 A lot of complaints about what they did in their prime time slots that were good, solid broadcasts or cable decisions. I think not things that I liked, but they made sense. The biggest thing I belied about was Teclah or was it? So lack of oatmeal in the lack of a tech live or was it the big thing that they took away the oatmeal? Yeah, I do. Yeah, I do. I don't remember Teclah. I think that was that was the yeah. I worked, I worked the pot that you were you were entered over the news. I worked that I was the teleprompter. Yeah, the one that I didn't think there should be news, but it's like you can't do a Bloomberg style. Yeah, well, it was bad. It was a horrible timing. It's horrible timing. But they launched it in 98. It probably would have shot through the roof, but they launched it like two months before the boss. Yeah, well, it became a layoff network. The thing is, everyone who was involved in Manch or from our management side is like, yeah, I don't think it's such a great idea because you're spending a lot of money with the original. The original idea was good, which was cover market, open market, close hour on either side, four hours a day. Like that's great. And then they blew it up into nine hours and that was just and they spent a godly sum. Yeah. And then Paul Allen got freaked out and people said, well, I'm burning money. It's like, yeah, it's a TV. I took a match and put it on this money and now the money's burning. I don't know how to make business decisions, but I live with Brock. I don't think that's the way he talks. I don't know. That's the way, like, like he sucked in helium. I played the guitar in my grown man band. It seemed like a decent guitar player to me. I'm sure he makes a mean. Uh, uh, what's that? What the hell mean lemon drop? Sure. Not sure. That what where you came from? Drop them and drop them and drop. All right, Nicole, are you? Yes, sorry. I'm distracted by work slack, but I am back. Yes, that can happen. All right. Here we go. Daily Tech News Show is powered by its audience. To find out more, head to dailytechnewshow.com slash support. This is the Daily Tech News for Tuesday, April 4th, 2017. I'm Tom Merritt. Joining me to now today is Ms. Nicole Lee, Senior Editor at Engadget. Welcome back to the show, Nicole. Good to have you. Hey, good to be back. It's been too long. Patrick Beja is off today, but we're very excited to have Nicole with us. Uh, we're going to talk about Twitter's public publicly stating like we want to be the place you watch TV. There's some interesting things about that. And I know you're following the social space quite a bit these days. Yep, that's right. Well, let's start off with a few tech things you should know. The Association for Computing Machinery has awarded the 2016 Touring Award to Worldwide Web Creator Tim Berners-Lee to be presented at the ACM's annual banquet in San Francisco on June 24th. Do you think you'll make it to the banquet, Nicole? No, I don't think so. I was not invited myself. Yeah, me neither. So, yeah, but very deserving, right? I mean, this is Vint Cerf's got it before and stuff. So that's good. Monday, US President Donald Trump signed a bill into law blocking the implementation of the FCC broadband privacy regulations that were set to go in place. We've talked a lot about those regulations and their impact. But, you know, this is the day that it yesterday actually was the day that it became law. Intel completed its spin out of Intel Security as an independent company going back to its old name, McAfee. Intel Security General Manager Christopher Young is now CEO of McAfee. You feel good to have McAfee back? McAfee? McAfee? McAfee? I guess so. I don't know if it's a name that's popular to too many people these days, but back in the day, for sure, it used to be a household name. Yeah, Eurogamer's Digital Foundry team says it will announce exclusive information about Microsoft's project Scorpio Game Console. It's the newest version of the Xbox One. Everybody's been hankering to find out more about most of the details are probably going to come at E3. But on Thursday, April 6th at 9 a.m. Eastern, some bunch of information is apparently coming from Digital Foundry. A team, by the way, Nicole, that has not been very nice to Microsoft about things in the past. It hasn't. So it will be interesting to see what they have to say about their exclusive deal. Yeah, kind of bold for Microsoft to give an exclusive to them. So, I don't know. All right, here are some more top stories. Phil Schiller, Craig Federighi and John Ternes, if you recognize those names, they're all Apple executives, met with a select number of reporters to discuss Apple's commitment to pro users. Apple says it's completely rethinking the Mac Pro expects to release a new version in 2018, along with an external display, all but admitting not using the word mistake, but basically saying, you know, we made we made some bad decisions. I don't think they even use the word bad, but, you know, with with the current Mac Pro, they are also bumping the specs of the current Mac Pro because they say it is useful for some people. So options for a six core, eight core Xeon processor, dual AMD Fire Pro D 500 or D 700 GPUs you can choose and 16 gigabytes of RAM. Also, spec bumps are promised for the iMac targeted at pro users. They say they have a lot of professional users using the iMac. That's coming later this year. Apple also noted Mac Pro sales grew 20 percent in Q1. They noted that 80 percent of the desktops and laptops they ship are laptops and 20 percent are desktops. And that the Mac user base is near 100 million users. So I mean, it was a big mea culpa sitting down with these reporters, Nicole, and saying, yeah, the thermal power management wasn't so great in the Mac Pro. We banked on dual GPUs and everybody's still going with a different kind of approach. So we're rethinking it and no pro users. We don't dislike you. I think that was a big deal last year as well, because, you know, they haven't refreshed the iMac line for forever. It seems like and I do know a lot of artists and designers, they do they do use the iMac for design work and artists and artwork. And it's I think it was a big letdown for them to not have any like announcement recently. So I think to have this professional pivot in a way makes sense, especially since as they mentioned, most of their laptops, most of most of the computers as our laptops. So I think the laptops are going to the consumers, I'm guessing, whereas they, you know, the pros are sort of still they still want the power and the horsepower of the desktop provides. Yeah, they they seem to be realizing that a lot of the decisions they made that they were very confident in were not satisfactory to a small percentage. I've always maintained that it felt like Apple was saying that's too small of a market, don't want to necessarily tailor to it. And we think we could sell a lot more laptops and desktops if we target a slightly more casual professional user. So somebody who maybe doesn't need to do 3D modeling, who maybe doesn't need to do AutoCAD, who maybe doesn't need to do cinema level video editing. And now they're backtracking, now they're turning back and saying, you know what, we don't want to abandon those. They even mentioned Final Cut. They said, we have not taken our foot off the gas on developing Logic Pro and Final Cut. These are all things that, you know, as Justin pointed out last week, I hate it when people say, well, why didn't you do this before? But could this be too little, too late? It's interesting because it's Apple. It strikes me that within the past year or so, I've again, I have a lot of friends in the design art industry and they've been using Windows, like they've been using Windows and Windows art programs because to be frank, Windows computers are they're they're much more advanced these days. They can handle art and design just as fine as the Mac. So it's I think the I think that Apple realizes that they're losing the professional market if they don't do something to keep them happy. And they may also be coming around to the idea that sure, we could lose the professional market and it's a small slice, but it could be a trend setting slice. So if they lose that professional market, maybe that starts to erode the rest of its users as well. Maybe one of the reasons that a lot of people got into using Macs was because they saw these high level professionals using Macs. They didn't actually mention that directly, but that seems to be a logical assumption for them to start looking at. I think, you know, a lot of video creators know the the idea that oh, I'm using the same machine that, you know, I don't know, the professionals use is some kind of feeling in that, right? So I think there's something there's something to be said about using the same computer, the same brand of computer that the professionals use and there's some kind of magic there. So yeah, I agree with that. They're going to have to work hard because, first of all, this new Mac Pro is not coming out until next year. Next year. They they they did not do they said that they are focusing on the MacBook Pro as well, but we just got a revision of that. So I wouldn't expect something much to come from there. And they are behind people. I know at least in video editing, and I think it's true in some other industries as well are turning to windows for the reasons you said they windows machines are are powerful now. They're less expensive per power in most cases. And there's lots of good software for it. So Apple's lost a little bit of its momentum there. And it's going to have to work a little harder to gain it back. Yeah, I agree. Business Insider reported that the new name for the combined Yahoo and Verizon properties will be Oath. Daniel Roberts at Yahoo News clarified that the Yahoo brand will not go away. Oath will be the media division containing Yahoo's media verticals. AOL blogs such as Engadget, as well as the Huffington Post will be part of that. Oath will be led by AOL CEO Tim Armstrong and Recode reports the Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer will not continue on with this new media division. Now, Nicole, I know that you you're working there. And so this is directly impacting you as a Engadget employee, which is owned by AOL. My take on it and you tell me if I'm way far off base is that. They, you know, they didn't rename AOL to Huffington Post when they bought the Huffington Post or or or Engadget when they bought Engadget or TechCrunch. So this is them saying, let's have a brand for our media division. Instead of calling it Verizon Media Division, or instead of having all the Yahoo things under AOL, let's just have a clean slate so that we have a name for something that is a perfectly logical organization of all the properties. I would assume you would put Yahoo News and Yahoo Sports and everything in the same department as you would put TechCrunch, HuffPo, Engadget, et cetera. I think you're right in the sense that it makes sense to have a media division in the company, you know, to sort of separate out the the media properties from like the broadband side of things, for example. I think the problem is really the branding. Oh, this last track me as a I don't know, it strikes me as a very high minded sort of over promising kind of thing. Yeah, there's certainly a lot of people having fun with, you know, oath, meaning swear word or take the oath or that this or that, right? I think, you know, here and the thing that matters to us here and Engadget and for people at HuffPo and TechCrunch feel the same way is that we maintain our media independence, you know, regardless of who our corporate overlords are. But, you know, one of the the thing that's important to understand is that we are not Engadget by oath, we're still Engadget, right? You know, like, it's not like, you know, having to post by oath. But it's not when you put it that way. I kind of want it to be like Engadget by oath. It sounds very Victorian. It does for Shakespearean, even. Yeah, for Seuth, for Seuth. I take the oath anyway. Yeah, I think the only thing that's odd about it is that you would expect it to just be like Verizon Media Properties, right? Like our media division, you don't generally come up with a brand name and logo for this. So it does feel like maybe there's something else there. I don't know. The logo as well as like the weird colon logo, I mean, I don't know. I question the people who come up with these like, was there was there a focus study done or something? Anyway, it's a little unusual. The name, the naming is a little unusual. I'm not currently a fan, but who knows where we'll be in, you know, a year from now. Right. I'm curious once this actually, because remember, the acquisition has not closed folks out there. So I'm sure what more will become clear once they can talk about more after the acquisition is finalized, which is expected this summer. Had to Steve Kovac, a business insider, too, for being on this story as well. Spotify and Universal Music Group announced a new licensing agreement Tuesday. New albums from Universal Artists can be restricted to paying users for up to two weeks. The Verge says sources say Spotify will pay slightly less to UMG per stream. So Spotify got a break on what they pay in exchange for this exclusivity window. We're expecting similar deals to be struck with Warner Music Group and Sony Music Group soon. I my wife, Eileen, is a big Spotify user. And I told her about this. I'm like, Hey, is a new deal between Spotify and your company because she works for Fandango, which is owned by NBC, Universal Music Group. And she's like, well, what does it mean for me? She's I'm like, well, you won't be able to get some new albums unless you're a paying subscriber for the first two weeks that they're out. And she's like, well, I'm a paying subscriber, so I don't really care about this story. Do you think that's probably the general consumer reaction? If you're on the free tier, you're bummed. And if you're on the paid tier, you don't really care. I agree with that. But I also feel like if you really if you for one thing, if you're a free Spotify user, you probably don't care that much whether you're getting things exclusive or not. That's just my I'm I'm thinking that. And if you do care a lot about it, you wouldn't you would be paying anyway. So I'm sure there are people who just can't afford it. They can't scrape together the 10 bucks or whatever. And wish they would get it. But when you're getting something for free, I mean, it is the internet. When you're getting something for free, you absolutely can complain. But when you're getting it for free, you don't have as as much of an expectation, I guess I understand the the gripe. I just feel like I also understand the other side of things. You know, it's free. You can wait a couple of weeks. The one thing I have never really understood in this entire story. And it is especially true now that Spotify seems to be getting a discount on its royalty rate is why you don't just pay the same royalty for a free tier or why does it make any difference? There should be a rate you pay per stream and Spotify can decide whether it streams things on the free tier or the paid tier. Like I don't know. I've never understood exactly why it doesn't work that way. It should totally it would be the same. Like why like if you're an artist, like, what does it matter whether you're listening to it? You shouldn't care what Spotify does. You stream it, you pay me. That's it. That's the end of the deal. Yeah. Yeah. Well, anyway, I think this is interesting. And I think it will drive. I think Spotify doesn't mind because it, you know, will drive people to pay for subscriptions and they make more money off of subscriptions than they do off the free tier. So Navigant has a ranking of autonomous technology out there. They divided it up into three tiers, leading the way is Ford, number one on their list, followed by GM, Renault, Nissan and Daimler. That's the top tier in autonomous technology. Second tier is Waymo and Tesla. They call that the contender tier. And I'll explain why you may be surprised. Like, wait a minute, Alphabet's Waymo, you know, Google Google self driving car, that's not in the top tier. There's a good reason for this. And down at the bottom is Uber ranked in the third tier of challengers. The reason it ranks this way is Navigant considers 10 criteria. And among those criteria are manufacturing capability. So Waymo has no manufacturing capability and Tesla has less manufacturing capability than for GM, et cetera. Core tech development and strategy are other parts of this. And so that there's a little more subjectiveness to that. Navigant said that Ford's investments and acquisitions are what boosted it to the top spot. They've been buying up a lot of technology startups, investing in a lot of startups in this space. And it's not that the other companies haven't, but Ford's been making in Navigant's opinion, very wise ones. Uber is down at the bottom because of its production strategy and technology. Navigant isn't too impressed by it. And of course, we heard those reports that that Uber's technology has been having errors at quite a higher rate than other researchers out there. So what do you make of all this, Nicole? Does it surprise you? No, it doesn't. I mean, it's a little surprising in the sense that the traditional car makers are top at the top, right? And the non-traditional car makers are sort of lower. And that's interesting to me that, you know, Ford, GM, these are, these are you know, time-tested car companies and they're sort of taking the autonomous technology thing full on. And that's really impressive. Yeah. And even if you disagree with Navigant, which you certainly are well within your rights to do, I think we did fall in the trap of looking solely at the technology, at which point Waymo, Tesla, certainly are impressive and out in front. You know, Waymo as Google, as Google X has been doing this for a long time. But what Navigant's trying to say is, A, Ford, GM, Renault, Daimler, they they've caught up. They are, they have very good technology and they're also car companies. So they can flip a switch and start making cars a lot easier than a Waymo or a Tesla or specifically a Waymo or an Uber that has to partner with somebody to make that. So yeah, I to completely agree. Like these companies have invested a lot in the technology side of things. They've opened up branches in Silicon Valley. They've invested a lot of R&D, you know, Mercedes Benz. Like they're probably the one of the one of the top ones that they're coming up with this self-driving technology. So it's, it's not no surprise to me that they're taking the charge on this. Yeah. And that's Daimler is the Mercedes Benz parent company. And they announced that they're partnering with auto parts maker Bosch to collaborate on their autonomous technology. They are now one of the many companies that says they're going to have level five fully autonomous cars by the end of the decade. A lot of experts say, no, you're not. We'll see. I don't know. Yeah. But but there's some ambitious goals out there. So I mean, this doesn't mean that you won't see GM partner with Waymo or Ford partner with Uber, you know, I'm making those up. Those aren't rumors. But these car companies will partner with the other ones and collaborate, just like we're seeing Daimler and Bosch do that. So that has all to shake out. This, this isn't the death knell, is what I'm saying for, for Waymo or anything to be ranked lower. Uber just needs to get its technology in shape, which it very well may do. They've got a lot of good minds working on it. Yep. In the journal Nature Nanotechnology, researchers at the University of Manchester describe a method for using graphene oxide membranes to desalinate water. It is graphene, graphene that we think could be good for semiconductors, could be good for batteries. Well, apparently it's good for turning seawater drinkable. The team used a physical confinement to control the interlayer spacing in a sheet of graphene to block salt particles from seawater, which are extremely small. This isn't like your table salt. While it could be used to turn seawater in a drinking water, it could also be used in other industrial applications like filtering carbon dioxide from power station emissions, for instance. So they've, they've got all kinds of things to start research. And of course, they're confident that it can scale, but they have yet to do that too. It's really impressive, you know, graphene. I've heard, I've been hearing graphene for years, it seems like. Oh, yeah, just years and years. I've heard about this, this, this magic material. And hopefully this will sort of make it more mainstream. I wonder, and this is just a wonder, I don't know enough about material science to say, but I wonder if the first use for graphene could be some revolutionary way to purify water, could be, could be some industrial application for filtering ions. They'll be a game changer. I mean, there's all kinds of game changers in there. They're not the game changers we thought would come from graphene. Everybody thought it was going to be going to be processing power. Then they thought it was going to be batteries, still not bad. And it still could do those other things as well. Hey, folks, if you want to get all the tech headlines each day in around five minutes, subscribe to our sister show DailyTechHeadlines.com. So in the telegraph over there in the UK, Twitter's chief operating officer, Anthony Noto, said that they want to bring video onto Twitter. They say the idea of doing that allows us to give the consumer on one screen the things they're talking about and a timeline of the best tweets on Twitter at that moment in time. We would love to have the Premier League. So, you know, he's in the telegraph. He's going to talk about soccer. We would love to have live games and we'll continue to try to find creative ways to get there. The telegraph article suggests that what Twitter wants, what Noto is referring to is authentication so that you could log in with your Sky account, your BT account or over here in the US, your ESPN account and watch any live content from those networks but watch it on Twitter. So for those of you who are like, wait a minute, hold on, I'm not following you. Let me back up a little bit. If you're, let's say, a Comcast cable subscriber, you can log into the Watch ESPN app and watch all of your ESPN stuff on the app, which means you can watch it on Roku or Apple TV or your phone or your tablet. And it's just a way for ESPN to control the experience, but still make sure you're paying the cable company where they get their subscription fee. This is Twitter saying, great, we'd also like to take ESPN content and put it on Twitter because the value add we can do is put tweets next to it. Nicole, is this making am I making any sense out of this? Is this making any sense? You know, they've they've done live TV before, you know, the I think was it Thursday night football or whatever it was NFL stuff with two different networks on that, too, which was that's right, which is very interesting. And they're still doing some live TV right now with Bloomberg and a few other different companies. So they're definitely pushing this live TV thing come to Twitter to watch TV, right? It is which is a little bit. It's a little bit of a headscratcher, but it is something that differentiates them, I suppose, from the other social media things out there. And I think the fact that you have to sign in to watch it makes it more palatable to the content providers. So if you're a Comcast or whatever, you're like, OK, it's fine. You know, go ahead and do it. It's fine because they have to subscribe to us in order for you to watch the content. But I do I do think it's a little strange because if you already subscribe to it, wouldn't you find another way to watch it? Like, wouldn't you watch it on TV or on the app that they give you? I don't I don't understand what the ad point is of just going to Twitter and watching it. Well, I get why Twitter wants it, right? Twitter wants, of course. Yeah, if they can make you use Twitter, then that's good for Twitter. Right. Yeah, I could see why a network would be OK with it. If they say, well, as long as you're authenticating, it's just another way for people to access our content. And as long as we have an agreeable presentation and your authentication works well, why wouldn't you do that? The consumer part of it is is the key. I mean, will people want to do this? I think Twitter has an advantage in the sense that it might be easier to authenticate with Twitter than with the actual watch ESPN app, for instance, because you can link a Twitter ID very easily. Right. So if I'm if I'm on ESPN's website or even all my cable providers website or maybe I'm PlayStation View or Sling TV, which also authenticate, right? I'm a cord cutter. I'm on Sling TV's website and it says, hey, do you want to associate your Twitter ID? And I say, yes. And I do that really easily. Then suddenly the next time I'm at Twitter, I don't have to do anything. It just says, hey, do you want to watch this ESPN game? You can do it right now. And it could suck me in. I think the point here is that this is probably a lot more attractive if you're already a Twitter user. Like if you're already a pretty, like you're on Twitter every day or something like that, that is really very attractive because you might just see it as a little pop up in a little corner of your little Twitter timelines. Oh, there's a TV, there's a game on, let's click it and then you'll sort of pop up or something like that. I can see the value there. I think my issue is that a lot of people, I know, use Twitter on mobile and it's not really very friendly TV watching on mobile, I'm guessing. I don't know. But I will say that it's a lot more attractive if you're already an existing Twitter user. I'm not sure if it was something that you would go to Twitter for if you're not already a Twitter user. Yeah, I think you're right about that. This doesn't convince me to suddenly watch Twitter because you're right. I just get to watch ESPN app, why would I do that? But if I am on Twitter, it might make Twitter more valuable, it might retain me, keep me as a more active user. I do also see this as one more plank in what seems to me to be Twitter's hoarding of live stuff. They created an easier API for Periscope so that media companies can go live through a more sophisticated system that's supposed to encourage more professional live streaming that can be done on Twitter. They've got the partnerships that you've mentioned that keep rolling out, even as things like La Crosse. And now they're saying we'd like to authenticate. So if you look at it in that sense, it's not a standalone strategy, it's Twitter trying to amass as many different high quality video streams as possible. And as we've talked about on this show before, the only thing that's missing is a real easy way to watch that, the moments tab ain't doing it. No, it isn't. You still have to be on your browser. You still have to be on your computer browser, which is great, I guess. But then most, I mean, I wanna watch sports on my TV, ideally. Yeah. So we'll see that. And there is that Twitter app for Apple TV, it's not bad. But again, you have to get people to do that. Very true. I will say it was really interesting to me that they have La Crosse on there. Cause that's not really a sport you normally see on like even like normal TV. And that was actually, it was kind of cool. I mean, I know, I don't know. I kind of like, I like watching obscure sports. Yeah, me too, actually. So that's just like my own personal reference there. But that was great to see. And if you can like, I wonder if they'll introduce the ability to like switch channels on Twitter. Like you can switch live TVs. Yeah, you've gotta make it easy to see what's on. Right. Switch from one thing to another. Right. That's the part of this equation I haven't seen any indication of yet. That's the question mark in my mind. Like if I want to switch from a basketball game to a soccer game, can I do that? Like on Twitter? So it's, I don't know. The ways to go. But another piece in that Twitter puzzle that I think it's either gonna crash and burn or it's going to be a whole different thing that anybody expected. And it could, I'm not saying it will, could revolutionize TV viewing if they did it right. If they did it right, that would be, because you know, they've been trying to struggle against Facebook Live, because Facebook has been the juggernaut in terms of just like live video recently. So if they can like make this blow up in a way that would definitely be a big, it'll be huge for them. They just have to survive. They'll have to survive long enough to do it. Well, thanks to everybody who participates in our subreddit. We get great ideas for things to cover on the show there. So keep them coming at dailytechnewshow.reddit.com. Couple emails before we're out of here. Jonathan posted the story about the military's use of transcranial electric stimulation yesterday. Nicole, did you catch the story? No, what? It's a headset. It looks like headphones. It sparks your brain and apparently improves concentration and focus. So athletes and soldiers are using it in training to get better faster. Oh man, I need this. Yeah, just a little electric stimulation. It's just a little tingle. Yeah, it's a little bit, it's fine. Anyway, Jonathan said that story reminded me of a Radio Lab podcast episode that covered this very subject two years ago. The reporter was put in a sniper training simulation where she had to cover a vehicle checkpoint with increasing numbers of suicide bombers coming at her until she was overwhelmed. So think Tower Defense came and may I remind you, simulation. Then they put the transcranial direct current stimulation system on her and ran her through it again. This time, she was 100% accurate, killed every attacker with ease and perceived the 20 minutes of simulation time as three minutes. Oh my word. That's amazing. That's a story pitch for you, Nicole. I'm doing it. I'm gonna put one on and on like every day and see if I can like write, you know, a thousand words in like five minutes. Yeah, seriously. I don't know if that works that way. If you want to know more about transcranial direct current stimulation, check out Radio Lab. They've got a good episode. Radio Lab's great. According to Jonathan. And yeah, it's great. It's a great series. The smart TV hack that we talked about yesterday was the one where a broadcast could take advantage of a browser vulnerability on Samsung TVs in particular. At least that was the proof concept. And Ron writes in because we made a joke about, you know, hey, if you get a broadcast tower, you can take a lot of TVs at once. And Ron said that hack only works in countries that use that DVBT system that we mentioned, the digital video broadcast system. Many of these could be considered to be on top of the world since they're very far north. So DTNS users in North America are probably safe from large broadcast tower hacks since we use the ATSC system here. But I mean, a little social engineering could get you to turn a DVBT capable system to a DVBT channel, perhaps, and get hacked by a smaller power broadcast. But again, the whole point of that story was, this is a proof of concept. You need to patch that web browser, essentially. So patch your things, people. Let's become my new refrain for this decade to people who make smart television. Patch your things. Patch your things. Put on a T-shirt, patch your things. Maybe we should. Maybe we should add that to the Daily Tech News Show store. Patch your things, Samsung, LG, everybody, Phillips. I'm not saying they don't. I'm just saying they really need to make sure they do. Thank you, Ron Ladd. Ron, I know, is a veteran of that industry, so I appreciate him sharing his expertise. And thank you, Nicole Lee, for sharing your expertise today. Not a problem. You can find more of Nicole's work at Engadget.com. Do you have anything in particular going on you want to point people to? I have a lot going on, but they're not ready just yet, but stay tuned, there'll be something next week. All right, so keep your eyes on Engadget.com, or you can follow Nicole on Twitter, at Nicole. Yep. Just Nicole, right, still? Yeah, yeah, that's me. You didn't change it. Nicole is the first person I followed on Twitter. That's right, I remember that. Yeah, Veronica Belmont is the person who told me about Twitter, and then I followed Nicole while Veronica was standing over my shoulder. I don't remember this part for sure, but I can't imagine that Veronica got mad and then said, you need to follow me now, so. This was when, like, my first year, it's, you know, something. Yeah, and this was back when you could get a name like Nicole. Like Nicole and Veronica. Yeah, yeah. Exactly. Thanks to everybody who gives us a little value back for the value they get from this show, including Steve Remington, John Prentis, Christopher Moeller, and so many more. We appreciate every single one of you. You've changed our lives. We couldn't do this without you. I mean, we literally could not do this without you. So thanks to everyone who gives a little value back at patreon.com slash DTNS. Our email address is feedback at dailytechnewshow.com. We're live Monday through Friday, 4.30 p.m. Eastern at alphakigradio.com and diamondclub.tv. And our website is dailytechnewshow.com. Back tomorrow with author and Rhapsody co-founder Rob Reed, as well as Scott Johnson. Talk to you then. The show is part of the Frog Pants Network. Get more at frogpants.com. I hope you have enjoyed this program. Good show. Thanks, Nicole. Thank you. Thank you for being on last minute. No problem. I need to get off because I have a story to file. All right, yes. Thank you so much. I'm gonna go. Thanks again, Nicole. Bye. All right, titles. Titles. What have the titles given us? We have Pro, Tecting the Mac Pro Line, Macavino Longer Intel Inside, Apple Loses Pro Mentum. Macafee is no longer Inside Intel, actually. Oh, interesting. Twitter TV, Verizon takes on a new oath. Patch your things, people proactive on Mac. Patch your things. Mac will be pro eventually. There's a lot of Mac Pro stuff. Pro tips on the new Mac Pros, Apple Losing. We can go with the pro thing. That works. We talked a lot about that. So protecting the Mac Pro Line, proactive on the Mac Pro, that I like. Being a little proactive instead of just kind of letting it coast. Proactive on the Mac Pro. Although are they really being proactive? Can you think about it? Kind of being reactive. That's true, they're being reactive, but... Could say reactive on the Mac Pro. Yeah, that'd be good. Do that. Someone type that in and make it a title, quick. Mac will be pro eventually. Will pros be pro Mac Pro? Ha! Oh, you like that one? Well, yeah, of course I do. Okay. Make it so. Where do you go? I'm still level-ating. We can let them simmer for a little bit. Simmer. Boil off some of that extra tidal water. Patio things. Let's see what the people think at showbot.tv. Every time I think of the people, that phrase, I think of that, because they use that Bane meme from Batman. Darkman, there it is. Yeah. I can't stand that voice in that movie. The Bane voice? Yeah. The punishment will be more severe. It's like, hey, he's supposed to be like, he's supposed to be Latin American. Who, Bane? Yeah. Yeah, this is from Argentina. He's a failed wrestler. Lucha no Libre. No Lucha, no Libre. No Lucha. All right. Will pros be pro Mac Pro? You cool with that? Yeah. All right. That's what we're going with. Well, the Twitter was pretty good. 140 characters and nothing on. That's actually really good. That's really good. 140 characters and nothing on. That's the saddest indictment of cable TV when I had it. It's like, there's nothing on cable TV I want to watch. Well, part of it was just true. Sometimes that just wasn't very good stuff, but also part of it was decision paralysis, right? Where if you had been given two channels, you probably would have picked something, but when you have a hundred channels and you keep flipping through, none of them are grabbing you because you're like, well, maybe there's something better on farther down the line. I think there's a psychological principle there. Maybe. Part of it is a lot of it is, this just goes back to cable programming. You do a lot of reruns. Yeah. And again, if you only had one channel and there was a rerun on and it was watch this or not, you might go, ah, this is kind of cool. I haven't seen Barney Miller in a long time, but if you're flipping through 140 channels, you're going to be like, well, is Barney Miller really the best thing on? Let me keep looking. Well, I mean, at that point, I decided what's the point of paying for cable? I'm going to have this situation. And so I said, it's great. I'm going to take a shower instead and save me some money. I think that's one of the appeals of Netflix is that it's just one channel. Yeah. And it will suggest what you should watch to you. I like. It doesn't always do such a great job, which is one of the complaints about it. But when it works, it works really well. It does. What bugs me is that it used to have a really good interface, at least on set top boxes, where you had like your sci-fi, your comedies. Now it's kind of more jumbly and it's a little more fresh, at least for me personally to find. Why is it jumbly? Because for me, it still says like, you know, because you like sci-fi and then it has a bunch of. Yeah. But like, I just like flipping to see what they have. And I watch a lot of stuff that way. Like, I don't want. You want fewer rec, you want more catalog and less rec. Yeah. I mean, that might be weird because it's me. You know, I'll be honest, I would like more catalog stuff, but their catalog is so deep, you kind of have to filter it somehow. So I don't mind that they do. I wouldn't mind if they gave you an interface option that was more like the website, where you can go, oh, I want to, for example, I wasn't a kick on watching Spanish language movies because I thought like, oh, it's very interesting. 90% of them turned out to be Chilean, the ones that we're watching, but it'd just be kind of cool if you could just narrow dig. For example, there was a thing on, I watched Chirolo's, your Giro, who was it, your Lozushi, that documentary, it's like, oh, I want to find out more about Tokyo. You used to be able to do a search, at least on the Yaksbox app on the title, and it would give you all the tags. So now it just gives you the name of, for example, if I look for Star, it'll give you all the titles with Star in it, and then anything associated or familiar, or tangentially related to like Star Wars or Star Trek. Right. But it wouldn't, like you couldn't just tag it, like you would like an iTunes podcast and have it come up in a search, the tags. You lost me. You're just saying search doesn't work as well as it used to. Yes. No, it used to work a lot better for me, like on the Yaksbox, and for some reason they changed it. Do you think it's just the Yaksbox, or do you think it's, I think it's, I think that they, all the searches work that way, but what you described sounds better. Like if I search Star, I should be able to get Star Wars and Star, you know what I mean? Like the old way was fairly limited. You had to know how it worked to make the good use of it. Mayhemps, mayhemps. Your complaint is that you had figured it out, and now you... I've just, I've discovered the game, and therefore it no longer interested me, interested me. Something like that. But, yeah. I'll wait for defenders to start. I'm not sure if I'm gonna sit through Iron Fist. You know, you could probably just watch the last episode of Iron Fist and get the gist of it. What if I watch the last three episodes? Yeah, sure. Cause I'm four episodes in and I'm still okay. Oh yeah, if you've already watched the four, you definitely don't need to watch every single one. It's making me yawn, just thinking about it apparently. It's like the Barry Manilow of Marvel action movies. It was funny to see him in the elevator in the teaser for the defenders today. Yeah. I'm like, oh, he really is a defender. Huh. The thing in the trailer was why is Daredevil dressed like Daredevil when he first started instead of, I mean, I'm sure there's something more behind it. And it's interesting because that part of almost a lot more like Iron Fist in this Iron Fist costume in the comic. Right. Yeah. Wonder how that hat comes about. Netflix and Chilean. From TV's Egon. I think there was a, at a time I was trying to read up on the great South American conflict between Argentina and Brazil. Maybe Chile. All I know is Uruguay became as a result or something like that. Still a little fuzzy on it. Wow. The link for the podcast showed up in the SoundCloud feed really fast today. Oh, they finally might have finished doing whatever they were doing that made it so slow. Well, it hasn't been super slow like it was that one week in a long time. But it was like, usually because this is a longer episode, it usually takes a little longer. Must've sped something up. All right, we are done. We're published. Do you have any words of wisdom before we leave? Yes. After indulging in my icy lust, I can honestly say, don't eat that much sugar. I had the weirdest dream. What did you dream? Can you say? So this is the weird thing about my weird dreams. I'm not directly in them, nor are anyone I know directly in them. In fact, in this dream, I was more like a narrator, like a Morgan Freeman, where he's like, you know, and their Bob's, you know, like I was narrating what I was seeing. And it was basically like a bunch of weird hipster, a burning man, you know, burners, like flash hippies, trying to raise money for this kid's operation. The native hipsters raise money. But they were done in like, there was like this huge drum circle of a thousand, kind of like a Mooney wedding. Okay. And I woke up and said, what the hell am I dreaming about? Because it's just like me narrating the whole thing. And I was like, what? It's just really odd, it was really bizarre. A lot of just like man buns. That's the other thing bugged me, man buns. In your dream, they were bugging you. Yeah, no, no, in real life, man buns. I know they also bug you in real life, but. But in the dream, all the guys had man buns. And as narrator, you were bugged by this? No, I was just kind of, I was describing it. Like as if Richard Attenborough was describing the bird of paradise. The man bun is created through a sophisticated process. Like that? Yeah, but not as, you know, not as eloquent. It was more like, you know, it was more matter of fact, like a CIA video describing what you would experience when you end up in recovery. Like you were giving notes for someone to use. Yeah, exactly. Now, as you can see, these man buns are on all of the subjects. Nails, they're approximately, you know, two inches to three inches in diameter. I think there's a podcast in this for you, frankly. It's just, man, that's sugar. It was just a weird sugar rush, no more. Well, what are you gonna do next time you feel like getting one of those? I don't know because I want one now, but I'm really fighting it because I'm waiting myself. Why do you want it? No, I weighed myself and I decided, you know what? Okay, step back. The only reason I weighed myself is because I put it on pants that got out of the dryer. It's like they're a little tight. Fresh out of the dryer. They usually are fresh out of the dryer. When pants are fit tight on you, you kind of get a little worried. I kind of went up to the scale. But why do you think you want it so bad? Are you lacking energy? What if you eat a piece of fruit? I could. What I really miss is the icy slush with the little hint of flavor. I have found that when I'm craving candy, if I make myself eat a piece of fruit that I don't really want, it definitely reduces the craving for fruit. I have three bars of whatchamacallitse I've had here for a month and a half. I haven't touched one. Yeah, you shouldn't. I wouldn't eat those. I just, but it's just, it's warm. Maybe like, I used to make Jell-O. I have an apple, Roger. I used to make Jell-O, and then I would stick it in the fridge. Jell-O. I'm a banana. Stick it in the freezer. It would be crystal-y crunchy Jell-O. Eat a kiwi fruit. That's who, wait, David Attenborough. Yes, yes, Zoe brings bacon. Thanks for your crack. All right. Well, thanks everybody for watching. Have a lovely day. Don't eat. Don't drink too much sugar. Too much sugar. We'll see you tomorrow.