David Schlesinger of Reuters defends his use of Twitter while covering the World Economic Forum.  In doing so he gets into a rant about Journalism in general…

I have little patience for those who cling to sentimental (and frankly inaccurate) memories of the good old halcyon days of journalism that were somehow purer and better than a world where tweets and blogs compete with news wires and newspapers.

Bring it on, I say!

Journalism is one of the great self-declared professions and crafts.  I am a journalist because I said I was one more than two decades ago and have spent the years since working on my abilities. I am not one because I am somehow anointed with a certificate or an exam result.

Journalism is ideally designed for democratisation.

Working for Reuters gives me a tremendous platform and great access. It does not give me a license.

Microblogging and macroblogging and social networks are themselves great platforms.

If great storytellers use those platforms to display their knowledge, access, expertise and abilities, I think that is a marvellous advance.

If I don’t beat the Reuters wire with a live tweet because I deliberately hold back, someone else will. If I don’t beat the Reuters wire because I’m slow or inattentive, someone else will.

First, do they not give degrees in Journalism anymore?  Did I miss that? 

Snarky commentary aside, I’d like you to notice the extensive use of “I” in the paragraph above.  Mr. Schlesinger clearly thinks very highly of himself.  So much so that he seems to place his own judgment over any standards of decorum that his profession has had before him. 

He is what is important in the news that he reports. 

That attitude is exactly why Newspapers around the world are failing.  To understand that let’s take a brief look at bloggers.  Blogging is a work of self expression.  It’s one person taking the news and wrapping it around their impressions of it.  That’s what blogging is supposed to be. 

Journalism on the other end is the art of telling the story as honestly as you can.  Rules of detachment, verifying sources, etc... are designed to create the most truthful representation of the facts.

So the value in reporting is getting as unbiased an account as possible. 

The problem with reporters who aren't dedicated to truth is that the public doesn't value personal opinion as much as truth.  In the past the function of a reporter has been to investigate things we as the public don’t have time to investigate and determine what is true.  The payment people made for Newspapers was a way to make sure there were people out there who had the time and resources to seek that truth.

But, and this is the important part, Truth requires detachment.

Because we all know someone who starts off trying to prove their own opinion can selectively find evidence to do just that.  Detachment allows a person to consider all the evidence and form an opinion based on that evidence.  The field of Journalism is about having that detachment. 

That is why true Journalism is NOT one of the “great self-declared professions and crafts”

It is a very difficult to learn discipline.  But it seems that has been all but forgotten with so many irresponsible Journalists being given carte blanche to do what they please.  That in turn has caused newspapers to lose their competitive edge.  Which is why people aren’t willing to pay for Newspaper’s anymore.  Not because they are outdated but because they offer nothing above and beyond what we can get from bloggers for free.

Living in the U.S. I sometimes forget that there is innovation happening outside of our borders.  Chalk it up to American arrogance I guess.

Anyway, I was having dinner with a friend of mine from "across the pond" (aka Great Britain) and he started telling me about a new startup over there called Texperts.  

Here's a brief synopsis from their web site...

you’re in the urban jungle hunting for answers, just send your question to 66000. Exactly as you would do with a mate. We’ll send you a brilliant answer for a quid - easy. When you need to find a location, the Texperts, in partnership with Multimap, can send an individually-tailored map to your mobile. All it costs is an extra 50p.

What do people ask the Texperts? Well, everything really, from how to find late night karaoke in London to how to get in touch with a good plumber immediately. They want to know train times, restaurant recommendations, sports scores, gift advice, phone numbers, addresses, directions…you get the picture. It’s a daily life support service that can help you out of a jam.

For those who might be thrown by the odd mix of marketing speak and British lingo it's basically a service where you can send a question via text message and they'll answer it for you for about $2 (which is billed to your cell phone)

It is a novel idea and one I'd love to try out. But when I really think about it I'm not sure how useful it would be in the long run.  The mobile web is already getting to the point where most simple items such as sports scores, phone numbers, train times, and other static facts can be found without anyone's help. 

More complicated questions like gift advice would  have to fit into 140 characters which makes their usefulness limited. 

Then you have the biggest possible drawback: The fact that the service is only as effective as the expert on the other end.  Not only could their expertise be faulty but there's also the possibility of their recommendations being tainted.  They certainly wouldn't be the first company to run into a financial shortfall and cash out by doing their sponsors bidding.

(This is speculation of what COULD happen on my part and in no way reflects anything the management of Texperts have ever said, done or even thought about to the best of my knowledge)

As with any new idea there are obviously going to be hurdles and the above ponderings are just a few of the possible ones.  But if they do get it right this could be one of the most powerful concepts to come out of the mobile revolution.  The idea of being able to get quality information on the move is really the fulfillment of the promise made by the mobile web.   Any company that can lay claim to a significant part of that fulfillment is in a really good place.

If Texperts is even half as effective as they claim to be they're in an enviable place.

I have nothing to write about.  I developed the habit of devoting a certain amount of time each weekday to writing a post for this blog. On the first 4 days of the week those posts are topical and then I write about something I feel like talking about on Fridays.

But...to be honest...there's not a lot going on in the tech world right now. When the top story on Techmeme is someone discovering what the model number of the next gen iPhone is you know it's a pretty dead news cycle.

So with that in mind, I hope you'll forgive me for this.

For the record, this isn’t all fluff.  It is a great example of what I see in real life all the time.  Much of getting things done in IT is convincing non-IT people to do what you tell them is right.  This requires getting them to respect you and in that way this is instructional (at least in my opinion).  Here’s the situation…

She's speaking, of course about the "a-hole" episode, when Jessica called out Bill O'Reilly and then harassed a reporter who didn't want to answer her questions—taunting him with "Be neutral about it, be Sweden!" This, of course, gave TMZ a chance to call her a ditz for not saying Switzerland.

But Jess isn't going to sit around and let people call her stupid, especially when Wikipedia and MySpace exist to clear her name. This is her defense of giving Sweden the neutral shout-out:

"Last week, Mr. Bill O'Reilly and some really classy sites (i.e.TMZ) insinuated I was dumb by claiming Sweden was a neutral country. I appreciate the fact that he is a news anchor and that gossip sites are inundated with intelligent reporting, but seriously people...it's so sad to me that you think the only neutral country during WWII was Switzerland. Check out: [Wikipedia link] if you want to see what I was referring to. I appreciate the name calling and the accurate reporting. Keep it up!!"

Now the irony here is that even the Wikipedia source she cites points out that Sweden was neutral in assertion only and in fact took sides when it fit their needs.

But putting that aside the real point is this: She obviously meant to say Switzerland.  Switzerland is the country that everyone uses in these types of examples because Switzerland is the country that has built their entire livelihood around a neutrality pledge. 

Beyond that if she had meant Sweden it would only make sense if the person she was talking to had extensive knowledge of World War II.  Enough to know that Sweden, a country with slightly more people than the State of Washington, had declared themselves neutral during WWII. 

All this leads to one conclusion, she clearly meant to say Switzerland.

So why am I posting on this?  Because I think it’s a good example of how people make themselves look bad.  When you’re wrong, be wrong.  Say you were stupid and move on with it.  We’ve all said stupid things by mistake and it’s not like anyone can really hold it against you.  If they do they were just looking for a reason to attack you so it doesn’t matter what you say. 

I didn’t lose any respect for Jessica Alba when she said Sweden because it’s an honest mistake.  I did lose respect for her when she tried to cover it up because she thinks so much of herself that she can’t admit she was simply wrong.

The Wall Street Journal provides another example of how perspective is everything.  In their article entitled "Bumpy Start for Blackberry Storm" they say...

When Verizon Communications Inc. reports its fourth-quarter results Tuesday, investors will be looking for clues on how the Storm has fared. Verizon Wireless is the exclusive U.S. carrier for the device.

People familiar with the matter say the company sold roughly 500,000 units in the first month after the Storm's Nov. 21 launch. That is a promising start, though well off the pace of AT&T Inc.'s sale of 2.4 million iPhone 3G devices in that device's first full quarter on the market.

The problem with the comparison above is that the original iPhone had been around for over a year when the 3G was released.  It was already a success and already had an established momentum. 

A fairer comparison would be to place the Storm against the original iPhone's sales.  From Silicon Alley Insider (2 months after the original iPhone's release)...

Days after Apple gets hammered by the Street over iPhones sales, Steve Jobs tells us that he's selling plenty of fancy phones: 1 million of them in 74 days. The news, announced before the market opened, bumped up AAPL: Shares immediately jumped to $137. But now they're dropping down again, below $135. So is 1 million a good number or not?

It's not -- not even by Apple's own low-ball public sales goals. Jobs has announced plans to sell 10 million iPhones by the end of 2008 -- a year and a half after launch. But a million iPhones in 74 days works out to a little less than 5 million iPhones per year -- if you're selling them at a consistent rate. Apple sold 270,000 machines in the first two frenzied days it was on sale, which means it took 72 more days to sell another 700,000 phones. That's a 3.6 million annual run rate, which would give Jobs a total of 5.8 million by the end of 2008...

1 Million iPhones in 74 days equates to about 406,000 iPhones in the first month.  That's 94,000 less than the Blackberry Storm.  Which is even more impressive when you remember the iPhone was coming into a market where it was the only device of it's kind.  Storm is competing against the iPhone, G1 and the looming threat of the the Palm Pre.

Moving on,  the WSJ says this in the 4th and 5th paragraph of the article...

Some Storm owners have complained about everything from clunky software for typing on the touch screen to the device's sluggish performance with basic tasks like dialing-by-voice or taking photographs.

"I found myself wanting to throw it in the ocean due to my frustration with its overall usability," said Steven Golub, a longtime Verizon customer from Morristown, N.J., who bought the Storm the day it was released, but returned it a few weeks later.

Which sounds bad, but in the 19th paragraph they say...

Some Storm owners say all new technologies, especially complex mobile devices, have kinks when they first come out. The original iPhone, they point out, ran into early problems after its release when some users couldn't activate their AT&T accounts.

Daniel Mahoney, a financial and management consultant in Philadelphia, said he's happy with his Storm, adding, "No single device is going to be the end-all be-all for everyone."

 

Bottom line: This was a hit piece on the WSJ's part.  They twisted the facts every which way to make the point they wanted to make (notice they couldn't bring themselves to include a happy Storm user).

Right now I'd say the Storm is doing as well as could be expected.  Yes there are some users who hate it but I suspect there are also users who love it (or at least like it a lot).  If there weren't the device's sales would have plummeted. 

I sincerely doubt it will manage to cut into iPhone sales but I suspect it will keep existing Blackberry users on-board and that's really what RIM wanted out of this anyway. 

This isn't a political post.  It might appear as such, but it's not.  I feel strongly about the dangers of self deception and I think that relates heavily to tech.  I have what I call "the Jetsons rule" which is that I believe 95% of what you see on a Jetsons cartoon is possible with today's technology but that technology isn't implemented because the industry can't seem to get people to use it.

I think self deception is a big part of that so when I see a good example of self deception I like to highlight it.  For the next couple years (at least) I suspect a lot of those examples are going to come from politics.  That has nothing to do with the politicians in power.  It has everything to do with the media's feelings towards those politicians (e.g. they love President Obama).

But again, this isn't political.  I'd hope if President Obama read this entry he'd agree with everything in it.  Because none of us truly benefit from people deceiving themselves.

Onto the issue.  Michael Hirsh of Newsweek has a post about how quickly the Bush administration's policies are disappearing.  My contention is that almost all the things he claims have happened didn't and that he's simply deceived himself into thinking they have out of his love for our new President. 

Now again, the issue here isn't "Has President Obama done anything?" because quite frankly he hasn't had time to do anything yet.  But this reporter speaking as if he has and the self deception that represents is what I really want to focus on. 

That said, lets begin with Mr. Hirsh's basic premise...

After Inauguration Day, departed presidents usually become footnotes pretty quickly. What we are witnessing now is far more dramatic. It's closer to a liquidation, or a cauterization. George W. Bush is being turned into an unperson, like a character out of Orwell.

OK, now for his first offering of proof.

The process of erasing the last eight years from American history began with President Obama's inaugural address on Tuesday. Between condemning torture and expressing a willingness to talk with enemies, the new president began eliminating Bush even as the former president sat listening behind him.

I won't spend much on this.  Anyone who takes the stuff in an inauguration speech seriously needs a reality check.  These speeches are designed for history not political reality and are always packed with meaningless platitudes.  Also, for the record, former President Bush has repeatedly stated he is against torture and that he doesn't believe what he's authorized is torture.  So he could very well agree with what President Obama said. 

Then, on his first work day, Obama signed executive orders reversing the Bush administration's emphasis on secrecy and reliance on revolving-door lobbyists, to be followed by three more orders: closing Guantanamo Bay (within a year), forbidding torture and suspending military tribunals for foreign terror suspects.

On Lobbyists he instructed his staff to form a task force to create guidelines for administration officials.  At which point he will implement or reject them.  But he didn't actually implement anything this was just PR at this point.

On torture he basically banned waterboarding.  So that's something. 

On Guantanamo he agreed to pursue closing it within a year meaning nothing has been done yet and anything could be easily rescinded.  In fairness it would be irresponsible for him to shut Guantanamo down immediately and again I stress this isn't a political post against President Obama.  But that doesn't change the fact that nothing's been done yet.  The policies of George W. Bush, as of this moment, are essentially intact. 

Then, on Wednesday, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the appointment of two permanent envoys to major trouble spots—George Mitchell to the Mideast and Richard Holbrooke to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was perhaps the surest sign of all that Obama intends a 180-degree reversal from the ultimatum-heavy approach of the Bush administration

The "surest sign" would be for President Obama to outright say that.  Which he didn't.  I'm sure he has a plan for the Middle East but I'm equally sure that, at this point, we have no idea what it is.  But the U.S. has had a constant dialogue with leaders in both these areas for at least my entire lifetime.  Nothing different has really happened yet.

Obama himself, in his remarks, signaled strongly that his approach to the Mideast would immediately move from unswerving and unquestioning support of Israel, as seen in the last eight years, to more of a broker's role. While making the requisite commitment to Israel's security—and its right to respond to rocket fire from Gaza—he also said it was unacceptable to permit "a future without hope for the Palestinians."

Again, Mr Hirsch takes what is a vague statement and reads it as exactly what he wants to hear.  The statement in and of itself is no different from statements made by all previous Presidents ("These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent."" - George W.  Bush, Jan '08)

So again, it might be a sign that things are headed in the right direction but it might not.  We just don't know  and that is the important point:  Nothing has been done YET. 

Again, I can't stress this enough, the issue here isn't politics.  It's self deception.  It's the danger of becoming complacent because your imagined victory causes  you to stop paying attention to something that you care about. 

A perfect tech related example of this is RSS/Atom Syndication.  When I started reading blogs everyone was pushing the feed readers.  Your best friend, your grandma, you uncle Fred who you barely talk to...they all need to be reading feeds.  But in recent years that talk has disappeared.  Why?

Because they think they've already won.  You hear it all the time.  RSS in now ubiquitous, everyone uses RSS whether they know it or not, etc... 

But anyone paying attention last year saw several studies placing adoption around 11%.  That's dismal.  But it doesn't matter because people have convinced themselves that they've already won the war so they see no reason in continuing to fight it.

There really is no trend more dangerous than self-deception because it essentially makes you useless.  You can never achieve an actual goal because it will always be easier to take the first step and then deceive yourself into thinking that's all you needed to do.

One of the things that isn't as evident in tech discourse is how much tech is growing closer and closer to the traditional role of science.  For example, it used to require hundreds of thousands of dollars to collect and collate a study of a large group of people.  But the web in combination with databases and processing power has now put much of that power into the hands of anyone with a $499 computer.

That's a good thing but it isn't without it's problems.

Like in many places the addition of amateurs has served to weaken the discipline behind scientific endeavor.  A while back I saw an article on Hacker News entitled "Why People Vote Republican" which tried to assign mental defect as a reason for a political ideology.  This was all based on a supposedly "scientific study". 

I didn't want to address it at the time because it was during the election and everyone was getting a little too political for my taste.  But now that everything's cooled down (at least for the next year and a half or so) I thought I'd take a crack at it.

Quickly Dispatching the Idiocy that Inspired This Post

Let me preface this with the obvious point: If you believe a person's political position, no matter what it is, results from a mental defect you are...to be blunt...a fool.  That said, if I didn't back that up I'd be just as much a fool as he is so let me elaborate.

Basically the problem with Mr Haidt's argument boils down to this quote (kudos to  him for putting it in the opening sentence)...

What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress.

His argument is based around his own irrationality in believing that "working class" people who vote Republican are doing so against their own self interest.  That's ridiculous.

Here's the Truth: Since the advent of modern economic theory there have been two differing perspectives on how to create wealth.  One side believes that it's best to give money to corporations who will then hire people which in turn creates more jobs and more wealth.  The other is to give money to individuals who will buy more stuff forcing corporations to hire more people and hence create jobs and more wealth.

These are both logical perspectives and the reason they persist is because neither can be conclusively disproven.

With that fairly simple logical explanation Mr. Haidt's thesis goes down the tubes.  Both of the above stated theories produce wealth for the working class if correct and hence neither is necessarily "against the best interest" of any class of people. 

But That's Not My Point

What the above represents more than anything is the very worst perversion of the scientific method.  Worse it's from an organization that claims to revere science. 

The above article is off a site called Edge.org.  In their about page they describe themselves like this...

The third culture consists of those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are.

The problem with this is that there's an inherent contradiction.  Empiricism requires detachment while "rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are. " requires extrapolation from what the data provides which can only be provided through very deep involvement

That's why the above quoted article is so important.  The author has essentially gone into his study with a conclusion and then wrapped his findings around it. That isn't science! 

Which is where the problem is.  People like the author of the above article try to use Science to bolster their claims and in doing so not only corrupt the scientific method but also erode people's trust in science itself.  In truth, Science does not draw conclusions.  Even our most basic scientific beliefs are only proven to the extent that we can see with our limited understanding and a true scientist knows that even the most basic theories can be over turned in an instant. 

So anyone who tells you that science "proves" anything is talking largely out of school.  Science suggests it does not prove and anyone who thinks otherwise is just trying to prop their own agenda up through manipulation.

I'm generally still trying to avoid political posts as much as possible but this is just so funny that it deserves any bit of Google juice I can give it (and it barely counts as political anyway)...

On Fox News, Chris Wallace just speculated that President Obama might still legally be regular ol' Barack Obama, because his botched oath doesn't count.

He went on to say...

Wallace predicted this will go to the courts. Though, presumably, if it makes it to the Supreme Court, John Roberts will rule that he administered a legitimate oath. (Besides, the mistake was Roberts' fault anyway, not that any of this is actually the least bit significant.)

Since George W. Bush can't constitutionally still be President (given the time limit) I guess that leaves us with Ol' Joe.  May he govern wisely.

In closing, may I just say it's sad that yet another Presidential Election will end up in the courts

:)

Addendum: So sorry Joe, better luck next time.

I hadn’t heard of this until I saw it on Techmeme but it opened my eyes to some interesting points.  First let me give you a quote…

The vote on concealing MPs’ expenses has been cancelled by the government!

In other words - we won!

This is a huge victory not just for transparency, it’s a bellweather for a change in the way politics works. There’s no such thing as a good day to bury bad news any more, the Internet has seen to that.

Over 7000 people joined a Facebook group, they sent thousands of emails to over 90% of all MPs. Hundreds of thousands of people found out about the story by visiting TheyWorkForYou to find something they wanted to know, reading an email alert, or simply discovered what was going on whilst checking their Facebook or Twitter pages. Almost all of this happened, from nowhere, within 48 hours, putting enough pressure on Parliament to force change.

So basically they’re claiming credit for forcing the House of Commons to cancel the vote based on their online support.  I had initially planned to write my standard “let’s look at the numbers of this” post but in doing that it opened my eyes to something I don’t think a lot of people realize.

But before getting to that, let’s do the reality check…

The Reality Check

Basically the original version of this post just took it by the numbers.  The group that posted this claims 7,000 Facebook users.  That’s in comparison to a population of around 60 million being represented by the House of Commons.

There are 646 MPs in the House of Commons meaning each of them represents a population of around 92,000 people on average.  Meaning if this entire Facebook group came from one constituency of average size it would still only represent about 7% of the population.

Finally, of the constituencies represented  Na h-Eileanan an lar has the smallest population at 22,000 voters.  Meaning even if every member of this Facebook group was in the least populated constituency in the U.K. they still couldn’t swing the election of that one single MP. 

So this 7,000 person group represented absolutely no threat to the MPs of the British Parliament which was the point of my original post.  After making that point I was going to make a glib remark about the number of e-mails sent.  Specifically I was going to say this…

“As for e-mails, they mean nothing.  I can write a program in 5 minutes that will send thousands of e-mails to 90% of the MPs and it doesn’t mean I have any support beyond my own PC” 

My New Admiration For Facebook

As I was typing that last line I realized something I don’t think I’d quite grasped before.  Facebook has taken a lot of criticism for it’s sometimes over zealous drive to make sure every Facebook account represents an actual person.  But what I don’t think people realize is they’ve done a great service to people who actually have accounts. 

Unlike pretty much anything else online Facebook allows you to show a verifiable number of supporters.  That’s huge.  Nothing else that I can think of does that because almost any other service allows for easy creation of multiple accounts.  So they are the single “new media” source for verifiable numbers. 

Not only that but based on statistics they can provide you could use Facebook to prove where your support is, that your support is of a certain age, or any number of other things.  In this way Facebook has done an even greater service to those who support “new media.”  They’ve made it useful in supporting small causes in a way that nothing else ever has before. 

In Defense of the Reality Check Mentality

Some people wonder why I do these “Reality Check” posts all the time and I’d humbly submit this point on Facebook as the reason why.  Because when you do new media right it can make a huge difference.  It can give us access to things we’ve never had before and allow us to accomplish things we could never have imagined a few years ago. 

But doing that requires looking at the reality of the situation.  Understanding why some things don’t make a difference and then finding ways to use the tools available to make the difference we set out to achieve. 

People who claim credit for things they could not have been responsible for just to pat themselves on the back are working against that goal.  Because if you hide the things that don’t work than people won’t know they need fixing.  

I like inauguration day.  I especially like it when power changes hands.  Whether I agree with the incoming President or not there's something really amazing about watching not only an orderly transition but the transfer of power between bitter enemies.  There's something very special about those in power being wise enough to realize their system of government is more important than their personal objectives.

This inauguration is especially monumental for me because George W. Bush will always hold a special place for me.  For better or worse he was the victor in the first two elections I was eligible to participate in.  So even though I've never been a fan I can't help but feel a little protective at the same time.

I mean, I've disliked the man's policies for longer than all of you.  Back when everyone was cheering him for solving the communication problems between the CIA and the FBI by creating a whole new bureaucracy and placing it smack dab in the middle of them I was sitting at home asking "WTF?" 

But I've never disliked the man himself and I think any rational person has to admit he's been accused of things he simply did not do.  First, he did not lie.  I've looked and looked for even a shred of evidence that proves he lied and have come up empty every time.  Everyone believed Iraq had WMD including his immediate predecessor who had access to the exact same intelligence he did.  Also he did not take money from Halliburton or anyone else in exchange for favors.  There's never been any proof of that and quite frankly he wouldn't have needed to.  Halliburton wasn't going to be donating to the John Kerry campaign no matter what so there was no reason for President Bush to risk his legacy like that. 

The truth is George W. Bush is really guilty of two things.  Wanting to please everyone and being colossally arrogant.  Both those traits will probably cost him his legacy but neither make him an evil villain. 

As for Barack Obama, I really don't know.  The problem I have with President-Elect Obama is to this day he hasn't really expressed much of an opinion on anything.  He's for quality education and affordable health care for all but...I mean...who isn't?  Whenever he's pushed for a real stance on something he seems to dodge the issue with platitudes.

So I really have no idea where or how he's going to act as President.

But I wish him luck which is something he'll surely need.  The main problem with having your supporters essentially deify you is that there's no way you can live up to their expectations.  So even if he succeeds he fails in their eyes which is not a position I envy.  Particularly for someone heading into a financial crisis coupled with at least two wars.  So I hope he enjoys today's celebration because I suspect it will be the last easy day he gets for a while. 

The truth is, Republican or Democrat, we all have to hope President Obama does well in his new position.  Because things getting any worse than they already are is not something anyone wants. 

Michael Arrington of Techcrunch posted an update to his Tablet project today.  Here are two videos he posted demonstrating the device...

Now before going any further I have to give him and everyone involved credit for getting this to a prototype.  I'll be the first to admit I didn't think it would actually get there and it's a great accomplishment for them to have done it.   With that said I'm completely split on this and I'll tell you why...

Side #1: The Positive Side

Tablets are expensive.  The cheapest tablet PC you'll generally find is the Fujitsu Lifebook and it hovers at about the $850-$900 range.  So what the Techcrunch tablet offers isn't commercially available. 

Also, being the device would have a full browser you could make the argument that there are usage cases where it could compete with larger devices like TabletPCs.  With more businesses using web based applications something like this would work everywhere from medical settings to industrial sites.  Basically any place where it would be nice to carry around information but you don't want to risk a $1,600 TabletPC.

Side #2: The Negative Side

Having said the above there are two things that make me wonder about this project.  First among them is you can get a netbook from Asus with a whole OS and built in applications for only $39 more than what the Techcrunch Tablet would cost when built.   In some ways that's comparing Apples to Oranges but in saying that you have to realize the orange (aka the Asus netbook) can do everything the Apple can and much more (albeit less competently with a smaller screen and no touch ability).

Second, and this goes to the netbook point, I'm not sure there's much interest for this type of product.  You have to remember the OLPC project announced an all touchscreen PC in May of last year.  Meaning even if companies like Asus had just miraculously not thought of this idea they had it thrust into their face 8 months ago.  Yet, to the best of my knowledge, none of them are pursuing it. 

Even though the engineering would be relatively simple (touchscreen manufacturers provide drivers meaning most of the engineering would be done by simply building a case that grafts the touchscreen onto existing netbook hardware).  That really does beg the question of "why?" and that's certainly a question I'd be asking before pursuing this (Jack Schofield has a nice piece on this)

Finally, there's my issues with "finger based computing" in general which are a post in themselves (a post I already made here).

Conclusion

Yeah...I really don't have one.   That's sort of what "being split" on a subject means :)

But if forced  to come up with something I'd say this.  From a consumer perspective it looks cool and I'd almost certainly buy one at $299.  But if I were in Mr. Arrington's shoes I probably wouldn't take a chance on this.  It's a lot of effort for a market that seemingly doesn't exist and if by some chance it was successful it would be very easy for the consumer electronics brands to swoop in and steal the market from you.  

Addendum: As more posts have popped up on this you're hearing a lot of the "This is just a netbook with a touch screen and that's why it would fail" argument.  That might seem like the same argument I'm making above but it isn't.  What I'm trying to say above is that, from a marketing perspective, people will think that (hence all the blog posts saying it).  But in reality the argument doesn't hold much weight since both represent different usage models.  Form factor really does determine usage and the netbook is more like a laptop while the tablet is more like a portable tv or a clipboard (depending on the use)