G+_Randy Strye Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 This week's guests were very pro Apple and anti Google. I was only about a third of the way through the episode and wanted to turn it off for the first time ever. A thirty minute discussion on which $250 leather band to get with your Apple Watch immediately after Leo says there's nothing to say about the Apple Watch this week? Painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Brian Sullivan Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I know, I enjoy the episode very much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Paul Comeau Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 not sure how to respond... I took it as rather more playful, some what interesting point of view... but then again it had a rather distinctive bias... one I'm used to and appreciate. then again I have daughters... cough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Randy Strye Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 I don't mind the female outlook... That had nothing to do with it. It was the unnecessarily long discussion about absolutely nothing. At least she basically admitted to the fact that she's ready to spend $750 because of the Apple logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_cody climer Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Christina Warren has a powerful personality. Plus she's opinionated and that's part of the charm atleast for me. That brings up an interesting point about TWiT. Every episode is so very different. At this point I don't listen very often anymore (honestly don't have the time for such a long podcast), but when I do I find the mix of episodes refreshing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Randy Strye Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 Dennis D. McDonald I agree.. but this was just mind-numbing and unnecessary. There's enough Apple Watch talk lately so we didn't need a half hour long conversation on which $250 leather band to get... especially after Leo joked that there was nothing to say about the Apple Watch this week. And then later to go on to, and I quote "Don't be evil? Bullshit!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Dave Trautman Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 If you're not happy with the time-balance of discussion between three and a half well-informed people then tune it out. I got a good perspective from this show on the implications of the Ellen Pao verdict, a bit of perspective on the Google investigations, a whole new take on what will make the ?Watch a fashion trend, and I learned what young girls will do with their Barbies when no one is around. Who could ask for more? They pretty much mentioned every smart-band on the planet during their take on the non-usefulness of Health Kit and they even talked about Glass-holes. When you start a stop-watch on some subject you've clearly stopped listening/watching. TWiG and AAA are there to soothe your soul when you get your Apple knickers in a twist. It was a good show. Much better than some I've watched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Randy Strye Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 Dave Trautman *sigh* AGAIN, I don't mind Apple discussion... when it's RELEVANT. How is such a long discussion about which overpriced leather band to get with your Apple Watch simply because it has an Apple logo relevant to ANYTHING? I already don't really like the fact that people will buy things just because Apple but to justify such a long and needless conversation on "because Apple" is not what I expect from TWiT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Paul Comeau Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 well yeah, then again this is TWiT long known for having conversations digress, go off into rat holes (used to be part of the closing theme), etc. Some work, some don't. Though it is the most popular show, iirc, in Leo's network, it is (imo) the most inconsistent in quality. (for example there were times Dvorak was good, now he's pretty much in grumpy old man mode, so I skip those.) So as usual YMMV. I liked it because it was a rare all women (except Leo of course) panel. Granted to cover the harassment/bias case, but still... But it's o.k. to not like and abe bored with it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Randy Strye Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 Paul Comeau? I think I agree with everything you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Paul Comeau Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Randy Strye What? A reasonable conversation on the internet? Must be the end times. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Dave Trautman Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Paul Comeau is saying much the same thing as I did. But I'm not bitter. :-) The watchband is relevant as this becomes about how Apple will separate itself from the rest. It gave me some perspective from Tech Women who come at this question very differently from people like me. The age difference between Leo and his guests was clearly apparent too. Christina is very ADHD so I find she goes on a bit, but it's Leo's job to moderate. Jill was very informed and has a lot of cred in the wearables arena. Katie brought up a lot of good questions. And Jill's concern about the reverse bias regarding the Pao case was also very relevant. I'm not trying to say you should have liked everything, I'm just thinking you missed a lot else because of your watch overload issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Damian Mongru Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 The Apple watch talk is another example of trying to have it both ways - they say there is no story but on the other hand they HAVE to cover it. What was weird was the coverage of the Ellen Pao case, immediately followed by TWiT enforcing the sexual sterotypes. 'This is a Salmon shirt NOT pink, the manliness of the metal watch band, or Leo not 'seeing' the different types of pink. I understand that sexism etc is not the same thing, and there are differences between men and women (and this is especially prevalent in fashion) but there seemed to be an amazing lack of realisation of what they were saying. As for TWiT being pro Google, I guess it depends which shows you listen to. However, from the shows I listen to, Windows Weekly doesn't fawn over it's subject, and bizarrely, a lot of the show is complaining about Microsoft. As to the OPs point, there was a lot of 'I love the Apple Watch', even though no-one has used one, and a lot (A LOT!) of talk about which watch band they wanted - just get the one you like the look of. The discussion only tangentially saw the watch bands as Apple's way of differentiating itself, but it was more about which watch band the hosts wanted and not really relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Dave Trautman Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Did everyone just miss what I heard? Or was is because women were saying it that you couldn't hear it? Okay, that last one was a cheap shot. But seriously. They were completely correct to describe how designer products for fashion (aimed directly at women incidently) start at the high end and are priced this way to make people "feel better" about the lower priced item. High priced shoes have their lower-price counterparts and people feel okay about having the latest fashion at an "affordable" price. Affordable is a personal issue. Fashion is a personal choice. There's nothing geek here. There's nothing technically different between the top of the line and the lowest version. Just fashion value. It is TWiT and that's tech - for sure. The joking around and the sidebars about what's masculine and feminine are all part of the wider discussion about how this product will affect the larger culture. Frankly speaking, I like it when technical discussions move up to what the impact will be and what effect it might have on how we live our lives. I go to TWiT netcasts for just those kinds of discussions. I watched again. There was 20 minutes on the fashion stuff and 25 minutes on Google vs the FTC. I think it was more balanced than you give it credit for. I can also understand being annoyed by what you're hearing and feeling like it will go on forever. I used to feel that way about all the phone talk on Windows Weekly. I used to zip through the recordings because I didn't want to hear even more about all the phones on every show. Eventually I came to realize phones are the new computers and I settled down. I don't have to like it, but I tolerate it more now than I did. Some guests annoy me more than others. Some shows go off the rails more often than others. I've also noticed that in-studio guests mixed with Skype™ guests is sometimes a bad combination. But it all comes dowm to the how well the moderator handles them. Fr. Robert is my new favourite moderator. This ?Watch stuff will pass soon enough and we can all get on with whatever is next. But for anyone to say this edition was worse than most might be a little harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Damian Mongru Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 We understand that high end products are partly there to make other products look more affordable (and not just in fashion items aimed directly at women, it happens in products aimed at everyone). However, as you say, fashion is a personal choice, and as such it doesn't matter what combinations the host or guests want. As for balance, a 25 minute discussion on monopolistic/antitrust tendencies of Google is a huge story affecting most people who use the Internet. Others may not see the fact that it only received five minutes more than the discussion of the watch band (which didn't even have any 'new' news this week) is not that admirable. One of the great things about TWiT is that it is not time-constrained like traditional media and can give the discussion the time it deserves. Finally, I am not a big fan of the 'if you don't like it don't listen to it' argument. As Padre likes to quote 'the opposite of love isn't hate it's indifference'. In a general sense I think it's good that people discuss what they like and dislike about shows (although nothing seems to divide opinion like Apple). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts