Speaker 1: With technology with text stuff from Hey there and welcome
Speaker 1: to text stuff. I'm Jonathan Strickland and joining me today
Speaker 1: in the hot seat, I as actar from c NE NET,
Speaker 1: I as my good friend, how are you? I'm good
Speaker 1: to see that I'm in is not too hot yet.
Speaker 1: Maybe by the end it might be because it might
Speaker 1: be panicking. Yeah, we're um, We're going to do the
Speaker 1: episode I look forward to all year long, which is
Speaker 1: the episode where I stick my neck out and usually
Speaker 1: have a guest also sticking his or her neck out
Speaker 1: to make predictions about what will happen in the following
Speaker 1: twelve months. And we're recording this episode on December two
Speaker 1: thousand fifteen, although it's airing in January two thousand and sixteen.
Speaker 1: So I just want to throw the regular caveat out there.
Speaker 1: Some of the stuff we predict might already be the
Speaker 1: path by the time you hear it. Yeah, if some
Speaker 1: of these things come true, we can just say we
Speaker 1: knew it. We knew this was going to happen, and
Speaker 1: we didn't have any insider information whatsoever. These are guesses. Yeah, yeah, Now,
Speaker 1: these are all wild stabs in the dark. And I
Speaker 1: also told I as this before we started recording, I
Speaker 1: decided that I'm going to make bigger predictions than I
Speaker 1: have in the past, because, for one, uh, playing it
Speaker 1: safe hasn't helped me. I I do not have a
Speaker 1: great record. If you're gonna go go big, that's right,
Speaker 1: we go bigger, go home, right? And I can't go home.
Speaker 1: They won't let me, so I have to go big.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna talk about some predictions and then maybe,
Speaker 1: you know, question those predictions, justify them, maybe even change
Speaker 1: our minds based upon the conversation we have. And I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go first. And my first prediction is probably if
Speaker 1: it's in, might not be the craziest one I have.
Speaker 1: It might be the second craziest one I have. But
Speaker 1: my prediction is that in Microsoft will buy Yahoo's core business. Now,
Speaker 1: for people who have been paying attention to the news,
Speaker 1: you've heard the rumors that the board of directors have
Speaker 1: been thinking of selling off yah Who's core business, which
Speaker 1: hasn't really been profitable and quite some time, and holding
Speaker 1: on to its stake in ali Baba instead of being
Speaker 1: this kind of content slash search engine thing that Yahoo
Speaker 1: has blossomed into or exploded into. However, you want to
Speaker 1: think about it. So they're talking about the possibility of
Speaker 1: selling off that core business. But who would be in
Speaker 1: the market for that. It can't be Google, or at
Speaker 1: least I don't think it could be because Google already
Speaker 1: has such a dominant hold in search. I don't think
Speaker 1: anyone would allow that to happen. It would become a
Speaker 1: more more of a monopoly than it already is. So
Speaker 1: could it possible possibly be Microsoft? I mean, Microsoft and
Speaker 1: Yahoo have teamed up in the past. Being was the
Speaker 1: search engine powering Yah who searched for a while. It's
Speaker 1: not like they had the best relationship ever, but I
Speaker 1: could see that being a possibility Now, I asked, what
Speaker 1: about you? Do you think I'm completely off base here?
Speaker 1: Do you think there's some other entity that's way more likely? Uh?
Speaker 1: Or is it just that Microsoft would never even touch
Speaker 1: Yahoo with a tin foot poll? You know? I think
Speaker 1: I think Microsoft might be the wrong suitor for this
Speaker 1: because they do have Bing and Bing this year actually
Speaker 1: made revenue and so it's being a loser like it's
Speaker 1: been for years. It actually did something good and being
Speaker 1: is so we're baked into Windows ten that I don't
Speaker 1: think they need to muck with that too much. Also, yeah,
Speaker 1: who's got a lot of email kind of situations. They've
Speaker 1: got Tumbler, they've got Flicker, and Microsoft has a lot
Speaker 1: of those things already. So to buy those core assets,
Speaker 1: I think it would be duplicative. I'm thinking who might
Speaker 1: be a better suitor. It might be somebody like maybe
Speaker 1: a wireless carrier, Maybe somebody like Apple if they wanted
Speaker 1: to have a better search when it comes to their
Speaker 1: own internal search because they have such a beef with
Speaker 1: Google right now stale, even though it's a lot better
Speaker 1: than it used to be. But maybe even a like
Speaker 1: a video company who needs a better search and content
Speaker 1: farm because between Tumbler between maybe even this is gonna
Speaker 1: sound nuts. I wasn't even thinking about this before we
Speaker 1: started the show. But maybe even Facebook because they could
Speaker 1: use a better search algorithm in general when it comes
Speaker 1: to mining all of the data they have, if they
Speaker 1: could use Tumbler as an as an option, if they could,
Speaker 1: you have Flicker, If they have this infrastructure that everybody exists,
Speaker 1: why not tack it on. That's those are great points.
Speaker 1: I mean, you make a very strong case for for
Speaker 1: other very realistic entities that could come into play here,
Speaker 1: and purchase up those those that core business if in fact, yeah,
Speaker 1: who does sell it. As of the time we're recording this,
Speaker 1: that has not actually happened yet, but could it could have.
Speaker 1: At least the ball could be rolling by the time
Speaker 1: this episode goes live. Uh. Those those are excellent points.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna stick by my Microsoft prediction because that way,
Speaker 1: when it becomes true and I review this episode. Uh
Speaker 1: and at the end of twenty sixteen, I'm going to
Speaker 1: sound like a genius. Well, the other thing is, yeah,
Speaker 1: who's board mentioned that this whole potential plan with a
Speaker 1: spin off, yah, whose core business? It could take up
Speaker 1: to a year to make that happen, So maybe even
Speaker 1: more so if it does happen, let's say January, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna give you that one. Okay, that's fair. Yeah, that's nice.
Speaker 1: That's very very a generous of you to allow me
Speaker 1: an extra month, particular least it's we're recording this one
Speaker 1: a month early exactly. Maybe we should be doing this
Speaker 1: in like a fiscal years and might maybe even tell
Speaker 1: April who knows, because there's no rules unless we make
Speaker 1: the rules right now, that's true. Uh, Well, I will
Speaker 1: say this that that if an entity purchases Yahoo's core
Speaker 1: businesses before the end of that entity will most definitely
Speaker 1: be Microsoft that way. That way, I've planted my flag.
Speaker 1: And if it's not, and it's one of the other
Speaker 1: entities that I has mentioned, that's gonna be great content
Speaker 1: for my wrap up show at the end of the year.
Speaker 1: All right, so what is your first prediction? Okay, unlike you,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna start off small but a little crazy. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go three D printers are gonna become way more
Speaker 1: mainstream next year. And this is tied into this big
Speaker 1: push that I've seen in camera technology. Intel has this
Speaker 1: real sense camera and what it allows people to do
Speaker 1: is or allows computers to do, is to sense things
Speaker 1: in three D space, and like, well, people are like,
Speaker 1: what's the use of that? Why would you care about
Speaker 1: being able to see three D space with I don't know,
Speaker 1: your cell phone camera or the camera in your laptop.
Speaker 1: So you can literally hold up an object and it's
Speaker 1: almost acting like a three D scanner, and so why
Speaker 1: would you ever need any of this stuff for three
Speaker 1: D printing? That's what I'm saying. And a company like Amazon,
Speaker 1: so this is all very very three D printing. Amazon
Speaker 1: could introduce its own three D printer that they would
Speaker 1: sell to you at a discount, so then you could
Speaker 1: buy schematics from them and print out stuff right at
Speaker 1: your home like Amazon Prime Instant, so faster than a
Speaker 1: two hour delivery window, although it might take out a
Speaker 1: couple of hours to print out something large because three
Speaker 1: D printers aren't super fast. Do you think three D
Speaker 1: printers in the home would be mainstream next year? No? Um,
Speaker 1: let me let me justify that instead of just saying
Speaker 1: no and then moving on my next prediction. No. Uh.
Speaker 1: The reason why I say no, it's it's not because
Speaker 1: I don't see the potential there. I absolutely do see
Speaker 1: the potential. I've also had experience with three D printers,
Speaker 1: like we have one in the office. I have worked
Speaker 1: with it. These are finnicky machines and you have to
Speaker 1: have all the things working just right for it. You know,
Speaker 1: you have to have the heating plate at the right
Speaker 1: temperature so that the plastic adheres to it but doesn't melt.
Speaker 1: You have to have the extruder at the right temperature
Speaker 1: so that it the plastic flows at the proper viscosity.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of different things that it's it's
Speaker 1: not as user friendly as your basic plug in play
Speaker 1: printer is. There's a lot more variety going on there
Speaker 1: that that you have to pay really close attention to
Speaker 1: if you want to get the results you hope for.
Speaker 1: So my prediction would be my counter proposal to your
Speaker 1: prediction would be, We'll see a lot more three D
Speaker 1: printing houses where you would send a three D printing
Speaker 1: job to one of these houses, where there are people
Speaker 1: who have worked with the stuff and specialize with it,
Speaker 1: and the prices are gonna come down because the actual
Speaker 1: equipment prices the three D printers themselves, those prices will
Speaker 1: come down, So it won't be incredibly expensive for you
Speaker 1: to send a three D print job to a local
Speaker 1: UH group. It might not even be like a big company.
Speaker 1: It might be a small group of of students who
Speaker 1: are who go to a local technology school for example.
Speaker 1: I'm using very specific examples because that's happening here in Atlanta.
Speaker 1: We've got a whole bunch of UH student run businesses
Speaker 1: that are using three D printers, and the students are
Speaker 1: all affiliated with Georgia Tech. And so I have actually
Speaker 1: used one of these services just this past year. I
Speaker 1: had a special mask printed for a cosplay outfit and
Speaker 1: h and so it was a three D printed mask,
Speaker 1: and and it was it was great. But I don't
Speaker 1: see that slipping into the consumer market. I think there's
Speaker 1: going to be more of a prosumer market, more so
Speaker 1: than there is now. I think it's gonna be bigger
Speaker 1: than it has been, But I don't think it's going
Speaker 1: to get to the point where your average Joe is
Speaker 1: going to go out there and buy a three D
Speaker 1: printer and be satisfied with the way it works, to
Speaker 1: the point where we're gonna see this kind of marketplace
Speaker 1: spring up on the level that you are suggesting. Okay,
Speaker 1: you're making some really good arguments, and I'm gonna hearken
Speaker 1: back to my weasel language. It will become more mainstream.
Speaker 1: You're you're totally right by the way. Three D printers
Speaker 1: are finicky, finicky machines right now. It's not plug and
Speaker 1: play like an ink jet, which has you pulling out
Speaker 1: your hair for different reasons. But when it comes to
Speaker 1: this kind of three D printing world, I agree with
Speaker 1: you with the idea of three D printing houses. I
Speaker 1: believe Staples has some services where you can do this.
Speaker 1: I'm sure those will be the faster, more ornate, or
Speaker 1: better quality stuff you can get. But I think I
Speaker 1: still think the next year we're gonna have not the
Speaker 1: dot matrix style printers where we're like, this is kind
Speaker 1: of chanky, it doesn't really work, but it's the beginning days.
Speaker 1: We already had the beginning days of these three D
Speaker 1: printers being low cost. I think we're going to have
Speaker 1: more consumer friendly versions. Now they might be for prosumers,
Speaker 1: they might be a little bit expensive, but inc it's
Speaker 1: finally going to make its break because it's had years
Speaker 1: to actually mature and it's still isn't dead, And I
Speaker 1: think the idea of people could have Wait a second,
Speaker 1: I can print a case from my phone, or I
Speaker 1: can add different a lego piece that's missing. I think
Speaker 1: these ideas are becoming more mainstream, so that might drive
Speaker 1: a demand. But as it's more mainstream, not like it's
Speaker 1: gonna be like the laser printer you have, So you
Speaker 1: could you could argue the market will double, but the
Speaker 1: markets like five thousand units units, that's not the big
Speaker 1: a deal. If these statistics continue, disco will be the best.
Speaker 1: It will be the only music of past I know.
Speaker 1: But Anyway, we're on another We're on another show where
Speaker 1: we constantly are striving to be the best podcast of
Speaker 1: two thousand fourteen. So we're all about living in the past.
Speaker 1: We'll get there. Yeah, yep, one of these days. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: that's that's that's interesting. With that caveat, I can I
Speaker 1: can lean more towards supporting your your prediction because uh,
Speaker 1: it definitely creates more perspective on what you were getting
Speaker 1: at um and I agreed as Weasley. So my next
Speaker 1: one is probably the safest of my predictions, which is
Speaker 1: that Apple is going to start offering up more products that,
Speaker 1: at least on first glance, are going to seem further
Speaker 1: removed from the vision of Steve Jobs. So an example
Speaker 1: of this in our and in this past year was
Speaker 1: the iPad pro and the the pencil peripheral, which is
Speaker 1: essentially a stylus, which Steve Jobs famously dismissed upon the
Speaker 1: uh the introduction of the iPad, He essentially said, who
Speaker 1: wants to deal with the stylus and had had pretty
Speaker 1: much all but completely dismissed the notion entirely. And now
Speaker 1: Apple has one. And whenever this happens, people point out
Speaker 1: you know, that's not really what Steve Jobs said, or
Speaker 1: that's not how Steve Jobs would do it. Mine argument
Speaker 1: is that this year we're going to see more things
Speaker 1: that are truly a step away from what Steve Jobs
Speaker 1: quote unquote would have done. Uh. And that's not a
Speaker 1: bad thing, because I don't think a company can continually
Speaker 1: hold itself accountable to the ideals of someone who is
Speaker 1: no longer around m hm. So I will be one
Speaker 1: of those finicky people because here's here's what I remember.
Speaker 1: The introduction of this this whole stylist nonsense with Apple
Speaker 1: and Steve Jobs in particular, he said that if you
Speaker 1: had a stylus, basically, then they're doing it wrong, and
Speaker 1: not that it was. At the time, the stylist was
Speaker 1: a requirement of smartphones and you shouldn't need this stylus
Speaker 1: at this point is an accessory. It's a theoretic. It's
Speaker 1: not against it. But there are a lot of design
Speaker 1: choices these days that if people going Steve wouldn't approve
Speaker 1: that look because that looks like some kind of horrible compromise. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: like they like we In my notes, I mentioned the
Speaker 1: I Hump battery case, which you came across a different
Speaker 1: name for that, right, Yeah, b gr Boy Jeans Report
Speaker 1: had the nickname Hunchback of Cupertino, which I found quite
Speaker 1: creative and it's quite accurate for the design of the
Speaker 1: Apple Smart battery case cover, whatever the heck it's called. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and that's if you haven't seen it. It creates this
Speaker 1: bulge that sticks out the back of the case, and
Speaker 1: so it really destroys the profile of the iPhone, and
Speaker 1: I have a feeling that that would have been something
Speaker 1: that would have stuck in Steve Jobs's craw so to speak,
Speaker 1: destroys or makes you appreciate the slim profile without better
Speaker 1: I don't think. Sorry, I'm just my devil's advocate there.
Speaker 1: I agree with you. I think the styling on this
Speaker 1: un certain objects are not exactly as beautiful. That could
Speaker 1: be actually an issue for the eye who's in charge
Speaker 1: of software and hardware at this point. So maybe he
Speaker 1: stretched a little thin. That could be an actual structural
Speaker 1: issue with an Apple. But that's a whole other thing.
Speaker 1: And as we're talking, there's a whole I believe a
Speaker 1: restructuring of Apple and new CEO, a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: things going on. Yeah, I think I think the real
Speaker 1: thing is that Steve Jobs is not walking around Apple
Speaker 1: headquarters inspiring terror and all of his employees, Like when
Speaker 1: you think I could get fired on any given day.
Speaker 1: It creates a different environment. It might stop certain designs
Speaker 1: from maybe getting past the drawing board, like no, this
Speaker 1: isn't gonna work, versus going, okay, wait a second, we
Speaker 1: do have these batteries that are shaped a certain way.
Speaker 1: Maybe we can repurpose them and get a good mark up.
Speaker 1: Because in the world of business, accessories make usually there's
Speaker 1: a higher profit margin on accessories versus the actual hardware,
Speaker 1: although Apple's famous were making very high profits on their hardware.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I could see things potentially maybe be even
Speaker 1: that mythical. Nobody wants to have gorilla arm, this idea
Speaker 1: of the iPad and the MacBook finally merging, because I
Speaker 1: believe even Tim Cook says we're not going to do that.
Speaker 1: Then again, Apple is quite good. It's in the past
Speaker 1: saying we're never gonna have this product to do that
Speaker 1: thing like an iPod with video. Nobody wants an iPod
Speaker 1: with video, so they made an iPod with video. So
Speaker 1: there's no We're never gonna make a tablet We saw
Speaker 1: how that worked out, So it doesn't necessarily mean just
Speaker 1: because they said we're not going to do something that
Speaker 1: they won't do it and say, oh, this is why
Speaker 1: we waited, because it's much better now. Also, they'll say
Speaker 1: now you want it, they in, they wave their hand
Speaker 1: and yes, exactly, they do the force mind trick on you.
Speaker 1: All right, so what's your next one? Okay, wearables will
Speaker 1: be better. This is another incremental kind of thing. I
Speaker 1: think that we've had a real interesting kind of live
Speaker 1: beta test of smart watches the past couple of years.
Speaker 1: We had the Android where hitting the market ahead of
Speaker 1: ahead of the Apple Watch, Apple Watched original version being
Speaker 1: a little bit clunky, with a UI that people had
Speaker 1: to learn, which is very not intuitive at first, this
Speaker 1: digital crown kind of thing. Samsung's got their Gears two
Speaker 1: with a very cool kind of circular iPod like circle
Speaker 1: um interface wheel. I think next year is the year
Speaker 1: that all of those small issues with UI, all the
Speaker 1: issues with battery life, the true actual application of why
Speaker 1: on earth would you want a screen on your wrist?
Speaker 1: That stuff is actually going to be figured out next
Speaker 1: year and there's going to be a compelling reason to
Speaker 1: have a smart watch. And while I'm saying wearables in
Speaker 1: general will get better, I'm thinking the fitness devices, like
Speaker 1: the fitbits, the misfits, all those little things, they will
Speaker 1: go maybe more and more simple, where these devices can
Speaker 1: handle just the fitness tracking and it talks to either
Speaker 1: your watch or talks to your phone, and it's not
Speaker 1: necessarily trying to be it's one true thing. I don't
Speaker 1: think the fitbits surge, those kind of smart watch hybrid
Speaker 1: things are gonna do well. So I think that the
Speaker 1: fitness tractors get dumber, smart watches get better. I got you.
Speaker 1: So that way, you end up having a more of
Speaker 1: a low cost market for your fitness trackers because presumably
Speaker 1: they won't be as expensive. They'll be simpler devices. So
Speaker 1: if all you wanted was something to help track your activity,
Speaker 1: then you get one of those and you're spending less
Speaker 1: money per unit. But if you want something that has
Speaker 1: a lot more applicability in various situations, then you might
Speaker 1: go for more of a higher end thing, a smart
Speaker 1: watch that incorporates those features as well as other ones.
Speaker 1: It's the middle ground where you're still to see that
Speaker 1: kind of filter out because there won't be as much
Speaker 1: uh you know, why why go for something that's kind
Speaker 1: of good if you could go for a smart watch,
Speaker 1: you know. And one of the things I've seen this
Speaker 1: year was there's like a device called the Move. It's
Speaker 1: this little disc that you can have on your wrist
Speaker 1: and it can determine whether you're how you're moving. But
Speaker 1: what they recommend is if you have to, it can
Speaker 1: really do these excellent metrics for things like a boxing
Speaker 1: exercise or workout. So maybe instead of these devices being
Speaker 1: all in one wonders, it's that they're really just sensors
Speaker 1: that you have on yourself. So you realize, Okay, the
Speaker 1: smart watch is great because it's the actual brain versus
Speaker 1: your phone because you don't want to carry you phone
Speaker 1: necessarily getting larger. It's very awkward to keep a phone
Speaker 1: strapped to your arm. I've seen people run with them.
Speaker 1: I think that's really odd. But a smart watch acting
Speaker 1: as this intermediary brain for all these other sensors to
Speaker 1: get actual accurate data because okay, were you erasing furiously
Speaker 1: with your Apple pencil or were you doing jumping jacks?
Speaker 1: Does the device No? I don't know, So that's that
Speaker 1: kind of thing. Yeah, No, that's interesting. I pretty much
Speaker 1: agree with you. I think, um, I think we will
Speaker 1: see that sort of improvement. I hope we will see
Speaker 1: smart watches that are compelling enough where even people like myself,
Speaker 1: like I own a Pebble. I bought a pebble early on,
Speaker 1: and I did so knowing the limitations of the technology.
Speaker 1: I knew what it was capable of doing, and I
Speaker 1: knew what it wasn't going to do, and I was
Speaker 1: fine with that. But for a lot of people, when
Speaker 1: they get into the idea of buying a smart watch,
Speaker 1: they don't really know what the watch can and can't do,
Speaker 1: and uh, what it's like to actually use one, and
Speaker 1: so you get this disconnect from what they were expecting
Speaker 1: and what they actually get when they purchase one. I
Speaker 1: would like to see that gap decrease in two thousand
Speaker 1: and sixteen. Uh. My hope is that by two thousand seventeen,
Speaker 1: you compare something like a smart watch with another device
Speaker 1: that's akin to the Microsoft Hollow lens, and then get
Speaker 1: holographic images displayed above the watch when you look down
Speaker 1: because the two are working together, and then you get
Speaker 1: like the three D representation of someone's head as they
Speaker 1: talked to you. All Superman of course that's you you
Speaker 1: would want to do when you're walking on the sidewalk
Speaker 1: with floating and disembodied heads. Look, if I'm not paying
Speaker 1: attention to a so whether or not the sign says
Speaker 1: walk or don't walk already, it's not gonna kill me
Speaker 1: faster as long as there's some kind of collision detection
Speaker 1: center that you have. I can just imagine text popping
Speaker 1: up and says you're gonna die now. It's like, would
Speaker 1: you like to close all your accounts right now or
Speaker 1: deliver your password over to your next You have one
Speaker 1: of two options. You're like, oh, wait a minute, this
Speaker 1: is this is the death notice, and maybe I should
Speaker 1: get on the street. Uh yeah, no. I I always
Speaker 1: advocate for the responsible use of technology. I am one
Speaker 1: of those people who I will not have my phone
Speaker 1: out as I'm walking across the street. If I'm on
Speaker 1: the sidewalk, maybe, but definitely not on the street. And
Speaker 1: that being said, even as someone who has occasionally used
Speaker 1: a phone on the sidewalk. Yes, I have collided with
Speaker 1: a telephone pole it has opened. I have yet to
Speaker 1: do that. I have gotten very close to telephone poles,
Speaker 1: far too close, but not in any rapid speed. Well
Speaker 1: that's good. That's good. Let's hope that that prediction like
Speaker 1: that that or that trend continues through to predict I
Speaker 1: predicted because I said that on this podcast. I'm going
Speaker 1: to smack into something. All right, Well, here's another super
Speaker 1: crazy prediction. Now. My last one was an Apple prediction
Speaker 1: that was pretty you know, pretty modest. This one is crazy,
Speaker 1: and I have to admit I am not the one
Speaker 1: who came up with this idea. I actually saw someone
Speaker 1: else and I wish I had written down, but I
Speaker 1: saw someone else pose this possibility and I thought, well,
Speaker 1: that's just crazy. I have to include it, which is
Speaker 1: Apple will make a move to a Choir Tesla. And
Speaker 1: the reason for that is that we know that Apple
Speaker 1: is interested in developing an electronic car, but it makes
Speaker 1: much more sense to purchase a company that has already
Speaker 1: made great headway into doing that, particularly if you can
Speaker 1: purchase the company that would already be your chief competitor
Speaker 1: once you enter that marketplace. If you can buy the
Speaker 1: name and Electronic Cars and use that as now you know,
Speaker 1: this is what you own, and now you can incorporate
Speaker 1: your technology directly into the next models, then that would
Speaker 1: be the way to go. Whether or not uh Tesla
Speaker 1: would decide to allow for that to happen is a
Speaker 1: different question. But I think that that it's not out
Speaker 1: of the realm of possibility that Apple will at least
Speaker 1: make a move to try and do that. Okay, So
Speaker 1: when you first said this, the first thought I had
Speaker 1: was that's crazy, that's absolutely insane. And then I was
Speaker 1: thinking about Apple buying Beats, which also sounded crazy and
Speaker 1: absolutely insane. And they were the leader in this kind
Speaker 1: not a leader, but they are a very well known brand.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that Apple does over they
Speaker 1: had done for a long time, was do you take
Speaker 1: a product or a company, they buy it and they
Speaker 1: basically can assume it and they become new Apple instead
Speaker 1: of it being Beats by Dre and Tim Cook. You know.
Speaker 1: So the thing about buying Tesla, to me, what what
Speaker 1: I find problematic with this idea is Tesla already has
Speaker 1: the name. So with Apple's purchase, if they bought this company,
Speaker 1: the rebranding aspect would be so difficult that they wouldn't
Speaker 1: do it. Maybe that's the Unapple like move you're talking about,
Speaker 1: where they're like, you know what, we just we owned Tesla,
Speaker 1: and that's that's just the way it is now. We're
Speaker 1: just gonna we're gonna continue to call it Tesla and
Speaker 1: not call it the I Car the Tesla. It's a
Speaker 1: Tesla and Apple company. I just can't see that kind
Speaker 1: of styling when it comes to Apple, because they're very
Speaker 1: They're the top dog. They're not gonna be like the
Speaker 1: secondary little logo somewhere else. Although what I the second
Speaker 1: or third thought I had with this thing was, you know,
Speaker 1: I could see Apple, either either Tim Cook or any
Speaker 1: of the board members of Apple becoming a board member
Speaker 1: of Tesla and having some kind of influence on how
Speaker 1: they do things and or a significant investment in the company,
Speaker 1: whereas they don't buy the company, but they do have
Speaker 1: a stake in it, so that way there is a
Speaker 1: future with them, a kind of partnership that Disney and
Speaker 1: Apple kind of had with Steve Jobs being at the
Speaker 1: time a shareholder, a major shareholder of each company. Or
Speaker 1: you had this idea where you had Eric Schmidt, who
Speaker 1: used to be on the board of Apple. There was
Speaker 1: a lot of friendly information being passed along to the
Speaker 1: to the point where Schmidt ended up recusing himself and
Speaker 1: leaving the board because of concerns about a conflict of
Speaker 1: interest exactly, And I think that would be Maybe that's
Speaker 1: the kind of way Apple gets really into the car business,
Speaker 1: is not necessarily by being in the car business, but
Speaker 1: influencing a major company that is the most Apple like
Speaker 1: of car manufacturers. Interesting that that that sounds more realistic.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna stick with line. Apple is gonna try and
Speaker 1: buy Tesla. I don't. I didn't say they will buy Tesla.
Speaker 1: And so they're gonna try to buy Tesla? You mean
Speaker 1: you mean the motor company, right, not just buy a
Speaker 1: Tesla exactly? Like all right, who's whose turn is it
Speaker 1: to drive the Tesla this week? I get employee of
Speaker 1: the month gets to drive the Tesla. Uh? No, I
Speaker 1: mean that they buy the company Tesla uh or try
Speaker 1: to Yeah, because I think that that's a pretty crazy
Speaker 1: prediction myself. But in in another sense, it makes perfect,
Speaker 1: It makes it makes it's logical because why would you
Speaker 1: try and go into would you just hope for your
Speaker 1: your company's uh the perception of your company to to
Speaker 1: push you to a successful competition with an already established
Speaker 1: some might are you equally iconic company? Um? I don't know.
Speaker 1: But I do know that Apple's getting close to being
Speaker 1: a one trillion dollar company and they got some cash
Speaker 1: to burn, So so why not go into a business
Speaker 1: that's dominated by a few companies. Well, especially as we
Speaker 1: get more and more towards people leaning to electric and
Speaker 1: alternative fuel vehicles. I mean it, it's it's gonna be.
Speaker 1: That's a market that's just gonna grow. You know, there
Speaker 1: is there is some information to support this. Tesla did
Speaker 1: introduce its own iPhone cases made of leather that is
Speaker 1: that is normally used for the car seats, and Tesla's
Speaker 1: right there, that's where this this always. I've gotta say,
Speaker 1: I was really shocked when Apple didn't move to acquire
Speaker 1: ed Hardy, which also made Apple cases. You never know
Speaker 1: that rumor that did happen. Pretty sure that will happen
Speaker 1: in Alright, your your turn, I as okay, my turn
Speaker 1: maybe equally crazy. Okay, Google is gonna go wireless for
Speaker 1: real this time right now. They do have Project five,
Speaker 1: which is this kind of envy and Oh where they
Speaker 1: are using some T Mobile and Sprint networks combined with
Speaker 1: these devices and WiFi. So it's it's kind of like
Speaker 1: soft entry into the wireless world. They already have Google Fiber.
Speaker 1: I'm saying next year is the year Google either builds
Speaker 1: its own wireless infrastructure or just purchases a wireless carrier
Speaker 1: flat out so they have the infrastructure, none of this
Speaker 1: leasing nonsense, actually owning a wireless network that is fast
Speaker 1: enough to do what they want to do, because they
Speaker 1: want to cover basically everywhere and Internet so that you
Speaker 1: could use their services and they can learn information about you.
Speaker 1: That's that's one side. But I think we're going to
Speaker 1: see Google actually becoming a wireless carrier. What do you think.
Speaker 1: I think it's a distinct possibility. I mean, you already
Speaker 1: mentioned Project five, which uh I was invited to be
Speaker 1: an early tester of that, and I ultimately decided not to,
Speaker 1: the only reason being that it would have required me
Speaker 1: to use my Google Voice number, and almost everyone knows
Speaker 1: my actual phone number, and very few people outside of
Speaker 1: my mom ever call me on my Google Voice number,
Speaker 1: and just training the humans in my life to call
Speaker 1: a different number was going to be a problem. Um,
Speaker 1: But I agree that the that's a distinct possibility. I
Speaker 1: wonder if it's the right move. I also wonder what
Speaker 1: that would do in the overall wireless marketplace, particularly the
Speaker 1: cellular marketplace, because I can imagine other carriers saying, well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna we're gonna put a real restriction on which
Speaker 1: Android phones we offer on our systems now, But that
Speaker 1: seems like that would almost be shooting themselves in the foot.
Speaker 1: I mean, where else are you gonna go besides Apple
Speaker 1: to get really compelling handsets? Um this, I think this
Speaker 1: could be an incredibly disruptive move, and it's certainly makes
Speaker 1: sense from the standpoint of where Google's moving right now,
Speaker 1: especially now that they've got you know, their Alphabet company,
Speaker 1: so Google can can make these kind of potentially risky
Speaker 1: moves without affecting other branches of its business. I guess
Speaker 1: technically I should have said Alphabet is going to do this,
Speaker 1: Because I don't know Google. I guess Google fibers. Google
Speaker 1: Fiber is still part of Google. I don't I don't
Speaker 1: have the exact I don't have the Org charts out
Speaker 1: the breakdown. I know Google X is outside of Google now.
Speaker 1: It's research and development is a separate arm, and a
Speaker 1: couple of the companies that acquired are in separate arms
Speaker 1: as well. Uh, they might just create a new subsidiary
Speaker 1: for this sort of thing. I think it could work.
Speaker 1: I think the thing with Google, they they are very
Speaker 1: aggressive with the rollout of fiber, but there's areas that
Speaker 1: is hard. They're very difficult to get into. And with
Speaker 1: wireless there is this barrier decreases. So this idea of
Speaker 1: like Google will will be giving WiFi or they'll be
Speaker 1: giving some kind of cellular connection is physically easier, so
Speaker 1: they don't have to worry about, Okay, we're gonna get permits.
Speaker 1: Do we have to shut this part down to make
Speaker 1: this happen, especially if they buy a pre existing carrier,
Speaker 1: like either a T mobile or Sprints just sitting around,
Speaker 1: you know, Sprints just sitting in the corner, just wondering
Speaker 1: is one day somebody gonna make something of them. They're
Speaker 1: just just waiting to be asked to the dance. Well
Speaker 1: they're at the dance. They're just in the corner by
Speaker 1: the punch bowl. Well, they'll be waiting to be asked
Speaker 1: to dance at the dance. How about T mobiles out
Speaker 1: on the floor like basically throwing down T mobile slam dance.
Speaker 1: I guess what T mobile is doing. It's got it's
Speaker 1: it's it's like a one man mosh pit and you're like, why,
Speaker 1: it's like John, just it's it's a polka. You don't
Speaker 1: have to go thrashing. Okay, so there's a chance of that.
Speaker 1: What's what's your next one? So the next one? This
Speaker 1: one is one where I as and I both have
Speaker 1: predictions about the same general type of technology, but we
Speaker 1: have slightly different takes on it. And this is all
Speaker 1: about virtual reality and to a lesser extent, augmented reality.
Speaker 1: My prediction, and I actually really hope I'm wrong about this.
Speaker 1: This is one of those where I'm like, I'm making
Speaker 1: the prediction, but I would love to be wrong. But
Speaker 1: my prediction is that VR is ultimately going to fizzle
Speaker 1: out in twenty six team in the consumer market. And
Speaker 1: the reason I say that is that I think it
Speaker 1: may have taken too long for the consumer models of
Speaker 1: really compelling VR headsets to actually make it to the shelves.
Speaker 1: We don't even have them yet, like the not the
Speaker 1: really big names, not We don't have an oculus, like
Speaker 1: a branded oculus system beyond something that turns your phone
Speaker 1: into a VR headset. We don't have the Morpheus, you know,
Speaker 1: we don't have these things apart from some early builds,
Speaker 1: developer builds where you can you can get something, but
Speaker 1: you already know it's it's essentially a prototype. It's not
Speaker 1: the final form of whatever the consumer model will be.
Speaker 1: And my fear is that by the time it comes out,
Speaker 1: all the excitement that they built up from the crowd
Speaker 1: funding and the marketing that happened over the last three
Speaker 1: years will have completely died out, so that VR becomes
Speaker 1: a non starter. Either stuff never makes it to market
Speaker 1: because analysts decide, hey, we're gonna lose money on this,
Speaker 1: it doesn't make any sense for us to do it,
Speaker 1: or it will make it to market, but it will
Speaker 1: have very low adoption due to the high cost of entry.
Speaker 1: We expect most of these devices are gonna cost in
Speaker 1: the hundreds of dollars, so some of them may be
Speaker 1: just as expensive as the hardware they are paired with
Speaker 1: in the case of consoles, for example. UM I think
Speaker 1: augmented reality has a better chance because as a wider
Speaker 1: application than virtual reality does. And honestly, I think there's
Speaker 1: more excitement about augmented reality UH and the potential for
Speaker 1: it than there is for virtual reality. Although it should
Speaker 1: be said augmented reality could follow the same path as
Speaker 1: VR and ultimately fizzle out too. So that's my prediction
Speaker 1: that VR is not gonna make it in TwixT. Even
Speaker 1: if the device has actually come out, there's not gonna
Speaker 1: be widespread adoption. There won't be enough support from developers
Speaker 1: to create content for them, and it'll be just like
Speaker 1: we saw on the nineties where there was a lot
Speaker 1: of hype but not a lot of payoff. Okay, so
Speaker 1: I maybe agree with maybe about SI what you said there.
Speaker 1: I don't think next year is the year for VR.
Speaker 1: I think it needs a year or two before it's
Speaker 1: really really ready. And the thing why I think it
Speaker 1: won't die next year than anytime soon is because there's
Speaker 1: Facebook behind Oculus, so there's a lot of money there,
Speaker 1: and they have a partnership with Samsung, and we both
Speaker 1: know the Samsung No. They love to throw stuff against
Speaker 1: the wall until it sticks, and I don't think they're
Speaker 1: going to stop. I don't think any of those companies
Speaker 1: are gonna stop until there's an actual working device out there.
Speaker 1: Because in the interim, Samsung has their Gear VR that
Speaker 1: allows you to take your select Samsung phones. So I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna add you put it in in this like
Speaker 1: helmet so you can see these VR experiences, and I've
Speaker 1: gotten to try those out a couple of times, and
Speaker 1: they're very good. Stuff like Google Cardboard, which makes it
Speaker 1: way cheaper and allows you to use pretty much any
Speaker 1: Android phone or pretty much any phone, so you can
Speaker 1: see these VR experiences. And I think right now, the experiences,
Speaker 1: it's what's holding it back because you're like, oh, wow,
Speaker 1: I'm in this virtual theater watching a movie that's not
Speaker 1: really interesting. I can do that in my living room,
Speaker 1: so why am I bothering with this. It's to have
Speaker 1: the compelling content for that. So I just don't see
Speaker 1: a ton of products coming to market next year, even
Speaker 1: though they're supposed to. I just don't see it being gigantic.
Speaker 1: But I think it's not going to die off, and
Speaker 1: because of the rapid technology cycle when it comes to phones,
Speaker 1: I think it's really this combination of VR helmets as
Speaker 1: an accessory to your phone that's really where this is.
Speaker 1: This idea that it will work with video games, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's gonna be a nice little uh niche for
Speaker 1: a while, but I think the mainstream adoption won't be
Speaker 1: for another like two years, where people can just swap
Speaker 1: a phone in with really high red screens, because this
Speaker 1: is actually when it becomes important when that phone is
Speaker 1: right against your eyes and you're seeing this this of
Speaker 1: the image. If it's low res, you're seeing like a
Speaker 1: screen door effect, and it takes you out of it.
Speaker 1: And if you want to be in VR, you really
Speaker 1: have to be immersed, and that actually takes it out.
Speaker 1: And maybe one to two years you'll have even the
Speaker 1: low end phones with really high rise screens such that
Speaker 1: you won't have that problem. Yeah, to me, it's not
Speaker 1: so much the resolution of the screens that's the big issue.
Speaker 1: It's making sure that there's no latency between your movements
Speaker 1: and what you see on those screens. Because I I've
Speaker 1: I've been in virtual I've done virtual environment stuff where
Speaker 1: the graphics were pretty low quality. You know, it wasn't
Speaker 1: like photo realistic graphics or anything, but it's still a
Speaker 1: very compelling experience because of the the response of the system.
Speaker 1: So to me, that's the most important part is that
Speaker 1: the processor is able to handle the input of you
Speaker 1: moving your head around and seamlessly incorporate that into what
Speaker 1: you are looking at within the context of the view.
Speaker 1: I don't know I'm still very skeptical that I almost
Speaker 1: see VR following the same kind of path, oh sadness
Speaker 1: as the Microsoft Connect sensor, which had a lot of
Speaker 1: potential but never got Like you were saying, it didn't
Speaker 1: have a lot of support, like there weren't there weren't
Speaker 1: a lot of really compelling reasons to use it. You
Speaker 1: can see what the potential was for it, but because
Speaker 1: those those potentials never became reality, ultimately it's not even
Speaker 1: included in most bundles of Xbox hardware now. It's it's
Speaker 1: a peripheral that hardly anyone purchases or uses, and in
Speaker 1: fact often updates to the Xbox users uh experience the
Speaker 1: user interface will remove functionality from existing connect hardware. So
Speaker 1: that makes me think, well, I think the R may
Speaker 1: follow that same path, where unless there are really compelling
Speaker 1: reasons to use the technology, it doesn't matter how good
Speaker 1: the hardware is. Uh So, I don't think the hardware
Speaker 1: is gonna necessarily all come out in and I don't
Speaker 1: think that there's gonna be enough content to even support
Speaker 1: the really good stuff. And again I hope I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: If I'm wrong, that's awesome because I would love to
Speaker 1: have really great vr UM. I don't think I could
Speaker 1: go so far as to outfit one of my rooms
Speaker 1: in my house with the valve approach, where you've got
Speaker 1: the cameras that are mounted up and you can actually
Speaker 1: wander around your room and it creates uh dynamic barriers
Speaker 1: so that you don't bump into stuff like your walls.
Speaker 1: But you need a big room, empty room to do
Speaker 1: that in. I don't have that, so I don't I
Speaker 1: don't think I'll go that far. But if they could
Speaker 1: come up with something that really does UH, that's priced well,
Speaker 1: that works well with the the devices, that actually works
Speaker 1: as a peripheral H, then I would be satisfied. I
Speaker 1: just don't think it's gonna happen. Know it's sad. A
Speaker 1: lot of the technologies we're talking about are really cool.
Speaker 1: They're extremely cool. It kind of reminds me of when
Speaker 1: the first tablets came out. The first tablet PCAs like,
Speaker 1: this is a really cool idea, but there was a
Speaker 1: lot of problems with it. With the ultramobile PCs, there
Speaker 1: were tiny little computers they can carry with you. Really
Speaker 1: cool idea execution not there. And I don't want to
Speaker 1: say this because if people will label me a fan boy.
Speaker 1: I'm very curious if if an Apple approach would make
Speaker 1: it different because a lot of these products have been
Speaker 1: out there and they've been iterated upon. But what will
Speaker 1: it take for to go Oh that's amazing, because Apple
Speaker 1: tried to watch thing and people aren't like blown away.
Speaker 1: So the question is what is it going to finally
Speaker 1: take it. I don't know if Apple can do it
Speaker 1: and make the headset look like a daft punk helmet
Speaker 1: they got it made. Well. That also helps you when
Speaker 1: you're walking around you're not but when you bump your
Speaker 1: head into a telephone pole, you got protection, right, and
Speaker 1: and then raves just break out around you and it's,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of awesome. I like this idea, Yeah
Speaker 1: I do too. All right, well it's my turn for
Speaker 1: the next one. So my next prediction is that the
Speaker 1: cable industry will see shrink subscriber numbers again. So this
Speaker 1: year we saw some some the cable companies, cable television
Speaker 1: is what I'm talking about here. Cable television subscriptions were
Speaker 1: starting to go down. Uh, they were not able to
Speaker 1: add more consumers than they were losing. And there's a
Speaker 1: growing population of people who are never getting cable in
Speaker 1: the first place. So the people who are leaving cable, those,
Speaker 1: of course, are called the cord cutters. And there have
Speaker 1: been predictions for years that that population was going to explode.
Speaker 1: It hasn't grown at the speed that a lot of
Speaker 1: people had predicted, but there are more and more people
Speaker 1: who are going that route. And then there are the
Speaker 1: cord never's. These are the younger people mostly who are
Speaker 1: who just never bothered to sign up to cable in
Speaker 1: the first place. They get all their contents some other way.
Speaker 1: Now they might have a cable company as their internet
Speaker 1: service provider, but they're not they're not subscribing to cable television.
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna see that trend continue. I don't
Speaker 1: think this is gonna be like the tipping point where
Speaker 1: we suddenly, uh see cable subscriptions just drop off at
Speaker 1: a really sharp cliff. I don't think that's gonna happen
Speaker 1: in But we are going to see the trend continue
Speaker 1: as it has already started. I think we've already experienced
Speaker 1: peak cable television, in other words, and now we're on
Speaker 1: the decline. And this decline, you know, it's it's gonna
Speaker 1: be significant, but it's not going to be a huge
Speaker 1: percentage of the overall population of cable subscribers. It's just
Speaker 1: not gonna be a good story for cable companies to
Speaker 1: tell their shareholders. It's an interesting idea. I think you
Speaker 1: might be onto something, but I'm going to argue with
Speaker 1: you for the sake of arguing with you. Well, you are.
Speaker 1: You do have training as a lawyer, so yeah, there
Speaker 1: was a time. I'm retired lawyer. There's a there's a
Speaker 1: as an actual piece of mail that sets. So anyway,
Speaker 1: let let me let me run this, this this scenario.
Speaker 1: There are so many different over the top solutions you
Speaker 1: can get. When it comes to video. You can pay
Speaker 1: fifteen dollars a month for HBO. You can pay nine
Speaker 1: bucks for Stars uh, ten bucks for Showtime or whatever.
Speaker 1: All of these things you can keep adding on. Okay,
Speaker 1: and you're still paying your cable, sorry, your internet bill.
Speaker 1: When you start putting all the math together, at some
Speaker 1: point these cable in the cable industry needs to realize something.
Speaker 1: There is a tipping point where it is cheaper to
Speaker 1: just get that streaming pipe of garbage where you're getting
Speaker 1: every single network and you have a DVR and potentially
Speaker 1: cloud DBR storage with certain certain cable companies that it
Speaker 1: just makes more sense to have cable There's no, there's
Speaker 1: not necessarily a network issue when it comes to oh,
Speaker 1: we seem to have some congestion. Are you playing a
Speaker 1: video game? Is that why we're getting crappy streaming? Is
Speaker 1: that what's happening? No? No, No No, that doesn't happen with
Speaker 1: cable I really think if they brand this properly, because
Speaker 1: we have so many options, it's actually cheaper at some
Speaker 1: point to just get cable TV, And people who record
Speaker 1: members might go, wait a second, that's cheaper, and I
Speaker 1: get all this other stuff, and I get so why
Speaker 1: would I ever bother with all of these apps when
Speaker 1: I know I just have to change my input to
Speaker 1: H d M I two it only it only really
Speaker 1: works if the consumer really wants all that that content
Speaker 1: that can only be available on different services. Right, if
Speaker 1: they are satisfied with one or two services, then that's
Speaker 1: not gonna they won't they won't find a compelling case
Speaker 1: to adopt cable television. Uh. If they're into live sports,
Speaker 1: that's the strongest cell that cable TV has. I would say,
Speaker 1: like that's the that's the biggest Uh, attractive thing that
Speaker 1: that cable TV can put hold out in front of
Speaker 1: potential consumers. But if they think, well, there's this small
Speaker 1: group of programming that I'm really interested in, and if
Speaker 1: I get HBO Go and if I get is a Goer, now,
Speaker 1: I guess its Hbo now. Um. But if I get
Speaker 1: the Hbo app and if I get the uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Amazon Prime subscription, that's everything I need. And if I
Speaker 1: look at the basic cable service I'm getting and I
Speaker 1: add all that up and it's still gonna be the
Speaker 1: same or less than what cable TV is, I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna go with that. Um. But yeah, I mean that
Speaker 1: there is definitely a tipping point because if you're talking
Speaker 1: about more than that, especially when you factor in the
Speaker 1: cost of a Internet service provider, which maybe if if
Speaker 1: the I s P is the same as the cable company.
Speaker 1: You and I both know this, there will be that
Speaker 1: will come up with bundles where it's cheaper to get
Speaker 1: the bundle than it would be just to get a
Speaker 1: single service, and that at that point you're like, well,
Speaker 1: from a financial standpoint, it just makes sense for me
Speaker 1: to have cable TV, and even if I never hook
Speaker 1: up the cable box. That's exactly how I lived. I
Speaker 1: did that, I got my faster speed, it was cheaper.
Speaker 1: I just had this basics that top box, which I've
Speaker 1: never bothered to hook up. It just made more sense monetarily.
Speaker 1: So if the argument can be made by the cable
Speaker 1: companies and this will require them to actually be trying
Speaker 1: to get consumers on board, that's the crazy thing. There
Speaker 1: are cable companies right now, at least even in New York,
Speaker 1: Time Owner Cable will give you a ten dollar option
Speaker 1: where you can get a limited bunch of channels through
Speaker 1: a Roku that they provide you, and if you have
Speaker 1: any of the rokus around the house, you can watch
Speaker 1: it that way. It's not the same functionality as a
Speaker 1: cable box. You're not getting all the same on demand stuff.
Speaker 1: You're not getting maybe all the channels. But if they're
Speaker 1: willing to do that, I don't see why they can't
Speaker 1: figure out, Oh, by the way, it's cheaper if we
Speaker 1: do it this other way. Yeah, I mean, I can
Speaker 1: see where your argument is. But however, the whole bundle
Speaker 1: thing and approach has been around for a while and
Speaker 1: we're still seeing the trend of people getting away from cable.
Speaker 1: Some of that may just be due to customers who
Speaker 1: are fed up with cable companies. You know, and and
Speaker 1: because not to name name, but one of the guys
Speaker 1: on this podcast is certainly fed up with his I
Speaker 1: s P. And and and also and and would not
Speaker 1: blink an eye about going away from cable and just
Speaker 1: going straight to a different I s P and just
Speaker 1: getting internet service. Uh that guy is not I s
Speaker 1: By the way, Well, I'm not happy with my sp here,
Speaker 1: but that as I'm more pleased with it now than
Speaker 1: I used to be. That's a whole other story for
Speaker 1: a whole other time. Yeah, and a different podcast. So
Speaker 1: at any rate, Uh, I think we're still going to
Speaker 1: see the trend continue. I I do agree that cable
Speaker 1: companies have an opportunity to position themselves in such a
Speaker 1: way where they can make the argument that it makes
Speaker 1: more financial sense to be a cable subscriber than to
Speaker 1: go all a cart But I don't think it's going
Speaker 1: to be enough to reverse the trend. It may slow it,
Speaker 1: but I don't think it's going to reverse it. What's
Speaker 1: wrong with the buffet? That's that's that's the tagline. You get,
Speaker 1: what's wrong with the buffet dim some charge. It gets
Speaker 1: really really expensive, but you can get a FAE. That's
Speaker 1: it's a hard sell. You know, I don't know either.
Speaker 1: The few buffets and you start to realize what could
Speaker 1: be wrong with the buffet? Why you don't eat at
Speaker 1: a buffet? Like the quality isn't very good? Right that
Speaker 1: that food has been sitting out there too long? What's
Speaker 1: your next? Okay, bold acquisition prediction. The more I look
Speaker 1: at it, the more I think it's wrong. So I'm
Speaker 1: gonna stick to it. Anyway, Facebook's going to buy HTC alright,
Speaker 1: So HTC for folks who have forgotten they exist. They
Speaker 1: make electronics used I believe that the HTC s to
Speaker 1: stand for high Tech Computer or something like that, and
Speaker 1: they've had trouble really regaining the dominance they used to
Speaker 1: have in the Android space. They were, I believe, the
Speaker 1: launch partner with Google when he came to the first
Speaker 1: h first Android phone. It's a little banana shaped looking phone.
Speaker 1: It was. It was the first Android phone in the
Speaker 1: United States. I owned one, the G one right the
Speaker 1: slider keyboard, so it was a It was a really
Speaker 1: interesting idea and they did a great job skinning Android
Speaker 1: where it was an usable product because at the time,
Speaker 1: Android was a little bit less than polished. These days,
Speaker 1: we've got Samsung, We've got LERG trying to nip at
Speaker 1: the heels of Samsung, but Samsung is really the big
Speaker 1: dog and Android when it comes to just dominance and
Speaker 1: and Google itself has gotten better at skinning Android so
Speaker 1: that it is more user friendly and attractive. So even
Speaker 1: if you're going with the flagship Android phones that haven't
Speaker 1: had a lot of additional stuff put on them by
Speaker 1: other carriers, it's still a lot better than what it
Speaker 1: used to be. Yes, So Facebook has been trying to
Speaker 1: make some kind of headway into the phone space. They
Speaker 1: tried to have a couple of different phones that had
Speaker 1: like a Facebook dedicated button. I believe a CC might
Speaker 1: have made both of them in another phone that had
Speaker 1: Facebook Home, which I think was their launcher replacement when
Speaker 1: it came to using an Android phone. But Facebook has
Speaker 1: not had a lot of success when it comes to
Speaker 1: this kind of this kind of entry into the phone market,
Speaker 1: so I think they're not just gonna bother to make
Speaker 1: their own phone kind of like Apple did. What they
Speaker 1: would do is go out purchase atc and the reason
Speaker 1: why I started hedging at the very beginnings, like well,
Speaker 1: ATC has a VR side to it with the HTC vibe,
Speaker 1: not realizing wait a second, they could use that type
Speaker 1: of those people and put them with the Oculus team,
Speaker 1: or they could just spend them off from sell them
Speaker 1: off anyway. But there's a lot of money on Facebook.
Speaker 1: There's a CC sitting around kind of floundering. Why not
Speaker 1: Facebook is not doing anything anyway. I have no argument
Speaker 1: one way or the other for this one. It is Uh,
Speaker 1: I can certainly see it happening. I mean not if
Speaker 1: Facebook's also gonna buy Yahoo. That's just too busy for
Speaker 1: two thou sixt so, but that's okay because I've already
Speaker 1: stated Microsoft the one buying out who. So I don't
Speaker 1: have any argument here. I think you might be onto something.
Speaker 1: So with that, I'm just gonna segue into the next
Speaker 1: one so that this episode doesn't go four hours. My
Speaker 1: next one is that this is another gimme. This. I
Speaker 1: think this is probably the biggest gimme, just that we're
Speaker 1: gonna see some a lot more growth in online media. Uh,
Speaker 1: we're already seeing it. I mean, we're seeing lots more
Speaker 1: interest in web series We're seeing a lot more original
Speaker 1: programming from Amazon and from Hulu and Netflix. I think
Speaker 1: that's going to continue. We already know that these companies
Speaker 1: are going to be offering even more original content, but
Speaker 1: I think we're going to see that also from a
Speaker 1: lot more independent uh creators. I think the real challenge
Speaker 1: of twenty sixteen is going to be something that's already
Speaker 1: been tough in the past, but now it's going to
Speaker 1: be the defining challenge. It's going to be discovery. How
Speaker 1: do you get the thing that you pour your heart
Speaker 1: and soul into discovered by your audience. You know, it's
Speaker 1: not even necessarily for the independent creators. It may not
Speaker 1: even be a question of how can I get paid
Speaker 1: to do this? It may just be how can I
Speaker 1: make sure people see what I do so that I'm
Speaker 1: not just creating something and shoving it into the void
Speaker 1: and no one ever notices it. But I really do
Speaker 1: think we're gonna see a lot more experimentation in the
Speaker 1: space because the fact that the Internet allows us to
Speaker 1: create content that does not have to conform to any
Speaker 1: particular length the way television shows do. We don't have
Speaker 1: to stick to the twenty two or forty four minute format.
Speaker 1: We can make whatever links we want. I think we're
Speaker 1: going to see more content creators experiment with longer form content.
Speaker 1: But for the longest time, the message has been keep
Speaker 1: it short because people will drop off and stop watching
Speaker 1: your stuff after a minute or two minutes, you know,
Speaker 1: whatever the length happens to be. But I think that
Speaker 1: there are some properties out there that are proven if
Speaker 1: you make good stuff, people will stay and watch the
Speaker 1: whole thing. Yeah, you're gonna have people drop off. That's
Speaker 1: always gonna happen. Partly, it will happen because people will
Speaker 1: be like, well, I've I've watched the beginning of this,
Speaker 1: but I need to pause it now because I have
Speaker 1: to go do something else. But I'll come back and
Speaker 1: pick up where I left off later. So I think
Speaker 1: we're gonna see a lot more experimentation and just a
Speaker 1: lot more volume of online media, uh, from all sorts
Speaker 1: of different parties. What do you think? I think I
Speaker 1: think you're pretty much right, because the thing is making
Speaker 1: video content or making audio content, making content available or
Speaker 1: just creating it that is and making it available. Both
Speaker 1: of those things are really really easy. Nowadays. You can
Speaker 1: describ a phone, you can do a recording, you can
Speaker 1: put it up on YouTube. You could periscope that's available
Speaker 1: for a little bit. You can do a live stream
Speaker 1: of video games. You can do pretty much anything at
Speaker 1: any time with a phone or your console. I mean,
Speaker 1: this stuff is that this this the sharing stuff is right.
Speaker 1: I feel like an old man. The sharing stuff is
Speaker 1: built into the consoles, you see what I'm saying. But yes,
Speaker 1: there this stuff is so simple to upload. And it
Speaker 1: used to be there was this larger barrier when it
Speaker 1: came to hosting space. Where am I gonna put this
Speaker 1: three d megabyte file for this this six forty by
Speaker 1: three sixty video, where I'm gonna put this right? And
Speaker 1: there's all kinds of places that are are just given
Speaker 1: away all this space for free because there's all kinds
Speaker 1: of perhaps dastardly kind of things. Oh we own all
Speaker 1: this stuff you made or whatever. We can earn money
Speaker 1: in some other way through the fact that you are
Speaker 1: providing content to our service. Exactly you do the content,
Speaker 1: we can put ads on it. That's the way that's
Speaker 1: gonna work. So it's it's so much easier than it's
Speaker 1: ever been. And the thing is with online media in general,
Speaker 1: this this world of online video in particular, I'm thinking
Speaker 1: about that's changed entirely. Like when when you think of
Speaker 1: originally about Netflix, or when they started streaming a lot,
Speaker 1: there was just this catalog of of just lots of
Speaker 1: old video. Then there's this it's actually essentially a network
Speaker 1: where they're having their own content being what's the word
Speaker 1: I'm looking for here, commissioned, So they're getting they're comissioning
Speaker 1: their own stuff. Same thing with all these other services,
Speaker 1: Amazon and even I think Sony's Crackle hasn't its new service,
Speaker 1: it's got a new series. All of these different companies
Speaker 1: are looking for this. So I think it's only a
Speaker 1: matter of time before companies like that start commissioning even
Speaker 1: smaller people. They don't need to keep following the television model.
Speaker 1: There's nothing saying that something on Netflix has to be
Speaker 1: forty four minutes or twenty two minutes. We're just kind
Speaker 1: of conditioned for that right now. And I think what's happening,
Speaker 1: like you were talking about with cord Never's or cord cutters,
Speaker 1: this idea that there's no reason why you have to
Speaker 1: sit through certain parts of a video. You can just
Speaker 1: jump to where you want to go or you want
Speaker 1: to say this is three minutes, it better be a
Speaker 1: damn good three minutes. But I still think there's this
Speaker 1: learning curve that's going on right now of what is
Speaker 1: the optimal length of video because there's there's no such thing.
Speaker 1: You go to a movie theater, you see a classic,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be over two hours. Nobody's saying, well, god
Speaker 1: Father part two, you know there's gonna be a lot
Speaker 1: of viewer drop off. People just gonna walk out the
Speaker 1: theater at it. It's like, you know what, if you
Speaker 1: have a compelling story, the timing isn't the problem. It's
Speaker 1: about coming up with the proper way to keep people
Speaker 1: engage the whole time. So just a lot more experimentation
Speaker 1: because there's so many more creators who can get their
Speaker 1: voice out. But like you said, discover ability that is
Speaker 1: very difficult. It takes more sense for a company like
Speaker 1: here you go, Netflix goes and buy Yahoo because they're like, okay, fine,
Speaker 1: we have a search engine. It's better now happy. I
Speaker 1: don't know, yeah, it's I mean, it's it's truly tough.
Speaker 1: Like larger companies have more more options obviously, like if
Speaker 1: you want to utilize social media and purchase advertising on
Speaker 1: social media to get your your stuff out in front
Speaker 1: of more eyeballs. Then that's great. But if you're a small,
Speaker 1: independent creator, you might not have the budget to put
Speaker 1: towards that kind of marketing effort, And in that case,
Speaker 1: it just does become this challenge of how do I
Speaker 1: get this thing that I'm really proud of that I
Speaker 1: think is high quality, that I think people will like
Speaker 1: if they see it. How do I get it so
Speaker 1: that people can actually find it? That's just gonna be
Speaker 1: a continuing challenge. And anyone who figures out really cool
Speaker 1: ways to aggregate various content or point customers at stuff
Speaker 1: that they would already like, uh, they stand to make
Speaker 1: a killing like that could be a huge business if
Speaker 1: you can figure out a way of doing that and
Speaker 1: in a way that's transparent and not underhanded, right, Not like, Okay,
Speaker 1: I made deals with these ten content creators and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna keep pushing them to all of my customers and
Speaker 1: nobody else gets seen. That's probably not gonna work. But
Speaker 1: if you can create a service where you really can
Speaker 1: aggregate stuff, sort of similar to like YouTube, the way
Speaker 1: they the YouTube presents videos that you might also like
Speaker 1: based upon your past viewing experience something along that, but
Speaker 1: better because I think YouTube, I keep seeing the same
Speaker 1: videos pop up under suggestion and I'm like, I haven't
Speaker 1: clicked on it yet. YouTube today is not the day either. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean the thing is it used to be YouTube
Speaker 1: was horrible at that. Now it's a little bit better.
Speaker 1: And then eventually figure out, Yeah, we get the hint
Speaker 1: that there should be a button like take a hint. Well,
Speaker 1: I think we've reached the point of the podcast where
Speaker 1: we go into kind of the quick fire mode. I
Speaker 1: know you've got a couple of quick fire things you
Speaker 1: wanted to mention, So why don't you go ahead and start?
Speaker 1: And then I've got some questions for both of us
Speaker 1: to kind of mull over, and also for people out
Speaker 1: there listening for you guys to mull over. Maybe you
Speaker 1: come up with an answer that is different from ours
Speaker 1: and you want to share it. I welcome that kind
Speaker 1: of opportunity. So shoot I as a rapid fire predictions
Speaker 1: for the Nintendo n X. It's next system will be good.
Speaker 1: Greed disagreed. Uh, it has to be good. If it
Speaker 1: If it's not good, that's really not good for Nintendo.
Speaker 1: Apple will finally let you set default apps on iOS.
Speaker 1: No Apple will create default iOS apps and tell you
Speaker 1: that you like them. That's that's what they do. Which
Speaker 1: we're thinking, and we are going to see a battery
Speaker 1: tech breakthrough next year. Either it's gonna be fuel cells
Speaker 1: in phones and that's gonna be like gonna happen, or
Speaker 1: we're gonna have something that has like twenty million powers.
Speaker 1: I would love to see this. This is one of
Speaker 1: those where you're starting to run up against the challenge
Speaker 1: of physics. You know, there's only so much you can
Speaker 1: do with electrochemical batteries. Fuel cells are an interesting idea,
Speaker 1: but you have to keep refueling them. I I hope
Speaker 1: that this is the case. I know there's been a
Speaker 1: lot of work with various nano materials that have really
Speaker 1: increased the the time that a battery will hold a charge,
Speaker 1: as well as decrease the amount of time it takes
Speaker 1: to charge it up to full. Like we keep hearing
Speaker 1: stories about this battery can recharge and in thirty seconds
Speaker 1: to power downside is after ten cycles it's dead. So
Speaker 1: I'm hope. I'm hoping that it does happen. That's what
Speaker 1: I've got. Okay, Well, here's some rapid fire questions. Okay,
Speaker 1: this one, I think, I think I know what your
Speaker 1: answer is gonna because I think it's gonna be the
Speaker 1: same as mine. But maybe you'll surprise me. Will we
Speaker 1: see a truly autonomous car debut in two thousand sixteen
Speaker 1: for the code consumer? No? I also think that's no
Speaker 1: in the US anyway. I agree. I think if we
Speaker 1: do see any autonomous cars, we're gonna continue to see
Speaker 1: them pun intended, rolled out in a uh in a
Speaker 1: in a way where it's going to be used for
Speaker 1: a very specific use case, but not for general transportation,
Speaker 1: not yet, not in two thousand sixteen. Okay, do you
Speaker 1: think there are any companies that are poised to have
Speaker 1: a big shakedown at the executive level something where maybe
Speaker 1: we see a CEO Alsted or some other massive restructuring
Speaker 1: major companies or just saying asking for companies, Well, major
Speaker 1: companies would probably be the one I would look at.
Speaker 1: But yeah, if there's any like, yeah, you know there's
Speaker 1: this uh pizza place I go to, I think I
Speaker 1: think Peppers and Johnny's is just fine. But I think
Speaker 1: a STC. I keep saying a CC because they're they're
Speaker 1: in the muck and otherwise, why not BlackBerry shuffle. That's
Speaker 1: a yeah, that's a pretty good bet. Yeah, um yeah,
Speaker 1: I agree with those. Okay, So how about do you
Speaker 1: think there are any tech bubbles that are ready to
Speaker 1: pop something that's been overhyped to the point where in
Speaker 1: two thousand sixteen it's going to deflate entirely. I think
Speaker 1: maybe terminology like the uber of X. Yeah, We'll go
Speaker 1: away because I'm tired of the It's the uber of
Speaker 1: dog Walkers. It's like, okay, it's like how all action
Speaker 1: movies became. It's die hard on a blank, on a
Speaker 1: boat or on a train. I agree with that. I
Speaker 1: also think things like the food delivery services, it's gotten
Speaker 1: really kind of crowded in that space. That's that's related
Speaker 1: to tech. Obviously, it's not exactly tech. It's in that
Speaker 1: weird like usually use an app to interact with it.
Speaker 1: So that's kind of why I lumped it in here.
Speaker 1: I do think that those are, at least some of
Speaker 1: those are going to go away. It's really hard to
Speaker 1: do that in a profitable way because you're spending so
Speaker 1: much time just going out and getting the food, not
Speaker 1: even including the time it takes to take the food
Speaker 1: from the location to the destination. The cut the consumer
Speaker 1: that finding a way to charge for that service that
Speaker 1: isn't prohibitively expensive and still pay the people who work
Speaker 1: for you is really hard. Now in robots, when not
Speaker 1: top of his cars do roll out, it will be easy,
Speaker 1: but right now not so much. Um, do you think
Speaker 1: any technology is going to officially become dead in something that?
Speaker 1: All right, no one is is seriously pushing this technology anymore.
Speaker 1: We're walking away. You know, you might still see it
Speaker 1: on store shelves somewhere, but no one's no one's advertising it. No,
Speaker 1: because everything I think they should be dead is not dead.
Speaker 1: Like MP three players are not dead. Smart TV apps
Speaker 1: and are not dead. They are getting better smart TV
Speaker 1: app but they don't die. They just kind of become
Speaker 1: a bullet point on a list a smaller just just
Speaker 1: an item for a smaller niche market. I guess I
Speaker 1: would love to see three D television just not even
Speaker 1: be mentioned anymore, maybe like have it on as a
Speaker 1: bullet list on a television box just says it's three
Speaker 1: D capable. But uh, three D television was one of
Speaker 1: those products that the industry really pushed really hard, and
Speaker 1: it never really got anywhere because for multiple reasons. I
Speaker 1: think a big one being that the the content wasn't
Speaker 1: really there. There wasn't enough yet when they started pushing
Speaker 1: three D TVs, and also the old saying that everyone
Speaker 1: who who winces at the thought three D television brings up.
Speaker 1: No one wants to have to wear glasses to watch television,
Speaker 1: or an additional pair of glasses in the case of
Speaker 1: some of us. I think the only successful wearable in
Speaker 1: the history other than wearing glasses, weable technology that we
Speaker 1: actually wear. And nobody seems that blink and eyat is,
Speaker 1: earbuds and earphones were okay with that. Yeah, that's it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I agree. All right. So do you think the Facebook
Speaker 1: Professional Services platform will be a success? I had to
Speaker 1: look this up because I didn't know that was a thing.
Speaker 1: But what what I found out it was it's kind
Speaker 1: of like YELP, and I think it'll be a sneaky
Speaker 1: success maybe in a year or two. I don't know
Speaker 1: if it'll be a success next year right away, but
Speaker 1: Facebook needs to be able to explain what it is
Speaker 1: because sometimes that search fields like do you want to
Speaker 1: see pictures of Jonathan or do you want to find
Speaker 1: a pizza place. It's like, yeah, what am I? What
Speaker 1: am I doing on Facebook? Exactly? Yeah? Well, and Facebook
Speaker 1: Professional Services. The idea is to like, Facebook has reached
Speaker 1: such penetration that it's going to be really hard for
Speaker 1: them to grow from that perspective, right, I mean, once
Speaker 1: you hit a billion users, it really does start to
Speaker 1: get hard to make that number get noticeably bigger. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: you've got stakeholders who expect the company to grow so
Speaker 1: expanding by creating a platform that businesses might be able
Speaker 1: to use. And uh, there we've seen some components already launched.
Speaker 1: There's a Facebook Professional Message app that launched on Android
Speaker 1: earlier this year. I haven't used it. I have no
Speaker 1: idea if it's good or not. I don't know if
Speaker 1: this is going to become the new tool for businesses,
Speaker 1: so that you know, this becomes like a new productivity
Speaker 1: communications tool, kind of like something like Slack is. But
Speaker 1: then I'm also at the age where I don't really
Speaker 1: understand the value of Slack, So maybe I'm the wrong
Speaker 1: person to answer this question in the first place. I
Speaker 1: do know that whenever I open up Slack, I question
Speaker 1: why I'm on it. I'm like this I remember when
Speaker 1: this was Google Wave and nobody wanted it back then. Um,
Speaker 1: it's got a better it's got a better branding. It's okay,
Speaker 1: I guess Google. Yeah, alright, So this next question, I'm
Speaker 1: going to to accuse i As for answering it, because uh,
Speaker 1: he's not as big into the computer games as I am.
Speaker 1: But the question I wrote was will the Star Citizen
Speaker 1: game actually come out in six Now? First of all,
Speaker 1: I As, have you heard of the game Star Citizen?
Speaker 1: Just now? Okay? So Star Star Citizen was a crowdfunded
Speaker 1: or is a crowdfunded game that raised a ludicrous amount
Speaker 1: of money, like seventy or eighty million dollars, a crazy
Speaker 1: amount of money for a crowdsourced game. And part of
Speaker 1: the game, a large part of the game involves flying
Speaker 1: spaceships around in this enormous space environment within the game,
Speaker 1: and you purchase with real money your spaceships like you
Speaker 1: can you can use. I think there's some that are
Speaker 1: just standard with the game, but they're very limited in
Speaker 1: their capabilities. But you can spend real money, and I'm
Speaker 1: talking in the hundreds of dollars in some cases to
Speaker 1: buy a little virtual spaceship that has different capabilities, and
Speaker 1: then you you own that it's like in your hangar
Speaker 1: and you get this one of the ships you can use.
Speaker 1: And that's one of the ways that they've raised so
Speaker 1: much money is by selling this virtual spacecraft stuff. And
Speaker 1: there are some limited uh programs that let you fly
Speaker 1: your spaceship around. But the actual game hasn't come out yet,
Speaker 1: and it's been delayed and delayed and delayed, and the
Speaker 1: official announcement is that it will come out sometime in
Speaker 1: two thousand and sixteen. Most people are expecting in the
Speaker 1: fourth quarter, So at the end of two thousand sixteen,
Speaker 1: I am skeptical that it will come out. My fear
Speaker 1: not that I'm invested in this game. I haven't purchased it.
Speaker 1: I don't own a spacecraft in this game. But my
Speaker 1: fear is that it will become sort of like Duke
Speaker 1: Newcombe Forever, where you have a game that's been in
Speaker 1: development for quite some time, and as they're working out
Speaker 1: the bugs and making the game just work, stuff changes
Speaker 1: enough where they want to update what they've already done
Speaker 1: in order to take advantage of new capabilities that are computers,
Speaker 1: which then pushes the actual debut back even further and
Speaker 1: this continues until ultimately you just have to throw your
Speaker 1: arms up the air and say, we just have to
Speaker 1: put something out. And I fear will not be that
Speaker 1: year that it will slip to tw if it comes
Speaker 1: out at all. Um, based on what you said and
Speaker 1: what I've learned, No, it will not come. And if
Speaker 1: it does, that's awesome, especially for the people who have
Speaker 1: spent so much money. There's another podcaster that I listened
Speaker 1: to who has spent I think close to nine dollars
Speaker 1: on a computer game that isn't out yet. Nine on
Speaker 1: a computer game. I as you could have a gaming
Speaker 1: rig for that. Yeah, you could buy an arcade machine
Speaker 1: for that. Not one of the good ones, but you could. Um.
Speaker 1: And then final question, I think this is the most
Speaker 1: important one out of all the ones. Do you think
Speaker 1: Star Wars Rogue one, the first Star Wars spinoff film,
Speaker 1: will be any good? Any good? Sure? Will you go
Speaker 1: see it? Probably? Yeah, I'll go see it. I'm seeing
Speaker 1: Star Wars the tonight, the day we record this on
Speaker 1: December seventeenth, I'm seeing it tonight. So finally going to
Speaker 1: see the fourth unleashed or awakened, rather awakened. It might
Speaker 1: be unleashed it could be if they put up, if
Speaker 1: they put the Force on a leash, it's gonna break free.
Speaker 1: It'll be unleashed again. It's got to be woken up first,
Speaker 1: that's true. It doesn't have to wake up first. It's
Speaker 1: been asleep for like, you know. I guess that's how
Speaker 1: you get a leash on it. I guess that's true.
Speaker 1: Is you can sneak up on the Force while sleeping,
Speaker 1: leash it. It wakes up unleashed Force awakens, is what
Speaker 1: I meant. Um, Yeah, so that I'm going to see
Speaker 1: that tonight, I expect. I actually don't know how I
Speaker 1: feel about the idea of Star Wars spinoff movies because
Speaker 1: part of me is less interested because it does not
Speaker 1: relate to the overall story arc of episodes one through
Speaker 1: nine and maybe beyond if they decided to continue, which
Speaker 1: it's Disney they're gonna continue. Um, but you know, and
Speaker 1: it also makes me worried that's going to turn into
Speaker 1: something like the Marvel franchises, which have gotten a little
Speaker 1: too crowded. I think I think we're getting a few
Speaker 1: too many Marvel movies per year. Now, that's impossible. I
Speaker 1: can't wait for Disney to finally have a crossover between
Speaker 1: Star Wars and Spider Man. It's actually they do have
Speaker 1: rights to Spider Man. But they could do a crossover
Speaker 1: at some point and it could happen, and we will
Speaker 1: be horrified when it happens. When when when Iron Fist
Speaker 1: shows up at the Cantina, and yeah, that would be
Speaker 1: he Wait, well, that's that's crazy. You need a time
Speaker 1: traveler or somebody who's been around forever, hasn't been like Apocalypse. Actually,
Speaker 1: Apocalypse is not usable because he's in Fox. You're gonna
Speaker 1: have to use Doctor Strange. He can't use Silver Surfer.
Speaker 1: He's with Fantastic four. Oh my gosh, he's stuck. Oh no,
Speaker 1: he's over Sony. This is very depressing. Yeah, well, we're
Speaker 1: gonna devolve into a discussion about where which Marvel properties
Speaker 1: belong to which movie studios. So would that in mind?
Speaker 1: I asked, thank you so much for joining me and
Speaker 1: sticking your neck out with mine to predict what will
Speaker 1: happen in ten Keeping in mind some of these maybe
Speaker 1: true or false before the episode even airs. Where can
Speaker 1: people go to find out all about the stuff you do? Well,
Speaker 1: the best place to go is Twitter, Twitter dot com,
Speaker 1: slash I S. That's I Y e Z. That's where
Speaker 1: you find me promoting things shamelessly. Or you go to
Speaker 1: see net dot com. It's this little website that's got
Speaker 1: a huge amount of people putting together awesome content. It's
Speaker 1: not just me. Should go there, or she'd go to
Speaker 1: g FQ network dot com because they do a couple
Speaker 1: of shows there with one of them with Jonathan Surprise.
Speaker 1: That's true. Yeah, so thank you again. I ask guys,
Speaker 1: thank you for listening. If you have any comments on
Speaker 1: the predictions we made, or any predictions of your own
Speaker 1: that you would like to share, please send them into me.
Speaker 1: My email address is hext stuff at how stuff works
Speaker 1: dot com, or drop me a line on Facebook, Tumbler
Speaker 1: or Twitter. The handle it all three is text stuff
Speaker 1: h s W and I'll talk to you again really soon.
Speaker 1: For more on this and thousands of other topics, visit
Speaker 1: hast works dot com.