Dave attended BlogWorld Expo this year, and one of the things he noted is that Leo Laporte stated in so many words that new media will be the new standard in journalism soon enough.

"New Media" is a very overhyped term, but is the only one that accurately defines the difference between traditional news outlets and the newer ways of getting news and events. In other words, it’s the difference between print (old) and internet (new).

As a writer for PCMech, I make my best effort to follow the tenets of traditional journalism. In that vein, reports are to be as factually accurate as possible, opinions (editorials) are to foster meaningful discussion, humor is to be inoffensive to the reading audience, and so on.

A journalist in strict definition is, "a writer for newspapers and magazines." I don’t think that definition accurately applies any longer. It should be changed to, "a writer for media outlets", meaning print and/or internet. If a traditional journalist has an online column or authors one exclusively but used to have a print column, does that mean a journalist doesn’t classify as one any longer? I don’t think so.

Definitions aside, something that I’ve always been aware of is that for whatever I write here, I’m responsible for it. This is another tenet of journalism. You, the reader, expect that whatever is written here is true, be it a report, documentation or otherwise. With the increased readership to PCMech as well as a ton of other web sites, that responsibility is something to be taken seriously.

Authors of blogs with wide readership understand this responsibility. We understand it to the tune of, "Wow, there’s a lot of people reading what I write, so I’d better not steer them wrong."

What makes New Media differ from Old Media the most?

1. Instant delivery.

You don’t go to the store and buy what you read here. It’s delivered instantly any time you want, for free, simply by typing in the web address.

2. Two-way communication.

Old Media has always hated this. The old way was the (in)famous "Letters to the Editor" section of whatever publication you were reading. Out of the hundreds of letters received, only a scant few would ever appear in print. The rest were all tossed and would never see the light of day.

New Media has reader discussion right on the article itself, and if you want to contribute, you can do so easily.

The reason I say Old Media hates two-way communication is because they’ve never been able to handle it properly. As most know, Old Media was pulled into the internet kicking and screaming all the way. They labeled it as simply a fad that would go away. It didn’t. Instead it steamrolled right over them and they were forced to go online. But they still don’t know how to handle two-way communication and struggle with it consistently. I don’t believe this is going to change any time soon.

3. Edge.

Traditional journalism is not edgy and is best described as sober – almost to a fault. It’s bland reading that has no bite whatsoever. In other words, boring.

Edge in this context is not meant to imply gimmicky, sell-your-soul type of garbage. Rather it means that the author has to be willing to (gasp!) have an opinion and stick by it. With Old Media this is almost nonexistent, hence the blandness.

New Media more or less dictates, "It’s OK to have an opinion. Do it."

4. A chance for others to write and contribute their voice.

Something that everybody takes for granted is the ability to link web pages. At any time, you could start up your own blog for free (Windows Live Spaces, LiveJournal, Blogger, WordPress, TypePad, etc.), write up your own article and link back to this one as a reference. Or maybe you want to post a rebuttal article against this one. Or whatever. It doesn’t matter what it is. What matters is that you can do it. You can’t do that with print because you don’t have the circulation. With internet, your circulation is the world.

Is Old Media scared?

Yes, and has been for a while now. Print media readership has been dropping like a brick. All of them missed the boat with internet, and even though they’re all online now, they’re still not doing it right. New Media continues on its path of ushering in a new era of journalism.

I want to make clear that I do not want print media to go away. Newspapers and magazine are established and well-respected sources of news and information. I do not wish even for a second that they vanish into obscurity, as it would be very sad if that happened.

What Old Media needs to do is to stop treating New Media as "something we deal with only because we have to." Instead of rowing against the stream they should simply go with it. Otherwise they will be stomped out. Yes, stomped.

Are internet-only writers journalists?

The only person qualified to answer this question is you.

Do you feel that you get the same level of news and information online as you do with print?

Do you consider online content to have inferior, on par, or superior quality compared to print?

Does personality (with edge mentioned above) in content matter to you, or just the facts and only the facts?

If we added a comics section and a daily crossword puzzle, would PCMech be a "tech newspaper?"

Interesting questions, to be sure.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Am I A Journalist?

For years I have been hearing over and over, "Email is dead." This is absolutely not true and probably never will be. The reason is because there has been absolutely nothing introduced to messaging which works better than email.

Jessica cites Twitter and Facebook several times. Both of these are cloud-based, and are therefore stupid because there is no way to save your messages locally and back them up. And when the cloud goes down, guess what? So does all your messaging. Nobody in their right mind would use Twitter, Facebook or any other cloud-base as their primary messaging system. Do so and you’d be a fool.

She did not mention anything about the cloud whatsoever (it’s mention nowhere in her article,) or how unbelievably dangerous it is to use. I think the debacle with T-Mobile Sidekick exemplifies in grand fashion why cloud-based messaging just plain sucks.

There is absolutely no way business can run without email. It is a messaging system that is proven to work. Twitter is plagued with outages. Facebook is plagued with social media "badness" in the form of phishing. Business has enough issues dealing with spam, and you want to tack on cloud outages and phishing on top of that?

I can say with utmost certainty that social media style messaging absolutely will not replace email, nor "dethrone" it, as it were.

Something eventually will replace email, but it certainly won’t be Facebook or Twitter. Not by a long shot. Email is still king of the mountain.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Why Email Still Rules

Right now what we have for electronic stores in the US are big-box free-standers, such as Best Buy. The problem with stores like this is that they are very disconnected from the customer base due to their size. Yes, you can get help when you ask for it, but personal service is usually at a minimum and product knowledge low.

Another problem is that the big-box electronics retailers are essentially all the same. Using the now-defunct Circuit City as an example, if you were to ask somebody, "What was the difference between Best Buy and Circuit City?", the answer is, "Um.. one was red and the other yellow?" There was literally no other difference.

Some would say, "What about Radio Shack?" RS doesn’t sell electronics anymore, I don’t care what anybody says. Their primary focus is cell phones and has been for some time. That is what they push more than anything else, and it’s always the first thing you see when you enter the store by design.

What is desperately needed these days are smaller electronic stores. Electronics has had a huge resurgence in the market, and more people are gravitating towards the brick-and-mortar compared to online. The problem is, at least in the US, that our choices for true electronics stores are terrible. We have places that are either way too big, or traditional department stores like Wal-Mart or Target that simply have a "department" for electronics and nothing more. Both are equally awful.

I am 34 years old, meaning I’m smack dab in the core demographic of people that purchase mid-to-high end electronics for the home – but I have nowhere to go to shop for this stuff save for what’s mentioned prior.

The store chains I mentioned at the beginning of this article would typically not sell cheap stuff. Almost everything in the store started in the mid-range territory. This was actually very good to know, because no matter what you bought, you knew it at least wasn’t bottom-of-the-barrel crap and that what you bought was a quality product.

There were several other good advantages to the small-box electronics store:

• You could browse a ton of products without having to walk the length of a football field just to do it.
• For audio products you got a much more accurate representation of what it would truly sound like in your home due to the store’s smaller size.
• The box your product came in was always perfect (hey, it matters.)
• Staff was very knowledgeable about just about every product in the store.

Is it time for the small-box electronics store to come back? I think so.

What do you think?

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Is It Time For The Small-Box Electronics Store To Make A Comeback?

I am a user of the Iphone 3G, and of course that means I must use AT&T. Others have talked about the various service disruptions, undependable voice mail, and generally being a bottleneck to an otherwise awesome phone. Here in the Tampa Bay area, I haven’t had many problems with the service. Sure, a few dropped calls. Times where my voice mail is delayed. Overall, however, it has been fine…

Unless you need to change something.

Recently, I decided to add flat rate text messaging to my plan. A simple $5.00/month addition to the plan. Instructions were to leave everything else in place.

The lady tells me it has been added, thank you and have a nice day.

One little problem, though. She never added it. When I got my next bill, I was being charged on a per-text basis still. So, I call the company about it and my account showed no record AT ALL of my prior call to add this $5.00 text messaging plan.

What the hell was that lady looking at when she told me it was done?

Oh, but it gets better.

So, the second lady apologizes for the inconvenience and proceeds to add the text messaging plan. She tells me it has been added, she reduces my bill to take off the prior charges for text messaging. Thank you and have a nice day.

One little problem. My Iphone no longer had ANY text messaging capability. At the same time, NO INTERNET. No 3G or Edge coverage at all.

So, I call for the THIRD time. Get this…

No record of me adding text messaging. I told her to add it – AGAIN – and to tell me why I have no Internet. She said my plan had no data plan. I proceeded to tell her it DOES have a data plan and I’ve been paying for it since day one. Then, she said “Oh wait, yes it does.”. Which is it? She said there might be something wrong with my Iphone, so she “adds” the text message plan then forwards me to support.

The guy in support looks and tells me I have no data plan and no text messaging. WHAT THE HELL? He says he has no idea what the other people were doing (I believe him). He said the Iphone doesn’t even come without a data plan and has no idea how one of those ladies managed to remove it from my plan.

This tech support guy fixed my problems.

It took 4 attempts and the loss of my Internet service to get a simple $5.00 text messaging plan added to my account. Hell, when I get my next bill, I wouldn’t be surprised now to find they never added it. Time will tell.

AT&T, do a damn IQ test before you hire people. Your first-level customer service is run by people who apparently are surprised when they manage to tie their own shoes in the morning.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

AT&T And a Comedy of Stupidity

Here’s a few examples.

Cloud Computing

This is a concept of computing that has been around for a very long time. Where it happened originally was in enterprise environments several years before what we know now as the internet existed.

The idea is sound with cloud computing. What isn’t sound is nobody knows how to deploy it in a cost effective way that actually works. That’s always been the problem and always will be.

Oddly enough, where the cloud works best is with home internet users. But in enterprise.. not so much.

E-Book Readers

This technology has not exactly caught on like gangbusters. But there were those who said it would earlier this year. It hasn’t.

E-Book tech at present is not mature enough for everybody to have an e-book reader as they would an iPod and/or cell phone, that much is clear.

Also the fact that you need a subscription and batteries just to read something doesn’t exactly fly over well with people.

"Green" I.T. Department

One of the huge buzzwords of ‘09 has been green. Green, green and more green. However you simply cannot walk into a production IT environment and say, "Guess what, everybody? We’re ditching the mainframe to save a few kilowatt hours!"

Anybody who would say that would be shown the door in short order.

The idea of a "green" IT environment has about the same chance of working as, say, a paperless environment.

Those who work in IT will get that joke.

Internet TV

We heard earlier in the year that providers like Hulu were going to change television forever. They didn’t. Nobody threw out their television sets. Nobody cancelled their cable or satellite subscriptions.

Like e-books, this technology cannot be shoved down people’s throats. It has to mature for a few years before people are willing to drop the cable company. And that time certainly isn’t now.

What tech do you think is "immature"?

Feel free to weigh in your opinion by posting a comment or two.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Some Of The "Immature" Tech Of 2009

When a company makes the huge decision to change its name, the public either accepts it or vehemently rejects it.

Two examples of this are Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Yes, different type of business entirely, but both these companies tried to change their names and ultimately fell back. Burger King was briefly shortened to BK; Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC.

The only thing either of the name changes did was make for good domain name acquisitions. However KFC.com still says "Kentucky" right on the home page; they were never able to shake the original full name. BK.com, same deal.

Both companies must have lost a bundle and then some trying to convince people to call them by their shorter "cutesy" names. But it was all for nothing, particularly with Burger King. Nobody calls that place "BK". Ever. And nobody ever will. That’s what we call a complete marketing failure, because the market refused to accept it.

RadioShack in its decision to change the name to The Shack doesn’t exactly warm me over with confidence in the brand.

If I ask you, the PCMech audience, why do you go to RadioShack in the first place, what would your answer be?

Go ahead and comment with your answer, but I’m going to take a guess as to what you’d say:

• "Best place to buy and set up a cell phone."
• "I go there when I need a specialized battery for my watch/motherboard/hearing aid/etc."
• "I only go there whenever Wal-Mart didn’t have the electronic whatever-it-is I needed."

Am I right? Let me know. Post a comment on that.

Now let me ask you a second question. Does a name like The Shack sound like somewhere you’d go for electronics merchandise?

This name change may do more harm than good.

Over the years, RadioShack tried diligently to convince the public that it is not a electronics hobbyist’s store (which it was originally). That took years to do. And for all intents and purposes, RadioShack did it. They shifted the merchandise around, changed the store format a bunch of times until they found one that worked and more or less established themselves as an "upper" electronics store.

Here’s the problem with The Shack:

It denotes that old-time electronic hobbyist store feel. But isn’t this exactly what RadioShack has been trying to avoid with all these years of rebranding? Anybody who has been in a RadioShack recently knows this, especially if you know how they used to be.

The Shack doesn’t say, "quality electronics" whatsoever. In fact, it screams one word: Cheap. RadioShack, you’re not Wal-Mart and your patrons don’t want you to be.

RadioShack should have gone with simply RS. While KFC and BK didn’t work, RS as a shortened name for RadioShack would have. In fact it would have worked wonders. This is a brand that absolutely, totally would have worked as a replacement for RadioShack. And if RS wasn’t available, RS Outlet would have worked just as well. It’s not "radio" that RadioShack needs to drop, it’s "shack".

What do you think?

Will you be shopping at "The Shack"? Or will you always call it RadioShack like it’s always been?

I call it, "that place that charges $36 for a f***ing FireWire cable." That’s not a joke, by the way.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

RadioShack Name Change. Why?

One of the arguments against Apple has always been their control over their devices. With the Mac, I think it is a total non-issue. As an owner of three Macs, I can attest that I am not limited by anybody and can do anything I want with my computers. However, the Iphone is a pretty different story.

In terms of smartphones, the Iphone is revolutionary. I think it is the best smartphone on the market, although the Palm Pre might have the potential of giving the Iphone a run for the money. The Iphone craze, though, is well deserved.

But, the major drawbacks with the device come down to direct decisions by Apple:

1. Apple has to approve each and every app in the App Store. Their reasoning to approving or not approving apps seems to be disjointed and inconsistent. It also seems to take forever sometimes.
2. Apple’s deal to tie the phone to AT&T has been a real problem. AT&T has simply not been able to keep up with the Iphone. The latest Iphone 3GS has capabilities that you can’t even tap into because of AT&T network limitations. Complaints about dropped calls is high. Complaints about lack of MMS are resounding, considering even some of the cheapest phones out there can do MMS while the Iphone still cannot because of AT&T.

Steven Frank, an Iphone app developer at Panic, recently wrote a very hard-hitting post declaring that he is quitting the Iphone. For him, the final straw was Apple rejecting all Google Voice apps from the App Store. In fact, the rejection even included Google Voice apps that had already been approved. They just went in there and retroactively removed them.

And let’s look at that for a moment…

You can get Blackberries on AT&T with apps for Google Voice. There are other apps in the App Store which could potentially conflict with AT&T services. There has been a lot of speculation as to whether it was Apple or AT&T which triggered the rejections, but I think one thing is very clear: This was profit motivated and NOT in the best interest of Iphone owners. From all appearances, this was a “stick it to Google” move.

The App Store approval process is nothing but a HUGE boondoggle. I personally have a friend who is STILL waiting for Apple to approve or give any word whatsoever on a new app. It has been FIVE WEEKS. He’s heard nothing. So, timing is inconsistent. Apple’s own reasons for doing things seems to be purposely hidden while also being inconsistent. And app developers are left in the dark.

Steven Frank ended his post with these comments:

I realize these actions are utterly insignificant to Apple. I know I’m a tiny tadpole flapping his tail helplessly in anger at the ocean. But at least my conscience is clear. I hope change is coming. I’m really going to miss my iPhone terribly. I’m frustrated and disappointed at the whole situation.

I think this sums up a rising sentiment. Apple appears to make it’s Iphone decisions to suit one party: Apple. And when customers feel insignificant to Apple, THAT’S A PROBLEM. No customer should feel like a “tiny tadpole”.

Apple needs to loosen up on the Iphone. And it needs to ditch the AT&T contract. That contract is set to be renewed in 2010, and if Apple renews that contract, expect a mass exodus from the Iphone. Because that will have proved that Apple doesn’t care about it’s customers.

Speaking for myself, I still like my Iphone. However, I don’t want my hands artificially tied by a company only looking out for profits at the expense of their customer. The attractiveness of jail-breaking my phone is looking better and better every day. I haven’t done it yet, however if Apple keeps making decisions which seem only to be self-preserving, I might very well make the move.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Apple, You’re Screwing Up The Iphone

But not on this issue.

I’m going to say this flat out: If you text while you drive, you’re an idiot. It is one of the dumbest things you could possibly do behind the wheel of a car.

If you’re caught doing it, my solution would be simple. The officer takes your wireless device, puts it on the ground, smashes it with a crowbar, fines you $500 for being stupid, then tells you to have a nice day and drive safe. And yes, you deserve to have that happen to you if you text while you drive. Better to have your phone smashed and your wallet hurt than kill someone else because while texting you ran a red light and t-boned another car.

If you can believe it, the major wireless carriers more or less oppose a ban of this type. They believe better driver education will solve this problem. Wrong, wrong and wrong again. There is no amount of education that will curb this issue whatsoever. What people will listen to more than anything else are stiff fines.

There is absolutely nobody that could ever convince me that there is ever a "safe" time to text while driving. It should be illegal to do anywhere in the US, period.

Do you see texting while driving where you live?

Don’t you get a really nervous feeling whenever you see anyone doing it, knowing how dumb it is?

What’s your state law(s) concerning wireless device use in a motor vehicle?

Do you think what’s on the books now is fair or not? Does your state even have laws concerning wireless phones in motor vehicles at all?

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Yes, There Should Be A National Ban On Texting While Driving

Here’s the thing: You cannot get such a laptop from Apple for under $1,000. They just don’t build it. So, why make the comparison?

It’d be like Chevy doing a commercial which starts with a person who wants a Lexus with all the bells and whistles for under $15K. Its just not going to happen.

Why? The TARGET MARKETS ARE DIFFERENT.

With the $1,000+ PC market, Apple has a staggering 91% market share, according to an NPD report. Put another way, people looking for “cream of the crop” computers simply don’t buy PCs. 9 out of every 10 dollars goes to Apple. They’re willing to pay.

I have wondered out loud why Apple doesn’t build and offer a mid-grade tower computer, a “Mac Pro Lite”. Since then, however, I realized that Apple just isn’t going to bother any time soon. It isn’t their target market. It would dilute the brand. Lexus and Acura don’t go out and try to compete with Chevy. In the same vein, Apple isn’t going to try to compete with HP and other budget brands of PC.

If Apple ever released such a machine, it would sell like crazy and increase Apple’s overall market share substantially. But, its clear they not only don’t care, they have no need to care. Apple is making gobs of money by targeting high-quality, high-margin machines.

The Laptop Hunter commercials are just pressing market buttons in a down economy. The truth is that people who buy PCs with price as a primary determination are just not going to consider Apple. People who are more willing to pay, however, will flock to Apple. About 91% of them.

If you want a bargain, you’ll use Windows. If you are happy to pay for a premium computer, you’ll be happy to spend more money and buy a Mac.

Again, its a Chevy compared to a Lexus or a Porche. And, yes, a Chevy has pros and cons, as does the Lexus or Porche. Pros and cons aside, they cater to different markets.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Laptop Hunter Commercials Are Stupid [Mac Versus PC]

In 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice filed legal action against Microsoft alleging it was a monopoly that abused it’s market power in the PC market. The chief complaint had to do with Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows and restricting use of competing browsers on the Windows platform. Microsoft, for it’s part, contended that merging the two products was a natural evolution and that they were tightly integrated. This case ended in settlement and, at the end of the day, not much changed.

Are we close to seeing a rerun? It is certainly possible. This time, the target might very well be Google.

President Obama appointed Christine Varney as the head of the antitrust division at the Justice Department. However, back up to June of 2008, and Varney was publicly declaring Google a problem. "For me, Microsoft is so last century," Varney said. "They are not the problem. I think we are going to continually see a problem, potentially, with Google."

Varney was one of Netscape’s attorneys during the Microsoft case, so she was very much involved with painting Bill Gates as evil incarnate. Now, Varney is suggesting that Google is repeating Microsoft’s bullying, but this time in the world of cloud-computing. She says Google is amassing such enormous market power in the world of web applications that consumers will also be forced into using Google products.

And she seems to be on a mission. In her first speech as an Obama administration member, she said, “In the past, the antitrust division was a leader in its enforcement efforts in technology industries, and I believe we will take this mantle again.”

Google is well known for it’s company mantra “Don’t Be Evil”. The company was formed with a very different mentality than many others. They treat their employees extremely well. The company seems to really go out of it’s way to support the public good and social projects. One could also very easily argue that Google has played a huge role in expanding wealth online to the “little guy” with it’s Adsense program, allowing small-time web publishers to make money.

But recently, Google has been raising eyebrows among some who like to control things. In 2007, regulators got nervous about Google’s plans to acquire DoubleClick. In 2008, the Department of Justice forbid a proposed search-ad deal between Google and Yahoo. The Google book-scanning project has raised legal eyebrows.

Bottom line, Google is huge. However, they got huge because they offer superior products and they did it better than the others. That said, the “hugeness” of Google is attracting eyeballs. Especially as Google works on expanding into areas other than search. Google is actively promoting the idea of a web-based computing environment, one in which the significance of a desktop-bound operating system is very much diminished. In such a world, regulators will be very nervous because Google is in position to more or less control such an online world.

Another issue is data security. Google offers many free services in exchange for the data. When you have your email on Gmail, you’re giving Google access to your address book. When you use Google’s free 411 service, they are using the request to improve voice recognition, which will be used in Google Voice (yet another of Google’s free services that will give Google access to your phone records).

Personally, I think Google is a good company out to do good things. However, in that mission, Google is likely to grow so big that people in regulatory positions might try to take them down a notch.

I am not a lawyer, however it seems to me that a key point is whether consumers have a choice. It seems we do. For example, PCMech’s very own Rich Menga has decided he does not want to use Google services. And guess what – he doesn’t. Except for public services like the search engine and Youtube, Rich does not use any of Google’s applications (that I know of). If any person wants to flat out avoid Google, they could. Those of us who do use Google services do so by choice.

So, is this really a matter of stifling competition?

Or this more a matter of that unfortunate human instinct to strike down those who raise their head above the crowd?

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Will Obama Administration Attack Google?