obviously. It's any time we're talking about technology,
Speaker 1: there's a barrier of intrigue that's there. Um. Not everyone
Speaker 1: can afford to do it. But by going that that
Speaker 1: route where your phone remains the primary processing unit of
Speaker 1: all these different devices, you can at least create a
Speaker 1: suite of technologies that aren't prohibitively expensive for all but
Speaker 1: you know the top of the one per centers. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're talking about a lot of silos, right, you can
Speaker 1: probably like an Apple silo, you'll have a Android silo
Speaker 1: or Samsung silo. There's things that you can't just mix
Speaker 1: and match your accessories. You're just gonna have to get
Speaker 1: one company's to make it work. Well, I still see
Speaker 1: that happening because sometimes I think about in the old days,
Speaker 1: how no standards were ever happened. I couldn't imagine actually
Speaker 1: having one standard port or electrical outlets. If this is privatized,
Speaker 1: weight is now it's like, well, USB A B C
Speaker 1: about three point one. Just it seems so wonky. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a great point. I mean it's and that kind
Speaker 1: of ties into The next question that I have on
Speaker 1: our list the idea of silos, and this whether you
Speaker 1: have interoperability between different you know, families of technologies or
Speaker 1: if it's all within one group. One of the things
Speaker 1: we've seen kind of come to prominence over the last
Speaker 1: year or two is this idea of the digital personal assistant. Now.
Speaker 1: In the two thousand eleven episode, Chris and I talked
Speaker 1: about how voice recognition was going to become more important,
Speaker 1: but it wouldn't take over as our primary means of
Speaker 1: interacting with our technology for various reasons. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you want to search anything that's remotely personal in nature,
Speaker 1: you probably don't want to speak it out loud in public. Also,
Speaker 1: you don't want to make people think you're crazy as
Speaker 1: you're talking to absolutely no one visible at any rate. Um,
Speaker 1: But we're starting to see them really get more more
Speaker 1: traction these days, whether it's Apple's Sirie or Amazon's Alexa,
Speaker 1: or Google's Assistant. You know, we have lots of different examples.
Speaker 1: Do you think those are going to continue to get
Speaker 1: more sophisticated? Are are we going to see more integration
Speaker 1: into various devices, not just the standalonees or the smartphones,
Speaker 1: but perhaps other things as well well. I could see
Speaker 1: people getting very used to talking to the Internet in general.
Speaker 1: Like you might think, now you might look a little
Speaker 1: crazy that you're talking to yourself. Although these days you
Speaker 1: see somebody talking themselves in the street, you're like, do
Speaker 1: they have a Bluetooth headset or not? Because it used
Speaker 1: to be twenty years ago you're like, oh, you're just nuts.
Speaker 1: Now it's like, oh, you might be having a conversation.
Speaker 1: But there's a generation of kids growing up talking to
Speaker 1: smart speakers like the Echo, like Google Home when that
Speaker 1: comes out, and when Apple goes ahead, where there's that
Speaker 1: rumor that they're going to have their own smart speaker.
Speaker 1: I see that kind of interface and that natural language
Speaker 1: really being more important. Now maybe you're not necessarily talking
Speaker 1: to your watch, but you might be writing the same
Speaker 1: kinds of questions that you would say because the way
Speaker 1: everything is changing with deep learning, the chance in five
Speaker 1: years I'm really hoping to five years and you were
Speaker 1: able to just ask a simple question without having to
Speaker 1: have all of these modifiers that are search engine optimized,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, right, Yeah, without having to
Speaker 1: parse your language in a way that search engines know
Speaker 1: what it is. You're actually asking you to have that
Speaker 1: natural length language recognition. I think we've we've definitely come
Speaker 1: a far away over the last decade, definitely UH with
Speaker 1: natural language where you know, it used to be that
Speaker 1: you could do a Google search for a particular string
Speaker 1: of terms and come up with a page of results
Speaker 1: and think, this isn't remotely what I was hoping to find.
Speaker 1: And then you just go and rearrange the order of
Speaker 1: words that were in your Google query and come up
Speaker 1: with different results and see, oh this is I just
Speaker 1: have to think the way the computer thinks. Once we
Speaker 1: get away from that, where computers are able to interpret
Speaker 1: the way we think and the way different people think
Speaker 1: about the same thing, but still bring back relevant results,
Speaker 1: then we see real advances in and and a seamless
Speaker 1: experience when we start interacting with the Internet. I think
Speaker 1: that is definitely going to improve over the next five years.
Speaker 1: We've already seen some amazing results as it stands now.
Speaker 1: I also hope to see more of One of the
Speaker 1: things I really like the way Amazon has approached this
Speaker 1: Personal Digital Assistant UM model is their approach is all
Speaker 1: about integrating with other systems so that you can control
Speaker 1: different things within your home, even if they were not
Speaker 1: originally designed to work together through a single interface, right
Speaker 1: Like Hugh light bulbs are an example. Let's say that
Speaker 1: I've got Hugh light bulbs in my house. Let's say
Speaker 1: I've got some sort of of Internet connected security system.
Speaker 1: Maybe I've got a couple of other appliances that are
Speaker 1: also connected through my my home network and with Alexa,
Speaker 1: assuming that the capability has been built in by developers,
Speaker 1: I would be able to interact with all of those
Speaker 1: as opposed to having to go through each proprietary system
Speaker 1: and interface, which gets extremely clunky. It's kind of like
Speaker 1: being in front of a a an entertainment system where
Speaker 1: you have twelve different remote controls and trying to remember
Speaker 1: which one goes to what component. Uh. I hope to
Speaker 1: see more of that because, like you were saying, if
Speaker 1: we go with the siloed approach, unless you're all in
Speaker 1: with one provider, your experience is going to be really fragmented. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It just makes me think about the Internet of Things
Speaker 1: because I have an Amazon Echo and I've had some
Speaker 1: smart technologies in my house and smart light bulbs and things,
Speaker 1: and most people would ask me, like, why would you
Speaker 1: need a smart light bulb, and these are just little
Speaker 1: fancy ways to make my apartment more personalized. But when
Speaker 1: you have an echo, you have a brain that can
Speaker 1: talk to multiple devices, you start thinking what other devices
Speaker 1: you can get. So I'm expecting in five years a
Speaker 1: lot of people will be very aware of the good
Speaker 1: uses or connected devices, because I connected life all began
Speaker 1: is a very strange idea at first, but when you
Speaker 1: get used to it, you're like, wait a minute, why
Speaker 1: didn't this happen before? So I'm expecting a lot more
Speaker 1: dumb things to get a lot smarter five years. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And and you know, we've we've seen this is a
Speaker 1: a progression that starts with some kind of you know,
Speaker 1: uncertain moves. Again, going back to c e S. I
Speaker 1: love talking about ce S because that's kind of like
Speaker 1: the proving grounds for these new technologies. Typically a technology
Speaker 1: will start to kind of creep in, and then the
Speaker 1: next year it will be almost everywhere, and then maybe
Speaker 1: three more years it will be to a point where
Speaker 1: people will actually want it. Right because we've seen the
Speaker 1: smart technology move into various appliances for the better part
Speaker 1: of the decade now, and in many cases, those early
Speaker 1: implementations were either short sighted or not terribly useful. But
Speaker 1: as people are learning how to interact, and as developers
Speaker 1: are learning, you know, what people expect from their technologies,
Speaker 1: we're seeing that improve over time. I think in Internet
Speaker 1: of Things is going to continue going strong. It it
Speaker 1: isn't just a fad or a buzzword. It is going
Speaker 1: to be a pervasive technology that UH surrounds us and
Speaker 1: binds us like the force UM. It also has some
Speaker 1: potential for some some negative stuff as well, not just
Speaker 1: the idea of making our lives easier, but we'll talk
Speaker 1: about that UH in a little bit. So one of
Speaker 1: the other elements I have here on our list is
Speaker 1: this question about again getting kind ofto that fragmented experience idea,
Speaker 1: the rise of the app. That was one of those
Speaker 1: things that that Chris and I didn't really touch on.
Speaker 1: We didn't talk about apps. I don't think either of
Speaker 1: us had really figured out how important apps were going
Speaker 1: to be UH in general, and apps on smart devices
Speaker 1: on on smartphones and mobile devices in particular have become
Speaker 1: one of the most important stories in technology over the
Speaker 1: last few years. UH companies can spring up overnight and
Speaker 1: become incredibly successful with the right app a lot of
Speaker 1: companies out there are banking on that success. Many of
Speaker 1: them are failing um and and it's weird because it
Speaker 1: also creates this very siloed approach to how you access
Speaker 1: and interact with the Internet, particularly apps that are related
Speaker 1: to content, where you know you might ask the question,
Speaker 1: why do I use this app versus use a more
Speaker 1: universal interface like a browser. Do you think that we're
Speaker 1: going to continue to see, you know, a wide variety
Speaker 1: of apps moving forward, or do you think that's a
Speaker 1: bubble that will burst sometime between now and I don't
Speaker 1: see apps necessarily going away. I can see a lot
Speaker 1: of like hyper visor style apps, like we're talking about
Speaker 1: with the Echo, where it controls lots of different things.
Speaker 1: I could see a lot more apps that control other apps,
Speaker 1: if that makes any sense. Like its like right now
Speaker 1: we have things like hoot Suite, which can access to
Speaker 1: different Twitter accounts, Facebook and all that other information. So
Speaker 1: I could see that happening, which is a little strange
Speaker 1: if you think about it, because a browser should be
Speaker 1: able to handle it. But apps on their own, they
Speaker 1: offer so much control to the companies that I think
Speaker 1: that that's not going anywhere. Because the other thing is
Speaker 1: you can create a lot of things that are offline
Speaker 1: that you couldn't do in a browser. I think that's
Speaker 1: one of the bigger things. Unless in five years the
Speaker 1: Internet wirelessly or is that connectivity is always around, you
Speaker 1: still have to deal with being offline, and if you
Speaker 1: don't have an app, there's a good chance there's no
Speaker 1: way a browser is gonna work unless there's some kind
Speaker 1: of cash feature, which isn't something that really works so
Speaker 1: well right now. That's a good point. Yeah. For example,
Speaker 1: I've got I've got an app that I used for
Speaker 1: for podcatching too, to listen to the various podcasts I
Speaker 1: subscribe to, and I can either stream stuff directly from
Speaker 1: the Internet to my headphones and that way I can
Speaker 1: listen live, or I can down load an episode and
Speaker 1: listen to it even if I'm offline, which of course
Speaker 1: is useful if you're going to be like on a
Speaker 1: long flight or something and you don't have in flight WiFi.
Speaker 1: That's a really useful, uh feature. So I didn't really
Speaker 1: think of it that way, but that is interesting. I
Speaker 1: would I would love to see some more experimentation with apps.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it gets a little tricky, but you know, something
Speaker 1: that would um allow you to maximize the reach of
Speaker 1: your various music services would be nice because not all
Speaker 1: artists have work all in one or all in the
Speaker 1: same music service. And being able to go through all
Speaker 1: of them simultaneously so that you can listen to what
Speaker 1: you want to listen to. Uh, you know, subscribing to
Speaker 1: whichever services you want, but being able to search all
Speaker 1: of them at once would be really nice instead of
Speaker 1: having to you know, go into one and they oh, wait,
Speaker 1: that's right, that musicians label doesn't work with Spotify or
Speaker 1: Pandora or whatever it may be. Um, so yeah, it's interesting.
Speaker 1: I do think I do think there's going to be
Speaker 1: a bit of a reckoning between now and where we
Speaker 1: will see a lot of apps, um, kind of collapse
Speaker 1: in on themselves. I think we're going to see on
Speaker 1: the investment front, some capitalists venture Catalyst being a little
Speaker 1: more careful with which apps they jump in and back.
Speaker 1: I just don't see it as sustainable in the long
Speaker 1: run for the kind of approach we're seeing right now.
Speaker 1: Where you know, it seems like every week you're getting
Speaker 1: one or two stories about some brand new app debuting
Speaker 1: with incredible amounts of financial backing. Uh, and no business
Speaker 1: plan to speak of that that cannot continue indefinitely. So
Speaker 1: I think there's probably gonna be a bit of a
Speaker 1: shaky bubble kind of moment between now and hopefully by
Speaker 1: one it will have settled back down so that we
Speaker 1: can have product of useful apps continue. I don't I
Speaker 1: don't want to see anyone tank. I just don't think
Speaker 1: that the way things have been going is sustainable in
Speaker 1: the long run. The other thing I was thinking is
Speaker 1: that the way I've seen companies talk to developers, the
Speaker 1: idea that you write one app and runs on multiple platforms, Android, Chromos,
Speaker 1: or if you run a Windows app it runs on
Speaker 1: every Windows thing and iOS at some point has to
Speaker 1: have some kind of ties to os ten or mac os.
Speaker 1: I would imagine in five years these apps that are
Speaker 1: just kind of like, oh, it's only for my phone,
Speaker 1: it's only from my watch, or it's only for whatever,
Speaker 1: these these apps will actually be much more powerful than
Speaker 1: when you can install them on full fledged computers, or
Speaker 1: you can have the same experience or slightly modified experiences
Speaker 1: for different screens. I think that's the future we're headed for.
Speaker 1: So we're not gonna lose the apps. We might get
Speaker 1: more productive apps, But I don't see it being this
Speaker 1: world of the way it is now. It's definitely gonna
Speaker 1: be much more, kind of like the way the i
Speaker 1: OS apps can be iPhone and iPad. I can imagine
Speaker 1: this happened with all other kinds of apps as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's something that Microsoft has been pushing for for a
Speaker 1: long time. I mean Windows eight was our first indication
Speaker 1: that they really wanted to create this universal experience where
Speaker 1: the technology, the programs you depended upon would work across
Speaker 1: multitude multiple platforms seamlessly. And we're we're seeing that with
Speaker 1: a lot of ways that apps are uh designed, you know,
Speaker 1: like um, Netflix is a great example where you're watching
Speaker 1: Netflix on one platform, you pause your viewing, you go,
Speaker 1: you turn on a different platform, and you can pick
Speaker 1: up right where you left off. That that's sort of
Speaker 1: that same idea, this idea that you can have a
Speaker 1: persistent experience across whichever platform you want. It may be
Speaker 1: that the interaction with that platform has to be different
Speaker 1: because it's just a it's you know, it doesn't have
Speaker 1: the same interface, but the experience you get is as
Speaker 1: close to being universal as you can possibly get. Um.
Speaker 1: I agree that that's definitely gonna continue you and and
Speaker 1: it will probably be very impressive, at least to the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen versions of US. Maybe versions of US will
Speaker 1: be you know, totally blase about it, but but right
Speaker 1: now we'd be really we'd really be thrilled by that.
Speaker 1: One of the other things we did not talk about
Speaker 1: in two thousand and eleven, neither Chris nor I anticipated
Speaker 1: it was the rise of Google Fiber. Uh, and seeing
Speaker 1: Google Fiber come out. I'm in Atlanta and Google Fiber
Speaker 1: is currently deploying in Atlanta to the point where lots
Speaker 1: of different neighborhoods in the Atlanta area are eligible for
Speaker 1: signing up for Google Fiber. Not me yet, but any
Speaker 1: day now. Um, So we didn't anticipate Google Fiber showing up.
Speaker 1: Do you think Google Fiber is actually going to have
Speaker 1: a disruptive effect on the industry as a whole or
Speaker 1: do you see this as being something that might might
Speaker 1: be beneficial for certain regions. But that's all we're going
Speaker 1: to see. We're not gonna get a wider effect than that.
Speaker 1: I think there's gonna be quite a wide effect. In
Speaker 1: recent news, Versing went out and bought a o L
Speaker 1: and uh something else was the other one, Yahoo, right,
Speaker 1: And essentially it makes it some kind of digital advertising
Speaker 1: giant to take on Google. And I loved seeing the
Speaker 1: news only for the reason that maybe it would get
Speaker 1: like like light a fire under Google and go, wait
Speaker 1: a second, if those guys are going to be an
Speaker 1: I s P and they're going to have this kind
Speaker 1: of content management, why don't we do the same thing
Speaker 1: considering we're competitors with them. So I'm expecting Google to
Speaker 1: be one of the first to just full on go
Speaker 1: head to head against a horizon against the wireless carriers
Speaker 1: out there, because Google Fiber, while it's good, the infrastructure
Speaker 1: layout just seems to take so long and then run
Speaker 1: into a lot of regulation problems. But if they can
Speaker 1: buy up you know, essentially the wireless last mile, if
Speaker 1: that's how this is going to go, I would think
Speaker 1: they would be one of the companies to do it.
Speaker 1: And I was trying to out, like, what other company
Speaker 1: do I think in five years would actually have a
Speaker 1: wireless service? I would say in the US anyway, Amazon
Speaker 1: could easily become some kind of wireless carrier because their
Speaker 1: whole model is just get you to buy products over
Speaker 1: and over and over again. So if they can stop
Speaker 1: that one last barrier of well, I don't have a
Speaker 1: connection to Amazon, I'm gonna do this. Why not do
Speaker 1: that with not only their fire devices but any device
Speaker 1: because in the past they used to have wireless built
Speaker 1: into their kindles through other services. There's really not a
Speaker 1: lot of reasons why a company like Amazon wouldn't enter
Speaker 1: that fray, especially in my future. By the way, Google
Speaker 1: has already entered this, and it's gonna have enough of
Speaker 1: a disruption that other companies will no longer be afraid
Speaker 1: to fight an a T and T Hoverizon and I
Speaker 1: guess T Mobile at the time, because that's usually the
Speaker 1: biggest fears, like if I go against these guys, they
Speaker 1: won't carry my phones, and then that's going to cause
Speaker 1: an issue. But when there's enough competition, it no longer
Speaker 1: matters well, and it's just nice to see any competition
Speaker 1: at all in that space, at least with the wireless side.
Speaker 1: You could argue, particularly with the cellular and the LTE
Speaker 1: side of things, you could argue that there is at
Speaker 1: least some competition here in the United States. When you
Speaker 1: get to home internet access like wired internet access, that
Speaker 1: level of competition starts to drop off dramatically. Depending on
Speaker 1: where you live, you may not have any options other
Speaker 1: than a single provider. Uh. In my case, I have
Speaker 1: one decent option at least from a data speed, although
Speaker 1: anyone who listens to a show that I, as an
Speaker 1: I do knows that it's reliability is more than a
Speaker 1: little questionable. By the way I asked, I don't know
Speaker 1: if I'll be able to record this week. We'll find out,
Speaker 1: uh the But but seeing actual competition there is really
Speaker 1: encouraging because it suddenly forces these major companies that haven't
Speaker 1: had to worry about that kind of thing for more
Speaker 1: than a decade to really seriously consider it. Especially seeing
Speaker 1: is how ones like Comcast are in the business not
Speaker 1: just of providing Internet service, but are also cable television companies,
Speaker 1: and that business I didn't really think about touching on
Speaker 1: that because it's not it's related to Internet, but it's
Speaker 1: not truly Internet. That business has been really kind of
Speaker 1: teetering on this edge of a precipitous drop for a
Speaker 1: couple of years, and we expect that to happen any
Speaker 1: day now. Really, So seeing that kind of pressure come
Speaker 1: up is encouraging to me because I hope that it
Speaker 1: will ultimately benefit the consumer where you have real options,
Speaker 1: not just options in name only for real good Internet
Speaker 1: access like decent speeds. And it also be nice to
Speaker 1: not see any more data caps. I'm really hoping the
Speaker 1: data caps go away. That was something we touched on
Speaker 1: in our two thousand and eleven episode, and UH turned
Speaker 1: out that that ended up being a real big issue,
Speaker 1: particularly since we're seeing more and more streaming video these
Speaker 1: days at higher qualities than ever before. You're talking about
Speaker 1: things like four K and UM and perhaps even higher
Speaker 1: resolution video moving forward. Uh, data caps are a real problem.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's gonna be something that will persist?
Speaker 1: Do you think companies are going to hold onto data
Speaker 1: caps for as long as they possibly can, or do
Speaker 1: you think that demand and competition will ultimately make data
Speaker 1: caps a thing of the past by the year. There's
Speaker 1: what I want to happen. When I think it's gonna happen. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's let's hear what you want to happen. What I
Speaker 1: want to happen is I would like there to be
Speaker 1: enough bandwidth if there's basically these companies are auctioning off
Speaker 1: or selling to you various speeds. Okay, you can pay
Speaker 1: you know x amount of money for outter ten naka
Speaker 1: bits per second. You can pay why for thirty you
Speaker 1: can pay z for one gig a bit wireless, but
Speaker 1: that's not gonna happen. What's gonna happen is you're going
Speaker 1: to get this giant fire hose of speed, like we're
Speaker 1: gonna give you one gig a bit per sect it,
Speaker 1: but your cap is five gigabytes. You through this now,
Speaker 1: no gigabytes to gigabyte. There's there's obviously a change there,
Speaker 1: but that's the thing that keeps making money. It's actually
Speaker 1: relatively simple to explain to people as well. When it
Speaker 1: comes to caps um, I don't see that being changed unless,
Speaker 1: like we talked about, other companies get into the game
Speaker 1: where there's enough competition, maybe somebody can disrupt that marketing.
Speaker 1: But the way it is now, it seems like the
Speaker 1: old old ideas was unlimited, and we'll have unlimited and
Speaker 1: then people would never let them go. Because of the
Speaker 1: changes that have happened, I think caps are here to stay,
Speaker 1: at least only on the wireless space. On the wired side,
Speaker 1: the home based stuff, I still think if they have
Speaker 1: caps would all to be very very high kind of
Speaker 1: a ludicrous number that's very hard to hit because that's
Speaker 1: how it's sold at home. It's about speed, that's how
Speaker 1: you get home internet. So I still see wireless companies
Speaker 1: just sticking to caps. One particular wired company, I still
Speaker 1: think we'll do caps. You know the company, Yeah, this
Speaker 1: is the same one I was ring too earlier. Yes, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: now I know that company well too. Well, some might say,
Speaker 1: uh yeah, I I really hope that the push from
Speaker 1: Google Fiber will ultimately make the wired data caps a
Speaker 1: thing of the past, as companies have to differentiate themselves
Speaker 1: more in order to win over customers rather than run
Speaker 1: the risk of seeing their customer base deplete into nothing.
Speaker 1: That's my hope. My fear is that this is just
Speaker 1: going to continue to be an issue in and that people,
Speaker 1: even though they'll have the access to much better um
Speaker 1: Internet service, will not be able to take full advantage
Speaker 1: of it because of those things, at least not without
Speaker 1: paying a hefty fee for either the unlimited package, which
Speaker 1: I'm sure some companies will offer, or you know, overage
Speaker 1: fees because you keep going over the amount that you're
Speaker 1: allotted per month, uh, somewhat arbitrarily, if not entirely arbitraily.
Speaker 1: That's the grumpy old man version of this episode. Uh,
Speaker 1: let's talk about something that gets me even more angry,
Speaker 1: net neutrality. So net neutrality, we we've seen a lot
Speaker 1: of progress over the last five years. One of the
Speaker 1: things that that happened that Chris and I didn't really
Speaker 1: predict was the move on an official front to try
Speaker 1: and reframe cable companies are are cable providers internet service
Speaker 1: providers I should say um in a way that would
Speaker 1: allow them to fall under rules that would ensure net
Speaker 1: neutrality would continue. And we've seen a lot of resistance
Speaker 1: of that to that idea over the last couple of years. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the companies are fighting this like crazy. What
Speaker 1: do you think the status of net neutrality will be
Speaker 1: by I think it's gonna be so much for it
Speaker 1: is the way it is now. I think that the
Speaker 1: T Mobile method that we've seen was basically what we're
Speaker 1: going to see by everybody. And what I mean by
Speaker 1: that is there's no prioritization of bits over other ones. However,
Speaker 1: certain bits do not count against caps. It's almost like
Speaker 1: bending a rule like crazy without breaking it. So I
Speaker 1: think that's how we're going to ride this line because
Speaker 1: I know, when it comes to net neutrality in the
Speaker 1: United States, one of the ways that companies can say, hey, listen,
Speaker 1: we can actually prioritize bits is based on network congestion
Speaker 1: or network management. As long as you can come up
Speaker 1: with the reason why you need to do this, a
Speaker 1: legal reason, it'll make sense to do it that way.
Speaker 1: But I'm assuming the tamabile method is actually the future
Speaker 1: of net neutrality. It's not. Again, it's not prioritization. It's
Speaker 1: just not counting something towards a cap. So in other words, uh,
Speaker 1: it's not that you would get faster or more reliable service.
Speaker 1: Let's let's use a fictional approach. So let's say that
Speaker 1: I've got a a a video service. Uh we'll call it,
Speaker 1: I don't know, not Flicks. So I've got not Flicks,
Speaker 1: but I also am Let's say a subscriber to Tim Warner.
Speaker 1: So Tim Warner is my internet service provider, and Tim Warner,
Speaker 1: that guy Tim has got the own his his own
Speaker 1: video service that is competing with not Flicks. And Tim
Speaker 1: Warner's service doesn't count against my data cap, but not
Speaker 1: Flix does. Now, if I were to watch the same
Speaker 1: movie on either service, I would have, at least in theory,
Speaker 1: the exact same experience as a customer, the same same
Speaker 1: bit rate, all of that stuff, uh, no buffering, you know,
Speaker 1: same quality of video. It wouldn't matter. But when it
Speaker 1: came time for me to pay my bill, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: have any danger of going over if I was relying
Speaker 1: on Tim Warner's service, then on not Flix, where I
Speaker 1: might go over because that is still counted against my
Speaker 1: data cap. Am I capturing what you're you're kind of
Speaker 1: proposing here mostly except the concern becomes when Tim Warner
Speaker 1: has its own content with it. With the current example
Speaker 1: I was making, I was talking about the Team Mobile,
Speaker 1: it isn't exactly they have skin in the game when
Speaker 1: it comes to music services or whatever. So when you're
Speaker 1: talking about a an i SP that also has a
Speaker 1: content arm, that's when it gets a little murky. However,
Speaker 1: it's still not prioritization. It's simply not counting data against
Speaker 1: your cap and the cap there's nothing illegal about a cap. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So that's so I think that is something I think
Speaker 1: we will continue to see and also as we keep
Speaker 1: seeing wireless companies or I s p s get into
Speaker 1: the content game and vice versa. This is going to
Speaker 1: get pushed now that we're talking about this, This might
Speaker 1: become the new fight. Can a company that has has
Speaker 1: two different interests do this kind of not prioritization and
Speaker 1: get away with it? Yeah? I mean the easy real
Speaker 1: world example of that is Comcast. I mean, Comcast definitely
Speaker 1: has a vested interest with you know, NBC Universal and
Speaker 1: all this. They have a huge content arm as well
Speaker 1: as internet service provider business, and the two combined. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's very easy to bring up the concern of
Speaker 1: a conflict of interest if you were to prioritize in
Speaker 1: some way, shape or form the native content versus stuff
Speaker 1: that comes from other companies. Uh. I agree. I think
Speaker 1: we're going to see a lot of really messy fights,
Speaker 1: some of which may end up being like big news
Speaker 1: that people like you and I pay a lot of
Speaker 1: attention to and the general public just grumbles about their
Speaker 1: cable bill. Um, that's based upon past experience in my case.
Speaker 1: One about the concept of privacy by one, we're already
Speaker 1: seeing some uh, some struggles out there. We've got so
Speaker 1: many devices out in the hands of people that have cameras.
Speaker 1: They're not only capable of shooting video and recording uh sound,
Speaker 1: as well as just shooting images. They're not only capable
Speaker 1: of uploading that stuff later, they can stream it live
Speaker 1: at this point, and we've had famous examples, recent examples
Speaker 1: of that being used to great effect, uh, sometimes with
Speaker 1: really disturbing consequences, important but disturbing consequences. But this is
Speaker 1: also raising up questions of what will privacy be like?
Speaker 1: What is the expectation of privacy in a world where
Speaker 1: you are surrounded by potentially hundreds of live feed video
Speaker 1: cameras that could broadcast to the entire world. What do
Speaker 1: you think it'll be dead privacy and in five years
Speaker 1: dead dead dead dead dead. Uh. The idea of having
Speaker 1: a reasonable expectation of privacy, when could you possibly imagine
Speaker 1: in a space other than I guess maybe a bathroom,
Speaker 1: where do you have a space where you think you
Speaker 1: have a reasonable expectation that you will not be recorded,
Speaker 1: where you will not be seen by a camera or
Speaker 1: live streamed. At this point, in this modern age, it's
Speaker 1: getting more and more normal. Yeah, there's a chance that
Speaker 1: I could be walking around in a store, in a
Speaker 1: mall or whatever and somebody's live streaming this on Facebook
Speaker 1: Live in five years from now, people don't get way
Speaker 1: more used to this concept. So this idea, I think
Speaker 1: of the legal standard a reasonable expectation of privacy. That
Speaker 1: changes when it comes to reasonability. So when it comes
Speaker 1: to your face showing up on a billboard for you know,
Speaker 1: not Flix as as a user because you were outside
Speaker 1: on a phone and if somebody saw you on your
Speaker 1: phone looking at knot Flix, that might be used. It
Speaker 1: could be in terms of service. Then we can use
Speaker 1: your image if we get you on the street. There's
Speaker 1: all kinds of changes because cameras are everywhere. It used
Speaker 1: to be the fear of oh no big brothers watching me,
Speaker 1: but everybody's watching each other. You can live stream anything
Speaker 1: at any given time. I don't think privacy is going
Speaker 1: to be the same kind of great thing we held sacred,
Speaker 1: you know, years ago. Now it's just gonna then it's
Speaker 1: going to be in the future. This idea that well,
Speaker 1: of course, of course we're live stream This is just
Speaker 1: how it is, you know, that's the way reality is now, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: And it gets even more complicated than that because you
Speaker 1: also have organizations that are pushing back against this encroaching
Speaker 1: world of live video. I'm I'm thinking specifically various police
Speaker 1: forces around the United States in particular. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is something that we've seen in other countries, but you're
Speaker 1: starting to see it in the US where you're seeing
Speaker 1: more of an opposition to the idea of capturing this
Speaker 1: stuff on live video. There was a case in Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: not too long ago in which I believe it was
Speaker 1: a college student who was using his phone to video
Speaker 1: police that were gathered outside of a party, and he
Speaker 1: was detained for that, and there was this whole court case,
Speaker 1: and eventually the court said in their decision that the
Speaker 1: right to video police police officers in a public space.
Speaker 1: I guess maybe it wasn't a public space because it
Speaker 1: might have been in front of a private house party,
Speaker 1: but two video police like that is not protected under
Speaker 1: the First Amendment in the United States unless you are
Speaker 1: specifically using it to provide meaningful commentary or critique of
Speaker 1: the police force. Which seems to be a pretty major
Speaker 1: legal decision in my mind, one that I am sure
Speaker 1: is going to be contested over time. But but seeing
Speaker 1: this kind of uncomfortable reaction where law enforcement groups, not
Speaker 1: not universally but in pockets are opposing to opposing this
Speaker 1: kind of approach tells me that maybe by one will
Speaker 1: have a point where privacy is dead dead dead dead
Speaker 1: dead Mark Zuckerberg style. But it's not gonna be a
Speaker 1: gentle pathway. We're gonna see lots of different reactions, both
Speaker 1: from official agencies and individuals who are going to protest this.
Speaker 1: I think, ultimately, as you say, fruitlessly, because I don't
Speaker 1: think that I don't think you can stop this train now.
Speaker 1: It's it's moving, it's not there's no way to derail it. Uh.
Speaker 1: The question is just how long is it gonna take
Speaker 1: to get to that destination where we've just you know,
Speaker 1: come to the conclusion that that you're essentially always on camera.
Speaker 1: But it'll be great, you know, the future everything that
Speaker 1: people who have like throwback parties, you know, like there's
Speaker 1: nineties parties now, in the future, it'll be like privacy
Speaker 1: parties and there's nobody's got got a phone. You gotta
Speaker 1: chill out, and you can't live stream, and it'll be
Speaker 1: like a thing that people like do kind of like camping.
Speaker 1: They decided we're gonna go off the grid, or we're
Speaker 1: gonna not live stream just for thirty minutes, I know,
Speaker 1: it's crazy, but we're going to be dark. It'll be
Speaker 1: kind of like the the advertising campaign for Las Vegas
Speaker 1: about what what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be kind of like that, like, all right on
Speaker 1: this weekend, we're not broadcasting what's happening, it's you experience
Speaker 1: that when it happens. When it's over, it's over, and
Speaker 1: that's it. Uh. That does appeal to me, even as
Speaker 1: someone who seems to be surgically attached to his phone.
Speaker 1: I very like I go through that level of distress
Speaker 1: if I don't have I realized I don't have my
Speaker 1: phone on me. I go through that panic mode. But
Speaker 1: it does also sound nice to kind of get away
Speaker 1: from that if you're making a conscious effort to do so.
Speaker 1: I don't like it forced upon me. Um. So, what
Speaker 1: about related to privacy? What about cybersecurity? Obviously we've seen
Speaker 1: lots of high profile cybersecurity risks and attacks. We've seen
Speaker 1: a lot of information about various vulnerabilities being exploited. There are,
Speaker 1: of course, major conferences that are dedicated to both uncovering
Speaker 1: and demonstrating the power of exploiting vulnerabilities. I honestly think
Speaker 1: because I've been asking you to answer every one of
Speaker 1: these questions before I do. It's kind of the safety
Speaker 1: net version. I think, Uh, this is just gonna become
Speaker 1: one of the most important issues by and I have
Speaker 1: no doubt that there will be several uh major, major
Speaker 1: stories that involve cybersecurity failures, possibly even a couple of
Speaker 1: catastrophic or a catastrophic I should say catastrophic stories thrown
Speaker 1: in there, and by catastrophic I mean things where either
Speaker 1: it's discovered that there have been uh foreign agencies spying
Speaker 1: on very important material. We've already seen examples of that
Speaker 1: in the past, whether it's in the United States or
Speaker 1: other countries. We're gonna see more of that come to light,
Speaker 1: I think over the next few years, and also just
Speaker 1: other examples of things like corpiate corp corporate espionage or
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's something where one company is acting
Speaker 1: against another government against the company, or um disenchanted former
Speaker 1: employees against the company. I think we're gonna see a
Speaker 1: lot more of this to a point where cybersecurity is
Speaker 1: going to be one of the biggest and most important
Speaker 1: industries by one. What are your thoughts. I think in
Speaker 1: some areas it'll be really important for industry and just
Speaker 1: in general, like when it comes to everyday security. If
Speaker 1: you work at the corporation, you work at a business,
Speaker 1: that kind of thing I just think as a but
Speaker 1: the public consciousness, it will remain as it as it
Speaker 1: has been. We have the whole here. Look at the
Speaker 1: NSA has got everything on everybody at all times, and
Speaker 1: it still didn't cause a shift in behavior. Now there
Speaker 1: might be some new interest in hey, is my phone?
Speaker 1: Is its fingerprint scanner going to be used against me?
Speaker 1: Do I have to be conscious when you use my thumb?
Speaker 1: Or does my pass code? Can I not give a passcode?
Speaker 1: Those kinds of questions do come up for the general public.
Speaker 1: I just think the public consciousness, with the connectivity we
Speaker 1: have now, there's a real ease in just turning off
Speaker 1: your brand and going yeah, I know that happened over there,
Speaker 1: but you know, I really want to check on this
Speaker 1: live stream, I really want to mess with this app,
Speaker 1: I want to do this other thing. So while it
Speaker 1: should be really really important, and while your privacy and
Speaker 1: your protect and being protected in your data being protected,
Speaker 1: it should be important. We see stories all the time
Speaker 1: about breaches and overreaching by agencies and finding out there's
Speaker 1: state sponsored attacks. Yet it's only those who are intrigued
Speaker 1: or interested in security that are already reading the stories,
Speaker 1: kind of feeding itself, not exactly touching hitting a chord
Speaker 1: with the public. I don't know what it would take
Speaker 1: if the n S A stuff didn't do it. I
Speaker 1: don't know what it would take other than aliens showing
Speaker 1: up and think we have docs on you, and it's
Speaker 1: still be more in the aliens and the documents. I
Speaker 1: agree with you in the sense that I think the
Speaker 1: general public will not be more attuned to the risks
Speaker 1: and the the various problems of cybersecurity, and even the
Speaker 1: or the advances and cybersecurity. I also think the general
Speaker 1: population isn't necessarily going to be more um aware and
Speaker 1: alert and and take proactive steps to better protect their
Speaker 1: own systems. Whether that means, you know, something as simple
Speaker 1: as changing the password on your router to uh, making
Speaker 1: certain that you're not using the same passwords for various services,
Speaker 1: all that kind of stuff. Using encryption. I don't think
Speaker 1: that's gonna be a big deal for most people. But
Speaker 1: I do think on the back end of things, on
Speaker 1: the actual cybersecurity industry end of things, that's gonna be
Speaker 1: a huge, huge are of growth by one. Like if
Speaker 1: someone were asking me, like they were interested in technology
Speaker 1: and they were wondering what area would have you know,
Speaker 1: good good growth, good potential, I would say cybersecurity is
Speaker 1: way up there. Uh it's not. I don't think people
Speaker 1: would necessarily consider it glamorous, and a lot of folks
Speaker 1: just don't necessarily understand the importance of it. But based
Speaker 1: upon the things that have happened, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: look at the stuff that's happened over the last five years,
Speaker 1: from stocks net to you've got the Sony hack, which
Speaker 1: was huge news a couple of years ago, Um, the
Speaker 1: Ashley Madison hack where you had uh, you know, essentially
Speaker 1: blackmail rolled into hacking. These are big stories and I
Speaker 1: think that's just going to continue over the next few years,
Speaker 1: which is that's why I feel like it's gonna be
Speaker 1: even bigger by not bigger in the sense that people will,
Speaker 1: like the average person was going to talk about it,
Speaker 1: but bigger in the sense that more and more our
Speaker 1: companies and and government agencies are going to pay a
Speaker 1: lot more attention to that side of things. And the
Speaker 1: other thing is there's a lot of technologies that can
Speaker 1: take care of the cybersecurity end, even if the users
Speaker 1: in paying attention, like biometrics, like you know mention the
Speaker 1: fingerprint scanner, there's the note seven it's got it's new
Speaker 1: Irish scanner. You would think that with that kind of
Speaker 1: technology that might help the public might not care that
Speaker 1: Oh look, I can use a fingerprint or use my
Speaker 1: eyes to unlock something, but that will actually up to
Speaker 1: security in general because you're not using the same one, two, three,
Speaker 1: four five password Because people do that. Yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean there's a reason why a lot of brute force
Speaker 1: attacks can be effective, and that's because a lot of
Speaker 1: people use the same week passwords. Their entire databases just
Speaker 1: filled with millions of common, simple passwords, and that's why
Speaker 1: a lot of those brute force attacks can be can
Speaker 1: be ultimately successful. It's because people are not practicing good
Speaker 1: computer security. So using bio tricks as a means of
Speaker 1: of of improving that is a step in the right direction.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously no system is completely full proof, but um,
Speaker 1: this this is definitely a better step than one two,
Speaker 1: three for five, which is on my luggage. Um, I've
Speaker 1: got a question here that I'm just curious what your
Speaker 1: thoughts are and some again something that we didn't really
Speaker 1: touch on the show. But do you think internet based currencies,
Speaker 1: and I'm specifically thinking of like cryptocurrency like like bitcoin,
Speaker 1: will play a large role in one or do you
Speaker 1: think that that's just something that it's going to be
Speaker 1: popular with a certain segment of the population but never
Speaker 1: really grow beyond that. I'm curious about your thoughts on this.
Speaker 1: I think it's gonna stay niche. I mean, there's nothing
Speaker 1: demanding that we stop using dollars or euro or pounds.
Speaker 1: So the idea of having this cryptocurrency or that you're
Speaker 1: minding something like the like bitcoin particular, where you can
Speaker 1: keep creating them, it takes a long time and it
Speaker 1: figures itself out that Have you done an episode on bitcoin? Yes, okay,
Speaker 1: so listen to that episode to fully explain it, because
Speaker 1: I'm not going to do it justice here. But I
Speaker 1: don't see it being something that would take over even
Speaker 1: though we have this increasing globalization. When it comes to
Speaker 1: the Internet, you can get anything from anywhere, any time
Speaker 1: with any device. That's awesome, but it took a lot
Speaker 1: of time to get that infrastructure in place. If you
Speaker 1: introduced a new currency that's gonna make it work. I
Speaker 1: don't see that becoming a bigger deal. I still seeing
Speaker 1: see it having a minor interest for people who really
Speaker 1: want to get into it, But I don't see it
Speaker 1: growing much larger than that. What do you think. I
Speaker 1: think you're right. I think if there are any if
Speaker 1: we see any major state backed cryptocurrencies, then there's the
Speaker 1: possibility that that could take off. But then you start
Speaker 1: asking the asking questions of why bother going through the
Speaker 1: trouble of creating a cryptocurrency when you could just create
Speaker 1: areas services things like Google Wallet or Apple pay, the
Speaker 1: ideas of like the transaction services. So it has nothing
Speaker 1: to do really with currency other than the fact that
Speaker 1: those are the units with which you know that you
Speaker 1: use to determine how much you're paying for something. But
Speaker 1: it's actually a wealth transfer system, for lack of a
Speaker 1: better phrase. I think that's what we're going to see
Speaker 1: continue to grow. We're going to see those services get
Speaker 1: more popular and used in and implemented in a variety
Speaker 1: of different products, including I mean wearables being a really
Speaker 1: simple example. I can easily imagine a lot of wearables
Speaker 1: having that particular capability built in as part of what
Speaker 1: it does. But I agree with you that the cryptocurrency
Speaker 1: I think will remain the realm of a smaller population.
Speaker 1: And I would also argue that it's those people who
Speaker 1: they purposefully try to maintain that, right. I think that
Speaker 1: those populations don't necessarily want to see a widespread adoption
Speaker 1: of the currency that they like, because, for one thing,
Speaker 1: it allows that currency to be used for stuff that
Speaker 1: they might not want more attention drawn toward, right, like
Speaker 1: some of the more shady or possibly outright illegal things
Speaker 1: that we've seen bitcoin used for, and other cryptocurrencies as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the idea with with bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, it's essentially
Speaker 1: cash online, an untraceable unit that can be passed from
Speaker 1: one person to another without necessarily being caught with this
Speaker 1: kind of paper trail with credit cards, that kind of thing,
Speaker 1: And like you're saying, it should stay I imagine staying
Speaker 1: niche because it's almost in some respects cryptocurrency is a
Speaker 1: solution and looking for a problem. Yeah, you don't really
Speaker 1: need to do this, especially with all of the banking
Speaker 1: structures out there to do a lot of I don't
Speaker 1: want to say legitimate, but other business. You know, you
Speaker 1: want to do regular business. You can do that so
Speaker 1: many different ways. At this point, I remember your way
Speaker 1: back when this is looking is it the wrong way
Speaker 1: of looking at the internet? But people were afraid to
Speaker 1: bank online. But people have gotten very comfortable with it now,
Speaker 1: so maybe a little too comfortable in some cases could
Speaker 1: be Yeah, yeah, I think I think a large part
Speaker 1: of it is your philosophy. If you're if you're like
Speaker 1: a cryptoanarchist, then this type of currency would have a
Speaker 1: very strong appeal, right like, Uh, there, there's I think
Speaker 1: there's an element with not not every but many bitcoin
Speaker 1: enthusiasts that the one of the strongest appeals is that
Speaker 1: it isn't a state backed, centralized unit of currency. Uh,
Speaker 1: it has this other kind of mystique to it that
Speaker 1: doesn't rely upon an authoritative force determining the value of
Speaker 1: that currency. And there's that part of the appeal, and
Speaker 1: I can understand that, But I also understand that that's
Speaker 1: a part of the appeal that really just appeals to
Speaker 1: that small segment of the population. Not everyone shares those
Speaker 1: same values. So I think that that by its nature,
Speaker 1: will continue to limit cryptocurrency to its relatively small population. Well, um,
Speaker 1: here's something that you and I have both worked in
Speaker 1: YouTube videos. YouTube has changed a lot over the last
Speaker 1: several years. Do you think the YouTube of one will
Speaker 1: look remarkably different from the way it looks now? Are
Speaker 1: we going to have thousands of multi channel networks out
Speaker 1: there or will it even be possible for an independent
Speaker 1: artist to upload something and have it see an instance
Speaker 1: any sort of traction whatsoever. I think independent arts will
Speaker 1: still be able to upload things, and things will go
Speaker 1: viral when they do, or they'll be shared if it's good.
Speaker 1: I always think that great content rises to the top
Speaker 1: no matter what. But I was trying to figure out
Speaker 1: what is the role of YouTube? This is separate. Didn't
Speaker 1: even look at any of your notes or questions. I
Speaker 1: was thinking about YouTube in the future. I thought the
Speaker 1: Internet and the future is going to be super fast.
Speaker 1: You're gonna have a lot of video, You're gonna see
Speaker 1: over the top solutions with cable companies, You're gonna have
Speaker 1: a lot of this network television online, and then you
Speaker 1: have YouTube. And I was trying to figure out what
Speaker 1: is it going to be And the closest thing I
Speaker 1: could come up with is I could almost see YouTube
Speaker 1: becoming a network of source. They already have their own channels,
Speaker 1: so it would be its own network with its own channels,
Speaker 1: which is weird. I guess, kind of like HBO or
Speaker 1: HBO has got one, two, three, they've got kids, all
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff. So I could see it going
Speaker 1: that way where it's imagine or over the top service
Speaker 1: that's bundling in YouTube, which should theoretically be free, but
Speaker 1: maybe it's YouTube read a premium version that has the
Speaker 1: premium content available. That's where I really see it going,
Speaker 1: because if television goes online entirely online, television should be
Speaker 1: a part of that. So I would think YouTube somewhat
Speaker 1: becomes a network where even though it's it's still generated
Speaker 1: by a lot of independ it's there are obviously a
Speaker 1: lot of companies putting money into it. Every now and
Speaker 1: then you'll see a surprise hit, kind of like I
Speaker 1: guess if you think about it in the movie structure,
Speaker 1: where you can have a low budget hit happen with movies,
Speaker 1: why not with television. Yeah, I can see that. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a it's a weird thing to think about because
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have really anticipated the multi channel networks coming
Speaker 1: up and multi channel network for those of you who
Speaker 1: aren't familiar. Uh, It's the name pretty much gives it away.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a network of different YouTube channels that
Speaker 1: have banded together to make kind of a unified business.
Speaker 1: So you may have uh, six or seven different channels
Speaker 1: all bundled together under one network where you can easily
Speaker 1: see the different individual channels within that network. Each of
Speaker 1: those individual channels might be very different from one another.
Speaker 1: They may not be thematically linked at all. Uh. It
Speaker 1: could just very well be that they've banded together and
Speaker 1: mostly in an attempt to tap into the same promotional
Speaker 1: power so that one independent creator can take advantage of
Speaker 1: an audience built by another creator. Uh. And obviously ill
Speaker 1: I would argue that the more closely aligned the various
Speaker 1: channels are, at least in tone, if not content, the
Speaker 1: easier it is to migrate some of that audience over
Speaker 1: so that they also adopt the new platforms. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's gonna be as strong a presence in one.
Speaker 1: I almost see this being like another bubble, kind of
Speaker 1: like what I was saying with the app bubbles. I
Speaker 1: think we're gonna see some multi channel networks do just fine,
Speaker 1: they'll stick around, they may even grow, they may incorporate others,
Speaker 1: But I think we're gonna see a lot of them collapse.
Speaker 1: I just don't think the online business is hard. Creating
Speaker 1: online content is not easy. It's not easy to do,
Speaker 1: and it's really not easy to do successfully. Right, Like,
Speaker 1: it's already it's already got a barrier. The technology barrier
Speaker 1: has come way down. But to do high quality content
Speaker 1: is already challenging, and then to have that content be
Speaker 1: discovered is growing increasingly challenging over time. Uh, particularly when
Speaker 1: it comes to video. I mean, we've heard the stats
Speaker 1: about how there it's more than I don't know what
Speaker 1: it's up to now. Last I looked, and this was
Speaker 1: months ago, so I know it's update was something like
Speaker 1: a hundred and eight hours of video or uploaded to
Speaker 1: YouTube every minute. So when you start looking at that volume,
Speaker 1: you realize the chances of being discovered out of that
Speaker 1: massive amount of stuff being put up every single minute
Speaker 1: are are pretty pretty low. It's really really a challenge.
Speaker 1: So I'm curious to see in one if that shakes
Speaker 1: out at all, If either people abandon YouTube, you know,
Speaker 1: people who are spending a lot of time and effort
Speaker 1: to try and get something discovered end up walking away
Speaker 1: from it if they don't meet with any success or
Speaker 1: if it will just be even crazier than it is now,
Speaker 1: and I on se don't know, I can see it
Speaker 1: go either way. You just spark my imagination here because
Speaker 1: I was thinking the way Google has invested in deep
Speaker 1: machine learning, the way Facebook has done the same thing.
Speaker 1: This idea that you just said, you know, hundreds of
Speaker 1: hours of being uploaded like every minute, the the idea
Speaker 1: that there's all of this content and discover ability is
Speaker 1: really low. That's where all this deep machine learning makes
Speaker 1: a lot of sense on the back end. So if
Speaker 1: you're done watching a YouTube video on whatever, you're watching
Speaker 1: it on the future, it will actually recommend something similar
Speaker 1: or something maybe in style, maybe in comedy, maybe just
Speaker 1: an appearance, maybe something like that, because the analysis of
Speaker 1: the content should be greater at that point where this
Speaker 1: is actually a good problem to have. Having too much
Speaker 1: content to go through is actually awesome. From I would
Speaker 1: think any viewers like what do I pick? I could
Speaker 1: pick anything that that it does become very paralyzing in
Speaker 1: the fact you don't know what to pick. But if
Speaker 1: these algorithms get better. If deep machine learning has figured out,
Speaker 1: how what are the parts and components of this thing
Speaker 1: that you enjoyed, we can give you another one. I
Speaker 1: think that maybe that's the future of YouTube networks that
Speaker 1: they have built at these these playlists essentially for you
Speaker 1: and your interests based on your interests, because as fast
Speaker 1: as the internet will get in five years, and whether
Speaker 1: you have net neutrality being a problem or not, and
Speaker 1: all these other problem concerns when you're trying to consume it,
Speaker 1: if you can't find anything, it's a problem. I really
Speaker 1: think when that happens, we'll see an improvement on this
Speaker 1: deep machine learning where you will get content that makes
Speaker 1: sense for you at that time. Yeah, curation is a
Speaker 1: huge problem, right, like a like a challenge curation curating
Speaker 1: huge amounts of or going through an enormous amount of
Speaker 1: information in order to curate it and get the stuff
Speaker 1: that's most relevant to you. This is one of the
Speaker 1: biggest challenges that come with big data. Uh, the idea
Speaker 1: that yeah, you've got tons of information out there, and
Speaker 1: a lot of it is potentially useful in many different ways,
Speaker 1: but how do you actually sort through all of that
Speaker 1: to get the best out of what you have, same
Speaker 1: sort of thing here that we're talking about, trying to
Speaker 1: find the videos that are most going to resonate with you,
Speaker 1: whether it's from an entertainment perspective or being thought provoking,
Speaker 1: whatever it might be. It also reminds me a lot
Speaker 1: of a patent Oswald routine where he talks about his
Speaker 1: TiVo going crazy because he he used his tvo to
Speaker 1: record a Western and then his TiVo went nuts and
Speaker 1: started recording all the different programs that have horses in them.
Speaker 1: Uh because because it came to the conclusion that he
Speaker 1: must really like horses, and just shows you that machine
Speaker 1: learning there is a process. It's not always perfect right
Speaker 1: out of the gate. Uh So, a couple of other
Speaker 1: things I wanted to ask before we conclude this episode.
Speaker 1: This kind of ties into again something that we're both
Speaker 1: concerned with as as content creators on the Internet. What
Speaker 1: do you think the monetization of the Internet is going
Speaker 1: to look like? In five years? We've been seeing web
Speaker 1: advertising as the primary way for at least large companies
Speaker 1: to earn money off of creating content for the Internet,
Speaker 1: but we've also seen a lot of different reactions to
Speaker 1: web advertising from the rise of ad blockers to UH
Speaker 1: discussions about what are the best practices. Do you think
Speaker 1: web advertising is going to remain the way that that
Speaker 1: large UH intent content creators are going to go. Do
Speaker 1: you think other methods like the Patreon method, like a
Speaker 1: subscriber method are going to actually grow over the years
Speaker 1: or is there going to be something else? Like how
Speaker 1: are we going to make sure that we can pay
Speaker 1: for stuff so that people keep making the stuff we like?
Speaker 1: And this is this one is a really hard question
Speaker 1: because for years people have been conditioned that you can
Speaker 1: get content online for free, and then it's because there
Speaker 1: were ads on there, and then after that it's like,
Speaker 1: wait a second, we don't need to see ads because
Speaker 1: we can use ad block And then you realize, wait
Speaker 1: a second, this company isn't get money, but I like
Speaker 1: this this company. Can I just white list them? Should
Speaker 1: I do that? Or do I go to another site
Speaker 1: that reblogs it or not? So in the future, I'm
Speaker 1: expecting advertising isn't going anywhere the old style, you know, adds,
Speaker 1: the actual banner ads takeovers that kind of stuff that's
Speaker 1: gonna be there no matter what. I'd imagine you'd see
Speaker 1: much more sponsored content, uh content that's somewhat harder for
Speaker 1: ad blockers to find as ads. I know Facebook's doing
Speaker 1: a push with that right now where they're trying to
Speaker 1: fight ad block plus trying to make sure that they
Speaker 1: have as much ads that they can on their sites. Also,
Speaker 1: like we were talking about with mobile apps, that's an
Speaker 1: area where you can have a siloed application that an
Speaker 1: ad blocker wouldn't work on in theory, so you might
Speaker 1: see it that way, I would hope, and I'm actually
Speaker 1: I hope. I actually think of a throwback concept of
Speaker 1: micro transactions where you are paying a couple of sense
Speaker 1: instead of having a subscription. But I see this this
Speaker 1: being the model for contents in the future. With advertising.
Speaker 1: You'll have your standard advertising, you also have your Patreon
Speaker 1: method of basically paying per month what you want. I
Speaker 1: could see a subscription thing on top of that and
Speaker 1: micro payments, in other words, allowing any single way to
Speaker 1: break the paywall with this either turn off your ad blocker,
Speaker 1: or pay us two cents for this, or give us
Speaker 1: a subscription for the year. I just see a lot
Speaker 1: of companies being very, very open to how their content
Speaker 1: is going to be received and not just sticking forever
Speaker 1: to this. You must look at our Betterer ad and
Speaker 1: here is a nice little other ad that says you
Speaker 1: can't read this until you pay more money. Paywalls that
Speaker 1: work for other bigger companies out there. I don't think
Speaker 1: that they should be as high for smaller places. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I agree with you. I think uh. I think we're
Speaker 1: gonna see the Patreon method get adopted by more and
Speaker 1: more smaller content creators. UM, particularly those that are working
Speaker 1: on this as a passion project as opposed to it
Speaker 1: being like a a a business business. This right like
Speaker 1: it's they want to make money off of it, but
Speaker 1: they also are in it because this is something they
Speaker 1: truly want to do. UM. I see a lot of
Speaker 1: more people going down that route. UM. I agree that
Speaker 1: we're going to see a lot of companies say, look,
Speaker 1: here are all the different ways that you can support us.
Speaker 1: Pick whichever way works best for you, and then we
Speaker 1: will continue creating the stuff you like. I think that
Speaker 1: is probably the I think it's gonna take us a
Speaker 1: while to get there, but I think this is the
Speaker 1: best approach again, to just give those options to the consumer.
Speaker 1: And I agree with you that we have conditioned people
Speaker 1: to think that stuff on the Internet is free. Somehow
Speaker 1: like it it We just magically create it, and somehow
Speaker 1: we're also able to pay rent and buy food, uh,
Speaker 1: and that it's all wonderful and we will continue to
Speaker 1: do so in perpetuity and we're never going to get
Speaker 1: evicted or star to death. That's not the way the
Speaker 1: world works, unfortunately. So I think we're definitely gonna see
Speaker 1: a lot more sponsored content. We're gonna see some branded
Speaker 1: content stuff that uh, you know, We're gonna see some
Speaker 1: growing pains with people experimenting with how do I create
Speaker 1: something that serves the brand that's sponsoring me, but also
Speaker 1: is of genuine value to the people listening, so it
Speaker 1: doesn't end up becoming a very long commercial that people
Speaker 1: feel like they're fooled into consuming because they hate that.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you know that. I asked, people
Speaker 1: hate being tricked into watching a commercial? What's that? I
Speaker 1: couldn't hear you over, my beautiful citizen. What I just kidding?
Speaker 1: Right right? I was thinking a while ago, we lived
Speaker 1: in a world where paying for music online sounded like
Speaker 1: the craziest thing. You could get it as much as
Speaker 1: you want, you could find it anywhere. But if the
Speaker 1: cost gets low enough then people you saw that people
Speaker 1: change their methods to pay per song. Now the subcription
Speaker 1: services are completely the way to go. So I think
Speaker 1: if the if the business side figures it out and goes, look,
Speaker 1: we can't keep it going the way it is now.
Speaker 1: It's just not not sustainable. There's a chance that people
Speaker 1: will relearn this and then go, yes, I wouldn't. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't take this. And I really hate saying this, but
Speaker 1: I wouldn't just swipe a newspaper right, And there's content
Speaker 1: there and there's nothing wrong with charging for content that
Speaker 1: you make. And I'm just saying this as a content producer.
Speaker 1: I say this as a content consumer that I do
Speaker 1: pay for this stuff I want to see Otherwise, how
Speaker 1: will people know you basically vote with your dollars? Is
Speaker 1: my idea on that, which is like people's idea, But
Speaker 1: it's it's going to take some time. It does. There's
Speaker 1: just such inertia to not change anything. Yeah, but well,
Speaker 1: I mean you've got you've got billions of dollars wrapped
Speaker 1: up in an industry that is not known to be
Speaker 1: fast to react to changes. And I'm talking about the
Speaker 1: marketing industry in general, advertising industry um which has it's
Speaker 1: it's it's linked to pretty much everything we're talking about
Speaker 1: in this little little discussion. Uh And and yeah, you
Speaker 1: can't expect it to change very quickly. And yet the
Speaker 1: the wants of the customers are changing, and and that
Speaker 1: what they are willing to do changes and you have
Speaker 1: to react to that. I think, uh you really hit
Speaker 1: on it. The idea that if you're if the price
Speaker 1: is right and if it's easy enough to get, like
Speaker 1: I think you have to have both of those things.
Speaker 1: You have to have the right price, and you have
Speaker 1: to make it really really easy for people to buy
Speaker 1: your stuff. Uh. DRM was a huge problem that I
Speaker 1: think ended up being a big negative for a lot
Speaker 1: of people, for lots of different stuff, not just music,
Speaker 1: but you know, various software packages, that kind of thing
Speaker 1: that as you make it more difficult for people to
Speaker 1: buy a legitimate copy of your product, they're going to
Speaker 1: go further to get illegitimate copies because they don't have
Speaker 1: to deal with all the mess that comes along with
Speaker 1: trying to buy something legally. Uh So, making making it
Speaker 1: is easy to get and at the right price, I
Speaker 1: think Urondo something like I think there I think there
Speaker 1: might be money in that um, and people are willing
Speaker 1: to support the stuff that they love if they feel
Speaker 1: like the value they get back is of of equal
Speaker 1: amount to what they're putting into it. You can't just
Speaker 1: ask people to pay for junk and expect it to
Speaker 1: go on forever. Um. I mean, it might work for
Speaker 1: the short term, but it's not really a long term strategy.
Speaker 1: You know. I have a lot of other questions that
Speaker 1: we wrote down, but this episode is going pretty long,
Speaker 1: so I just think of gonna uh to to kind
Speaker 1: of end on one big question, which is about accessibility.
Speaker 1: We've seen accessibility of the Internet improve quite a bit
Speaker 1: over the last five years, but we still have a
Speaker 1: long way to go. More than half of the world's
Speaker 1: population does not really have access to the Internet, so
Speaker 1: there are billions of people who do not have at
Speaker 1: least easy access to the Internet. Some of them might
Speaker 1: be able to get access with a great deal of effort,
Speaker 1: but you know, the more effort you have to spend,
Speaker 1: the smaller the returns are on actually getting that access.
Speaker 1: But we're seeing a lot of projects trying to change that.
Speaker 1: So things like Google having a project Loon, and Facebook
Speaker 1: having its proposed satellite and drone program to supply uh
Speaker 1: Internet to lots of different parts of the world. Both
Speaker 1: of these companies have a vested interest in people getting
Speaker 1: access to the Internet. It's not like it's purely altruistic.
Speaker 1: But do you think that we're going to see near
Speaker 1: universal access to the Internet. Eric Schmidt of Google fame
Speaker 1: said back in two thousand and thirteen he thought by
Speaker 1: everyone would have access. Do you think that's a little
Speaker 1: Do you think it's realistic or is that a little ambitious?
Speaker 1: I think it's both. And considering how Google it is
Speaker 1: a company in Facebook, and as you mentioned, they're vested
Speaker 1: interesting being relatively strong on this, I'm gonna boldly say
Speaker 1: by there's going to be universal accents whether it's the
Speaker 1: thing is about receiving it, so you can have the
Speaker 1: earth covered an Internet via balloon or satellite wherever you
Speaker 1: want to use. The fact that hardware has gotten so cheap,
Speaker 1: like Android one phones, we're seeing stories about five dollar
Speaker 1: cell phones. It wasn't so long ago that I was
Speaker 1: excited reading about the one laptop per child projects, which
Speaker 1: at this point seems kind of not antiquated but kind
Speaker 1: of silly because how you, yeah, you can get so
Speaker 1: much more power now with phones and low end phones
Speaker 1: these days, like oh well this is this is a
Speaker 1: piece of junk phone. I wouldn't buy this, But they
Speaker 1: have gotten so cheap and so available to so many
Speaker 1: different areas that it's the other half of the equation.
Speaker 1: Just having wireless and some kind of access to it
Speaker 1: is one thing, but having the hardware out there, I
Speaker 1: think that is going to get there by Maybe I
Speaker 1: could see that happening where these devices are so cheap
Speaker 1: that it's just something you have. You should have this.
Speaker 1: At this point, it's almost like a hand or this
Speaker 1: could be talking about because it's like a hand you
Speaker 1: want to make sure you have this device with you
Speaker 1: at all times, or Swiss army knife. You have to
Speaker 1: have it. And with Google and Facebook consistently going ahead now,
Speaker 1: I don't see Google and Facebook being like all the
Speaker 1: Vista and my Space. They seem to have enough power
Speaker 1: behind them that they can keep going for a good
Speaker 1: another five years. You would say they're too big to fail. No,
Speaker 1: that's not what I'm saying. I think I think they're
Speaker 1: they're motivated enough, and they are. There's another There's that
Speaker 1: company we talked about, Comcast, that's a rag on that much.
Speaker 1: Their method of change isn't what I see from Google
Speaker 1: or Facebook. Those two companies work to get more and
Speaker 1: more coverage and they're going for bigger goals than just
Speaker 1: the short term shareholder uh numbers. Right, Because with Comcast,
Speaker 1: what what their strategy was, and this isn't a secret.
Speaker 1: I mean I covered this in in a deep episode
Speaker 1: series about how Comcast works. The Comcast story. The way
Speaker 1: that they're company traditionally would grow is they would go
Speaker 1: out and buy other companies. They weren't creating new markets.
Speaker 1: They were purchasing the companies that were serving markets they
Speaker 1: weren't in yet. So that's a very different strategy, as
Speaker 1: you point out, right, because once you get to a
Speaker 1: point where you bought up pretty much everyone you can
Speaker 1: buy without facing massive resistance on a on a regulatory side,
Speaker 1: you can't you can't grow anymore. You have to create,
Speaker 1: you can't just buy other stuff. And really the Comcast
Speaker 1: history was pretty much uh just stuck in that mentality
Speaker 1: of buy other companies that are already doing what we do,
Speaker 1: and now we that those customers become our customers. That's
Speaker 1: how you grow your customer base. This is a very
Speaker 1: different approach. I I love the idea of everyone having
Speaker 1: access by one. I mean, the implications of that are
Speaker 1: so far beyond just having the ability to finally access
Speaker 1: the Internet. We've seen the Internet play a an incredibly
Speaker 1: important part in massive historical moments throughout the last five years.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Arab spring alone was such a huge story,
Speaker 1: and I imagine that we'll see more stories like that,
Speaker 1: particularly as access to the Internet becomes closer to being universal,
Speaker 1: and I find that encouraging. I think there's going to
Speaker 1: be a lot of tumultuous problems along the way, but
Speaker 1: I find that when you get this level of communication,
Speaker 1: this incredibly powerful tool in people's hands, then amazing things
Speaker 1: can happen. Uh not all of them involving videos of
Speaker 1: cute cats. That's just a bonus. But that's my own
Speaker 1: personal kind of optimistic view. Um. I as, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining the show today and and sticking
Speaker 1: your neck out to look out and say, what's it
Speaker 1: gonna be like in five years. I look forward in
Speaker 1: to calling you up and going over these results wherever
Speaker 1: I wherever I'll be, I'll have access to the Internet.
Speaker 1: So it will be a problem, that's true. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: won't matter like if you're taking a vacation in Antarctica,
Speaker 1: I know that I'll be able to have you chat,
Speaker 1: maybe have a couple of penguins in the background, and
Speaker 1: we'll have a Hopefully my connection doesn't freeze. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: that's great. That's great. Leave the puns to me, chuckle heads,
Speaker 1: all right, Yes, please tell people where they can find
Speaker 1: your work, you guys, go to see net dot com.
Speaker 1: We've got lots of great news how to use reviews.
Speaker 1: You can also check out top five dot net dot com.
Speaker 1: If I want to promote top five, which I do,
Speaker 1: count down a fun see netlist every week at top
Speaker 1: five dots net dot com. And if you want to
Speaker 1: hear I as talk about stuff with me uh and
Speaker 1: uh in a format that's not safe for work, you
Speaker 1: can always check out our podcast Without Pretense with Eric
Speaker 1: sandean Our, our our third host. Um. But it is
Speaker 1: not It is not not a polite show at all.
Speaker 1: But but it does exist. It is a thing that happens. Uh. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we we named it this year in two thousand and sixteen,
Speaker 1: we named it the best podcast for two thousand fourteen.
Speaker 1: So that tells you all you need to know about
Speaker 1: that show. Alright, so, guys, if you have any questions, comments,
Speaker 1: suggestions for future episodes, please get in touch with me.
Speaker 1: The email address is tech stuff at how stuff works
Speaker 1: dot com, or drop me a line on Facebook or Twitter.
Speaker 1: The handle at both of those locations is tech stuff
Speaker 1: H s W and I'll talk to you again really soon.
Speaker 1: For more on this and bothands of other topics is
Speaker 1: how stuff works dot com w w W