Year: 2013

On Sunday night the NSA scored a major PR win in the form on a highly-favorable `60 Minutes` interview with NSA Director Keith Alexander. I did not watch the segment for the same reasons I avoid reality TV centering around people yelling at people for the sake of people yelling at people.

Predictably, this `60 Minutes` interview was a waste of time.

[Dylan Byers at Politco opened his criticism][1] with a look at the failings of the news program:

> CBS’s “60 Minutes” has had a terrible year: Lara Logan’s now-retracted Benghazi report was the sort of black mark that will take the news-magazine years to live down. Charlie Rose’s interview with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, about his drone delivery plans, was panned as fawning and promotional.

He went on to state how laughable John Miller’s interview with the NSA Director came off.

[Derek Mead at Motherboard was a bit more on point][2], ending his article with:

> It’s no surprise that a guy who was once the FBI’s PR man would be sympathetic towards the national security world, but by presenting such a soft and one-sided report—literally one-sided, as there wasn’t a single outside source, which is appallingly shoddy journalism for such a contentious story—60 Minutes did its viewers a disservice.

Mead’s post also can serve as a good overview of the things you *will not* learn from the `60 Minutes` interview.

[Simon Sharwood at The Register notes][3] how the NSA tried to scare Americans during the program by mentioning a BIOS attack the agency thwarted:

> A foreign country developed BIOS malware “disguised as a request for a software update” that would have turned PCs into “a brick.” Plunkett said “The NSA working with computer manufacturers was able to close this vulnerability”. 60 Minutes names China as the culprit

But the [winning take is from Greg Mitchell][4] at The Nation:

> Here’s the complete transcript of tonight’s show. It’s got something to offend everyone. All that’s missing is an Amazon drone delivering a package of listening devices to an NSA agent in the field.

Likely to be lost with the coverage of `60 Minutes of Shit` is some more interesting NSA news. Specifically [this report from The New York Times’ Mark Mazzetti and Michael S. Schmidt][5]:

> In recent days, a senior N.S.A. official has told reporters that he believed Mr. Snowden still had access to documents not yet disclosed. The official, Rick Ledgett, who is heading the security agency’s task force examining Mr. Snowden’s leak, said he would consider recommending amnesty for Mr. Snowden in exchange for those documents.
> “So, my personal view is, yes, it’s worth having a conversation about,” Mr. Ledgett told CBS News. “I would need assurances that the remainder of the data could be secured, and my bar for those assurances would be very high. It would be more than just an assertion on his part.”

The basic problem for the NSA is that they have no clue, *no clue*, what Snowden took from them. All that why they maintain the company line that *we* should feel safe trusting them to monitor everything. The intentions of the NSA and most of its employees are no doubt noble, but do you really feel safe knowing that not only is the NSA able to spy on you, but that they would have little to no idea if another person was spying on them (thus someone else is siphoning off documents about you)?

That’s an issue.

[Offering another pro-NSA point over the weekend][6] is Loren Sands-Ramshaw a former NSA employee (worked in the elite TAO group it sounds like). Sands-Ramshaw’s post seeks to allay concerns over NSA employees being evil, but as I said above that’s not the real issue here. Still, a good read.

Here’s the problem: even with all the shit being slung from each side, nothing is fucking happening. There’s no real open debates from our lawmakers. There’s rhetoric flying, but no change. There’s decreasing public outrage, and increasing government officials burying their heads in the sand hoping we all forget it over the holidays.

Don’t forget it.

Any agency that actively works to subvert privacy is focusing on the wrong mission. We as a nation are letting it stand that institutions like [Yale can decide not to expel rapists][7] and just let them go about their schooling.

We as a nation have decided that, well, torture is fine if it yields results, but if you fail to get results then we will have your ass. Which, of course, only leads to harsher torture and more hate lobbed at Americans.

We’ve failed a lot.

Let’s try not to fail on the one thing that has risen up to give the oppressed the voice that they so often disparately need. Let’s protect online privacy by telling agencies like the NSA we will not stand for them subverting encryption and spying on *everyone*.

Too often, change for the betterment of society starts off looking like terrorism. [Imagine where we would be as a country today if Paul Revere had been silenced][8].

[1]: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/whats-wrong-with-minutes-179692.html
[2]: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/seven-crucial-questions-that-60-minutes-failed-to-ask-the-nsa
[3]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/16/nsa_alleges_bios_plot_to_destroy_pcs/
[4]: http://www.thenation.com/blog/177598/sad-decline-60-minutes-continues-weeks-nsa-whitewash
[5]: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/officials-say-us-may-never-know-extent-of-snowdens-leaks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
[6]: http://lorensr.me/nsa-an-inside-view.html
[7]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/yale-sexual-assault-punishment_n_3690100.html
[8]: http://www.kottke.org/13/06/prism-in-the-18th-century

If you look at almost any ‘popular’ review blog you will likely notice a lack of outwardly negative product reviews.

“EVERYTHING IS GREAT!”

The reason should be obvious: readers want to learn about great products, not bad products. But there’s more to the story because you’ll notice a lot of side-stepping around anything negative about major products. Phrases like "not the best", "not for me", "could be better", "not great" — are used to side-step the truth which, if stated honestly, would be a negative statement along the lines of "piss-poor" “shitty", "terrible" "who the fuck thought of this?" "this is a joke, right?".

How can any site, when reviewing a new gadget, wax on about its greatness, mention a few highly-downplayed flaws in passing, and then give the device only a 7/10 rating? When the reviewer fails to note anything warranting a 3 point penalty and that’s what the device is rated there should be more outrage — three points shy of perfection with no explanation.

What’s going on here?

The best that I can surmise is the following:

• The conclusions and ratings are done haphazardly.
• The reviewer fears losing access to "free" review units if the review is too harsh.
• The product’s parent company advertises on the site.
• No one wants the truth.

With the exception of the last item, all of the above are likely in play.

You simply cannot get review units from companies if you constantly say bad things about that company’s product.

Trust me on this. ((I once got a Samsung Galaxy Tab review unit from Verizon. Remember that thing? I slammed it and the Verizon guy never again returned emails or phone calls.))

If you are big enough, maybe you can slam one or two things a year, but any more and you will be blackballed faster than Gizmodo.

Since most website revenue is driven by traffic (page views / ad-clicks), and traffic is driven by constantly reviewing and talking about the latest new things, you need a constant stream of new things. Very few sites can afford to buy all the products they review so most live off review unit handouts. Thus, it is paramount to maintain relationships with companies, lest your revenue dry up from lack of content (or from buying review units).

You can see this happening everywhere if you look around (not just here). The Verge doesn’t seem to get any Apple review units — likely because of their preachy Android reviewing tendencies. Gizmodo doesn’t get Apple review units either since they bought property Apple believed to be stolen. The next time a major product comes out look around to see who isn’t reviewing it.

As a blogger you need good relationships, so maybe you massage your language a bit. You still point out a flaw but you bend the truth of the impact of that flaw so as to not piss off the people loaning you the device.

A hypothetical example massaged message: The battery life is only 90 minutes on this latest Samsung device, BUT it is a glorious 90 minutes. Just buy a few extra batteries and you are set.

The hypothetical truth: This Samsung device would actually be pretty great if the battery life weren’t a piss-poor 90 minutes. You could buy extra batteries, but having to carry extra batteries around defeats the purpose of life — not to mention the batteries are $40 each and you would need half a dozen to get through a day.

Watch how writers phrase negatives in reviews and you can start to see the fear of losing their monetary lifeline looming over their words.

For example, from The Verge’s review of the Toq smart watch (since I am picking on them already):

In fact, the battery is located in the clasp, which explains why the mechanism is so big and uncomfortable; I invariably took the Toq off when typing.

What percentage of The Verge readers would you guess use a computer as part of their jobs? Has to be over 90%. Yet, that statement above isn’t a deal breaker — I mean doesn’t everyone want to take their watch on and off all fucking day long? I sure do.

That should have been the end of the review, but of course it wasn’t, as the Toq went on to score 6 out of 10.

The web needs more brutal honesty in product reviews. People deserve honesty. Less fluff, fewer videos. Just an honest take on the product. As a reviewer, if you think a product defect is likely to only effect you, then say so and explain why you think it’s not a problem for others.

This isn’t just a scolding of other sites, but of this site too. I need to be cognizant of whether I am being negative in a helpful manner, or massaging language for effect. I often fall on the side of actively pointing out the flaws while downplaying strengths (the reverse of what most people do). That in itself is erring on the side of caution for readers (as you are less likely to spend money on such a product), but the reverse is erring on the side of caution for advertisers, which I think is far worse.

A Note About Strictly Negative Reviews

This post may seem a bit self-serving. In the process of writing what I feel are very candid reviews I have garnered a reputation for negativity in my reviews. I think negative reviews are valuable (where deserved) and play a very important role in the buying decision.

Obviously a negative review can stop people from wasting their hard earned money, but it can also help to make better products in the end. Often after publishing a negative review I get a response from a company telling me of a future update that they think will address issues with their product. My review is usually not the first time they hear a complaint, but the first time it’s made public. So while I’m certainly not the cause for changes to a product — often a negative review about a known issue can shift company priorities to fixing problems instead of adding shit.

Aside from financial pressure there are a number of reasons that negative reviews are rarer.

First: few reviewers seek out bad products to review. Reviewers tend to buy or select things they believe will be good. Even sites like The Wirecutter or The Sweet Setup don’t seek out crappy products to add to their "best of" picks. I would have loved to have checked out every weather app, but there isn’t enough time in my life so I pick the ones I think stand a chance of being good.

So does everyone else.

Reviewers also tend to get better at selecting good products from the outset as they gain more experience evaluating, thinking critically and writing reviews. They develop an “eye” for it. That said, experienced reviewers are unlikely to bother writing a negative review for a bad product because they don’t care to use the product enough to form a strong argument and write a review.

Which can be frustrating.

I completely understand this mindset and fall into this trap myself. I try dozens of apps, and many are so bad I don’t use them for more than a few seconds, so I don’t review them. To use these apps enough to write a review would turn out to be a colossal waste of everyone’s time. Let’s not waste time on that kind of review

There is one type of negative review I advocate: negative reviews of popular, well-liked, products that you don’t like. You don’t review it because you "must be missing something".

Peer pressure is powerful.

You bought it because it had 4.5 stars on Amazon with 400 reviews, but you think it’s a crappy product. Either you don’t bother writing a review or you massage your review into something that could swing either way in case you did miss something.

Negative product reviews of popular products are important because they can help money-strapped potential buyers avoid the product.

If you wonder why I slam some products in my reviews, know that it’s less about controversial writing, or complaining and more about trying to make sure we don’t collectively fall over ourselves, wasting money on things that probably aren’t as great as people say.

The next time you don’t like a product, try writing something — however short — about why you don’t like it. Maybe we can all benefit.

Over at Macworld, [Dan Frakes just updated his comprehensive post on using keyboards with iPads][1] to reflect some of the new options. I picked up the [Ultrathin for my iPad Air][2] when I bought it to help with my ambitions to use the iPad more and my Mac less.

I’ve been a staunch advocate for the Origami setup, but now not using the Apple Wireless Keyboard full-time, the consistency of using that same keyboard between my Mac and iPad is less important to me so it was time to try something new.

I wanted something that was of a smaller profile to travel with.

## The Usage

When the keyboard arrived I set it up and used it for the full work day and evening. That was my “get used to this small thing” primer. From that point forward I took the keyboard with me everywhere my iPad went, but never attached to the iPad Air (it looks stupid attached). I’ve schlepped this thing in my bag for quite a while now.

And I barely use it. I could, it only takes a few seconds, but I barely do.

I think the most telling situation was just a few days ago, sitting in Starbucks to write on my iPad — I left the keyboard in my bag for the hour long writing session, opting instead to use just my onscreen keyboard.

## The Flaws

For me, there are three major flaws with this keyboard, flaws that keep me from wanting to use it:

1. It is not better than the onscreen keyboard to type with. I make the same amount of mistakes typing on either. With time, and with practice it will likely be better, but so too is the onscreen keyboard.
2. Which brings us to: it is not nice to type on. The keys don’t have much travel (as expected), but the travel also feels like utter crap. It’s mushy, I hate mushy. The MacBook Pro keyboards have a certainly crispness to their action, whereas this keyboard feels like, well, cheap.
3. It is not that convenient. I thought having something smaller, something that *could* be a case would make me use it more. I truly don’t feel the weight carrying it, but when it comes right down to it, it is barely more convenient than the Origami setup — and at least in that case the keyboard feels decent.

I’d take this keyboard with less battery life if the width was lopped off behind where the iPad rests and the thickness was significantly reduced (even at the cost of battery life).

## The Good

The nice things about this keyboard are plentiful:

1. Looks good, I’ve had people ask me about when I used it because they simply like the looks.
2. The angle is spot on for me. I really was worried about this, but love the angle it holds the iPad at.
3. It weighs nothing.
4. They key spacing and sizing is mostly fine, it’s only the delete key that I take issue with.
5. It stays clean and scratch free. Mine has just been kicking around in the bag, but not a mark on it.
6. Great battery life.

## Overall, Then?

It’s a solid keyboard. Personally I don’t think it is worth $100, I doubt there are many iPad specific keyboards that are worth that, but it is a better option than an Origami if you don’t already have the Origami and Apple Wireless Keyboard.

I just can’t see any scenario where I would want to use this over the onscreen keyboard. It could be better, if it were substantially smaller, but even then the only real advantage to someone that has no problem using the onscreen keyboard is that you can see more text.

[1]: http://www.macworld.com/article/1164210/macworld-buying-guide-iPad-keyboards.html
[2]: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00EZ9XG62/ref=nosim&tag=brooksreview-20