Now Playing

0 Shares
Share
Tweet
Share
Samsung closes the Note 7 saga and Google finally updates Voice | The Engadget Podcast Ep. 26
Now
Playing
View

Samsung closes the Note 7 saga and Google finally updates Voice | The Engadget Podcast Ep. 26
(24:23)

Trump's War on Climate Change | The Engadget Podcast Ep. 26
Now
Playing
View

Trump's War on Climate Change | The Engadget Podcast Ep. 26
(28:19)

The Engadget Podcast Ep 26: The Sounds of Science

Transcript of this episode:


Terrence O.:
Hello nerds and welcome to the Engadget podcast. This is episode 26, the Sounds of Science. I am your host Terrence O'Brien. I am back again this week. It's been kind of a rough few weeks for me. I keep getting sick and disappearing from the face of the Earth for a while but I'm back, I'm feeling better. Kind of, sort of.
 
Dana Wollman:
Good.
 
Terrence O.:
Joining me this week, managing editor Dana Wollman.
 
Dana Wollman:
Hello. It's also been a rough few weeks for me. I am also somewhat better. I have [inaudible 00:00:32] in case.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah you've been in and out and sick and back and forth-
 
Dana Wollman:
Stifling coughs all over the place, yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
Basically the whole Engadget staff is dying.
 
Dana Wollman:
Just don't go to CVS.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah, that's pretty much it. Also joining me this week is Nate Ingram, who is not dying tonight.
 
Nate Ingram:
Not at the moment.
 
Dana Wollman:
That's because you fell ill at CES.
 
Nate Ingram:
I was sick for the first two weeks of the year but I think that's all behind me now unless I get it from sitting here with you guys, which is a distinct possibility.
 
Terrence O.:
Entirely possible. This is also your first time back here in a while. You-
 
Nate Ingram:
Last time I was here was the day after Trump's election and now we're here a week after his inauguration so it seems like I always draw the short straw on podcast duties. RIP all of our mentions today because it's gonna get ugly.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah basically we only have you on to talk Trump.
 
Dana Wollman:
That's not true.
 
Nate Ingram:
I know nothing about technology guys, it's all a farce.
 
Terrence O.:
And for those of you who want to know and maybe want to tune out, we're gonna be talking Trump later. Trump and science, so if you don't want to listen to it there's plenty of other podcasts out there but actually please stay around and listen, it's gonna be a good conversation.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah.
 
Nate Ingram:
I prefer if you tell people to not tune out.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah, perhaps a bad move on my part. We love you all, we want you to listen. God, you know I feel a little rough but we're gonna jump right into it.
 
Nate Ingram:
Let's get into it.
 
Terrence O.:
I'm a little shaky out of practice here. Let's start this show as we do most week with Flame Wars.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yes.
 
Terrence O.:
This is where we debate the biggest topics and stories of the weeks, of the weeks. Once again my brain is not working.
 
Nate Ingram:
All the weeks.
 
Terrence O.:
All the weeks. As I usually warn everybody this is purely an intellectual exercise.
 
Nate Ingram:
Oh yes.
 
Terrence O.:
Nobody actually believes the things they're saying necessarily on here.
 
Dana Wollman:
I believe some of them.
 
Terrence O.:
Some of them. Everybody will get 20 seconds to make their opening statement, at which point I'll allow a brief rebuttal and then award a point to the winner. I need to get my timer set up because I failed to do that beforehand because I am the worst.
 
Nate Ingram:
You can't count this off in your head?
 
Terrence O.:
No, I have my shoes on. It would be really difficult for me to count to 20.
 
Nate Ingram:
All right.
 
Terrence O.:
Why don't we start-
 
Nate Ingram:
Let's start.
 
Terrence O.:
With Sprint and Tidal.
 
Nate Ingram:
Oh yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
A thing that I can see Dana is clearly very excited to talk about.
 
Dana Wollman:
I mean I'm gonna win this one.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah.
 
Dana Wollman:
Okay.
 
Terrence O.:
For those of you who don't know earlier this week Sprint purchased a 30 or 33% stake-
 
Nate Ingram:
A third they said.
 
Dana Wollman:
A third, yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
Stake in Tidal, which is the streaming music service owned by Jay Z and a host of other artists that literally nobody cares about except for the fact that it got the timed exclusive rights to Life of Pablo when it came out. Otherwise-
 
Nate Ingram:
I think Lemonade also. They got Lemonade first.
 
Terrence O.:
Oh I think you are right about that. Really sort of big picture question here though is what does Sprint have to gain by making this purchase? Is this a big mistake for Sprint in buying Tidal? Dana, you get to go first.
 
Dana Wollman:
Not much to gain right now. Even if Sprint were to get some Tidal exclusives for it's subscribers this would not move the needle and push Sprint past it's position as the fourth ranking carrier in the US and I don't think Tidal would give it's best exclusives just to Sprint if that is the size of Sprint's audience.
 
Nate Ingram:
I have a hard time disagreeing with those statements, however, before I start can I ask you a question?
 
Terrence O.:
Sure.
 
Nate Ingram:
Can you pull up what the purchase price was?
 
Terrence O.:
Sure, let me see if we have that. I'm actually not entire sure that's been announced. Let me double check.
 
Nate Ingram:
I think it was 200.
 
Terrence O.:
According to sources the deal is worth 200 million dollars but it's not been confirmed as of the last time we saw.
 
Nate Ingram:
That's good enough then. Now I'm ready, thank you.
 
Terrence O.:
Doing your research for you here live on the air.
 
Nate Ingram:
I know it's crazy.
 
Terrence O.:
All right, your 20 seconds begins now sir.
 
Nate Ingram:
I think that for Sprint it at least gives them something to offer their subscribers. Hopefully some discounts on it maybe, that's not a bad thing if you're on Sprint. I think that also it maybe isn't the smartest move but at the price of 200 million I think that's a relatively small drop in the bucket in terms of how much money Sprint is working with here. They don't have a lot to lose. They don't have a lot to gain but not a lot to lose.
 
Terrence O.:
Dana my question to you is seeing how a lot of these services are kind of, we're seeing this condensing of the media market and I keep banging the table with my watch. AT&T has DirecTV and they're offering streaming. This is a service on top of the actual data. Sprint doesn't have that equivalent. Does it not make sense for them to try and at least pick up something in the media-sphere, even if it's this sort of third-tier music streaming service as a way of offering their customers something beyond a nice data package?
 
Dana Wollman:
I mean perhaps but even here you could still be a Tidal subscriber and subscribe to a different network. Tidal for it's part is looking for all the new subscribers.
 
Nate Ingram:
They don't care what network they're on.
 
Dana Wollman:
Right. I think sort of to Nate's point I think what Sprint could get out of this is a perception of hipness perhaps. I mean especially wrestling with T-Mobile as the third ranking carrier in the US, T-Mobile's ads are attention getting. It's CEO, John Legere, is attention getting. They seem adversarial and rebellious and cool. This is all subjective, right?
 
Nate Ingram:
An image that they're going for.
 
Dana Wollman:
Sprint is none of those things.
 
Terrence O.:
I might take issue with the cool part of that equation but adversarial and rebellious for sure.
 
Nate Ingram:
And Sprint's best marketing tactic so far is bringing back the Verizon guy. That's some pretty weak sauce. I think having Tidal in their pocket is a lot better than saying, "Hey, we got the 'can you hear me now' guy."
 
Dana Wollman:
Right I mean right now Sprint is last ranking, that's a fact we can't dispute. I think it also falls on the stodgy end of the spectrum. Really no hipper than Verizon or AT&T.
 
Terrence O.:
Did Sprint lose all of their hipness and street cred with the death of Nextel and the chirp? Was that kind of it?
 
Nate Ingram:
I don't think they really ever had much to begin with.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah.
 
Nate Ingram:
Sorry. Okay Nextel but yeah, that would be separate brands if Nextel was cool.
 
Dana Wollman:
Is it Sprint right now who's advertising campaigns basically amount to our network coverage is almost as good as Verizon's?
 
Nate Ingram:
That is correct. "We're 98% of Verizon."
 
Dana Wollman:
"We're like 1% off Verizon," or something. That's the best they can do right now in terms of advertising, so if a Tidal partnership, I guess I'm arguing your side now but not really.
 
Nate Ingram:
I know we should've switched apparently because you're making some decent points.
 
Dana Wollman:
No I stand by my other points but if that's currently the best they can do in terms of reaching people and convincing people to join Sprint, say our network is technically worse than Verizon's but not that much worse, maybe this gives them something else to focus on.
 
Nate Ingram:
The thing I was just thinking too is ... It's gone. I can't even argue my point. Just that, oh god that's terrible. Oh, so with new FTC commission with net neutrality under fire it's entirely possible that Sprint will start offering Tidal as it won't count against your data usage. As crappy as that is for net neutrality, I could see how some customers might appreciate it.
 
Terrence O.:
But carriers already can do that, at least on the wireless. T-Mobile does that, right?
 
Nate Ingram:
Sure, but they have to negotiate these deals with the various services I'm sure.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah.
 
Nate Ingram:
All right well how do you want to rule this one?
 
Terrence O.:
I mean it goes to Dana, I'm sorry.
 
Nate Ingram:
I went into this knowing I was gonna be down a point, now I just gotta step it up a little.
 
Dana Wollman:
But I fought for you too.
 
Nate Ingram:
You did well.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
Which was kind of works in Dana's favor because regardless of which way I felt Dana won.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah, no she had all the answers.
 
Terrence O.:
She made the better arguments for both sides.
 
Nate Ingram:
And I was even trying to do research on the air. Didn't help.
 
Terrence O.:
Let's move on to our second story, which is Samsung. The Note Seven saga finally seems like it came to an end this past week.
 
Nate Ingram:
I'd say so.
 
Terrence O.:
Hopefully so.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
I mean God knows there might still be a few of them floating out there somewhere-
 
Dana Wollman:
I think we're mostly done talking about the Note 7 after this podcast.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah, after this podcast. Which kind of brings me to the question here, which is is Samsung's apology for the Note 7 debacle enough and has it finally actually put this whole 'Battery Gate' thing behind it? Nate, we are going to start with you.
 
Nate Ingram:
I'm gonna say that they did a good job with the apology. Good job explaining what happened but the next time they release a phone all everyone's gonna do is write about how oh maybe it's gonna blow up. I think that it's gonna really be this talking point for people for at least another year and that's gonna make it harder I think to convince people to buy it.
 
Terrence O.:
Dana.
 
Dana Wollman:
I don't actually disagree with what Nate said about the fact that people will, that Samsung has some work to do in restoring trust but its apology this past week was at least thorough and humble.
 
Nate Ingram:
Things that often cannot be said about Samsung, the humble part anyway.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
I mean to be fair the humble part is something that can't be said of most companies, right?
 
Nate Ingram:
True.
 
Terrence O.:
Nate do you give them any credit for that and do you think that does anything for them with consumers? If you put that up against, say, Apple when there was 'Antenna Gate', Apple was anything but humble. Did not apologize and essentially blamed their customers for problems with their own phone.
 
Nate Ingram:
The only thing I'll say is that we're talking about slightly decreased performance versus phones that are literally exploding. I think Samsung had no choice but to be as direct and humble as possible in this situation. There was no room for any sort of spin or playing with how they presented that stuff. [crosstalk 00:10:54] Which to their credit they did that.
 
Dana Wollman:
What I appreciated most, right, and I appreciated not just the explanation and to recap the facts their explanation included not one but two different battery problems. There was one specific to the original batch of phones and then a different problem entirely relating to the replacement phones that were supposedly safe.
 
Nate Ingram:
Because they rushed it.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah. Now it seems they're reorganizing their operations somewhat to include a special team that does final personal checks on these components and on the one hand you would've expected or hoped that customers had something in place like that to begin with but they do now at least.
 
Terrence O.:
Here's my question to you Dana, which is they have some sort of quality control. I mean every company does and it clearly failed multiple times and multiple vendors failed in providing Samsung with these parts. Samsung, like most electronics companies, doesn't make everything that goes in their phones or their laptops themselves. Was this kind of enough to allay people's concerns do you think? Is there gonna be lingering issues with wondering whether or not their quality assurance is up to snuff and wondering whether or not their new-
 
Nate Ingram:
The Note 8.
 
Terrence O.:
The new component makers are gonna be able to create batteries and whatever else safely and all of these things.
 
Dana Wollman:
I think it remains to be seen somewhat. It was interesting that a few days after this press conference Samsung released it's most recent quarterly earnings and they actually looked pretty good. I think it was something like the biggest profit Samsung had seen in three years or something like that.
 
Nate Ingram:
Wow, I knew it was good. I didn't know it was that good.
 
Dana Wollman:
But a lot of that money actually came from the sale of components to other companies and this was going on. I'm sure these orders were placed-
 
Nate Ingram:
Way in advance.
 
Dana Wollman:
Right, I mean possibly before this whole Note 7 thing unfolded. I think it remains to be seen both how Samsung's mobile division does and how even its own component division does.
 
Nate Ingram:
I think we're gonna see just how long of a memory do consumers have versus ... The fact is the Galaxy S7 was probably the best phone Samsung's ever made. The Note 7 was looking like it could be until this happened. Will people remember?
 
Dana Wollman:
I think one of the problems here, the battery life on the Note 7 was almost too good to be true.
 
Nate Ingram:
It was too good to be in true in fact.
 
Dana Wollman:
It was and that's what happens when you try something like squeezing a too big battery into too small of a casing and if anything I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung erred next time on the side of safe. A phone that doesn't blow up but maybe isn't groundbreaking or exciting.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
That's most phones though, right?
 
Dana Wollman:
It's a lot of phones.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yes, it is in fact.
 
Terrence O.:
Like 99% of phones are not groundbreaking or exciting [crosstalk 00:13:54] but also don't explode.
 
Dana Wollman:
Right, I mean LG is rumored to be making it's next phone less weird for totally different reasons besides-
 
Terrence O.:
Because when they make weird phones nobody buys them.
 
Dana Wollman:
Right.
 
Terrence O.:
I'm gonna give this one to Nate I think.
 
Nate Ingram:
That was a pity vote right there.
 
Terrence O.:
No its not. Here's what I'm gonna say is I think while I appreciate their apology and I think they went further in their apology and their investigation than a lot of companies would, and I give Samsung a lot of credit for that, I think ultimately consumers memory is a lot longer than this. I don't think going out and apologizing is gonna end this story.
 
Nate Ingram:
It's such an easy thing for people to call back to. "Oh it's the phone that blows up."
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah.
 
Nate Ingram:
It can take a long time to erase that sort of tagline from people's memory.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah, at this point it's very much a lot of wait and see and so it's hard to say that it's finally kind of put this whole thing behind it. Just sort of like an anecdote to the side of that is somebody, coworker of my wife, was recently in the market for a new phone and was always an Android user and ended up buying an iPhone because, and this is an issue with all Android phones, it's sort of an industry wide problem is, she just associates all of them. They're all Droid phones to her and so she thought that all Android phones exploded. And I'm wondering how widespread that is because I do know that a lot of people, "Just like all Android phones are Droid phones," in their heads. Like they're all the same.
 
Dana Wollman:
Well that is one way in which Engadget readers are different from the general public.
 
Terrence O.:
Yes, yes. Good on you guys.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
But also remember our readership makes up a very small portion of the population in the grand scheme of things. So I think we'll have to wait-
 
Nate Ingram:
Dana face.
 
Terrence O.:
Yep. Let's move on to our last story for Flame Wars and this one is gonna go back to probably something you guys haven't heard of in a while and that's Google Voice.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yep.
 
Nate Ingram:
Still a thing.
 
Terrence O.:
That is still a thing.
 
Dana Wollman:
And you guys thought we were gonna talk about Trump this whole time.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah we're giving you a full spectrum of nerdy topics here to start.
 
Terrence O.:
We're gonna start with this. Let's just go straight for it and Dana we'll start with you, you can answer this one first which is did Google let voice stagnate for way too long and should it might as well be dead?
 
Dana Wollman:
That's not the question I thought we were gonna be answering today.
 
Terrence O.:
All right hang on, hang on. That is what it said in the script is has Google let Voice stagnate for too late? Is the service as good as dead?
 
Dana Wollman:
You are a sneaky blockhead but okay I'll answer that question.
 
Nate Ingram:
You want me to go first?
 
Terrence O.:
Let's go with Nate first because you're going to argue that it is in fact dead.
 
Nate Ingram:
Wait, me?
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yes.
 
Terrence O.:
Okay.
 
Nate Ingram:
Correct.
 
Terrence O.:
I'm gonna start your 20 seconds now. Tell me why Google Voice is dead, Dana you start forming your rebuttal.
 
Nate Ingram:
Google Voice is dead because Google's communication and messaging services are all so confused and intertangled at this point that I don't know how refreshing one that they haven't touched in two or three years is going to make anything better. They've got Allo, they've got Hangouts. Now Voice is back. It's such a mess that I don't see how Voice can stand out at all.
 
Terrence O.:
Dana, you now have to figure out a way to-
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah so I can't answer the question of should it be dead or I'm not answering that question but it's clearly not dead. Google just invested all of this developer energy into updating the design language but also it's clearly explicitly promising new features like better voicemail transcriptions. It's actually pretty rare for companies to talk explicitly about what's on their product road map. It's not dead even if you think it should be.
 
Nate Ingram:
I'll agree that it's not dead. I was surprised to see it come back to life here but I think the problem is what compelling reason does someone who's never used Google Voice before have to try it now? I'm sure that there are lots of people who use it and are happy to see it get updated but at this point I can't ... You can do messaging in it now, which is great I suppose. You've always been able to send text messages with added photo capabilities. They're trying to make it compatible with the next generation SMS, etc, etc. but why would I use that over Hangouts or over Allo or over Duo or just making a phone call? They need to simplify their products there to make it clear what the value proposition is.
 
Dana Wollman:
What's the support of these products across Chromebooks, which I know you love?
 
Nate Ingram:
Ooh.
 
Dana Wollman:
You know Skype doesn't really work well still on Chromebooks.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah, you can do calls through Hangouts on Chromebooks and I'm pretty sure if you go to the Google Voice home page you can also make calls just through the browser regardless of what platform it's on.
 
Dana Wollman:
So even then on a Chromebook- [crosstalk 00:19:00]
 
Terrence O.:
That I'm not actually sure of. I'm gonna look at that right now while we continue talking. I believe you can make what amount to Google Voice calls from Hangouts but I don't know that you can actually make them from the-
 
Nate Ingram:
If you go to voice.google.com-
 
Terrence O.:
That's what I'm looking at right now.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah. Looks like you got the updated UI. Do you use Google Voice?
 
Terrence O.:
I do. I am an avid Google Voice user and have been since it was called Grand Central so this is close near to my heart.
 
Nate Ingram:
Well I'd love to hear your take on this then as well.
 
Terrence O.:
It does not look like it can make calls by the way from the web.
 
Nate Ingram:
What happens when you click the phone icon there?
 
Terrence O.:
You can send a text message.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yep.
 
Terrence O.:
But the phone icon is just sending messages. It's just like a list of incoming and outgoing calls.
 
Dana Wollman:
You see-
 
Nate Ingram:
Right now what you're doing you're arguing my side because this makes no sense.
 
Dana Wollman:
I have a bigger complaint there that's a missed opportunity for both the Google Voice team and the Skype team, which I think has been very slow ...
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah.
 
Dana Wollman:
... On that count.
 
Terrence O.:
I mean-
 
Nate Ingram:
I think you're right you can do it through Hangouts.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah you can definitely do it through Hangouts. So Dana, you were saying they put all of this developer effort into it. My question kind of there is how much effort are they actually putting into it? During the UI overhaul honestly isn't necessarily that big of an investment in time and effort. A lot of the stuff is-
 
Nate Ingram:
It's worthwhile for sure.
 
Terrence O.:
It's worthwhile but a lot of this stuff is like pre-built because Google has a set of UI building tools and themes and all that stuff. A lot of the stuff is just pre-designed buttons that they're throwing into a place in a interface that honestly isn't that different from the one they had before, it just has the new icons and the better voicemail transcription stuff isn't necessarily voice specific. It's just like Google's voice recognition technology has gotten better and plugging that into their voicemail thing seems kind of like a no-brainer.
 
Dana Wollman:
It was them going on record about the upcoming features that-
 
Terrence O.:
Kind of did it for you?
 
Dana Wollman:
That did it for me.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah they did say that this was not just the one time facelift. We should see other things happening with Voice this year which, again, surprising.
 
Dana Wollman:
And I say that even from my experience in gadget. Engadget itself has a team of developers who are creating things to benefit you guys, the viewers and readers and listeners. But would probably not go on record talk about what they have coming unless they were-
 
Terrence O.:
Really truly invested.
 
Dana Wollman:
There were zero chance they'd flake on it.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah.
 
Nate Ingram:
I'd say Google does have a bit of history of trying stuff out, cancelling it, trying again. There are a lot more publicly experimental than most companies I would say.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah for sure. Often to their detriment perhaps. I'm gonna give this one to Dana.
 
Nate Ingram:
Are you kidding me? That's because you love Google Voice.
 
Dana Wollman:
It's because you're rusty. You should come on more frequently than every three months.
 
Nate Ingram:
Even when I was coming on more I was getting spanked so I don't know if that's gonna help.
 
Terrence O.:
I do love Google Voice though.
 
Nate Ingram:
Can you tell me why, I'd love to hear A why you like it and B why you sided with Dana.
 
Terrence O.:
A why I like it is it's my work phone number. I don't have a desk phone at the office. I don't want to have to carry a second phone that's specifically for Engadget and I don't want to hand out my personal cell phone number to people, so I have a work number. I've had it for a long time besides for work but I use it for Engadget and i don't answer it. It is specifically basically just a voicemail service for PR people. It's also the number I give out when I sign up for things because it's easy to block spam and stuff so I don't have to worry about people calling me at all hours of the night to sell me shit.
 
 
The other thing is that it's because of that I feel safe giving that number out. I recently set up signals so that we could do, so that I could accept tips and stuff securely and leaks and whatever, which by the way if anybody out there, and we'll talk about this more later, if anybody wants to send Engadget tips and leaks or specifically send that stuff to me, I'm on signal. You can find my Google Voice number, which is associated with my signal account and you can send them to me securely.
 
 
But that's like a thing. I have no issue putting my Google Voice number on my Twitter page because-
 
Nate Ingram:
You can just shut it off if you don't want it.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah, I have no issue with it.
 
Nate Ingram:
All right you're convincing me.
 
Terrence O.:
My world would be kind of ruined if Google Voice went down because a lot of people have that number and rely-
 
Nate Ingram:
I've never really minded handing out my personal number to be honest so I guess that's the difference. I just don't pick up calls that I don't recognize if I don't want to.
 
Terrence O.:
Heres the thing is I've had my home phone number. Like I still have a landline, which is probably weird for people, for so long that so many companies have that number that I straight up don't answer the phone anymore. I only use it to make a conference call for work. That's the only purpose it serves.
 
Nate Ingram:
Nice.
 
Terrence O.:
But yeah, all right point goes to Dana. Let's move on.
 
Nate Ingram:
Let's move on.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yay.
 


Terrence O.:
Let's move on to Group Chat. This is where we talk about the biggest issues of the week. The biggest story of the week.
 
Dana Wollman:
The hugest.
 
Terrence O.:
The hugest.
 
Nate Ingram:
The biggliest.
 
Terrence O.:
The biggliest?
 
Dana Wollman:
Biggliest.
 
Terrence O.:
And guys it's the first week of the Trump's presidency.
 
Nate Ingram:
No way around it.
 
Terrence O.:
There's no way around this being the biggest story of the week.
 
Dana Wollman:
He is getting to work. Starting to make decisions about science and tech policy that you may or may not agree with>
 
Terrence O.:
Yep.
 
Nate Ingram:
Among many, many other troubling things.
 
Terrence O.:
And I don't think I'm out of line by speaking for all of us when I say we all disagree with it-
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
Very much. I think the interesting thing here is that he's not making a ton of really serious policy decisions yet. Mostly what he's doing it seems like is trying to rein in a lot of these research organizations and stuff.
 
Dana Wollman:
That's on the science side. We'll talk too about his FCC appointment, which I think does amount to policy decisions.
 
Terrence O.:
So why don't we actually start with the FCC thing Dana. Do you want to talk about that a little bit?
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah. Basically his FCC appointee is a known opponent of net neutrality. Basically to appoint him is tantamount to making policy decisions. Doesn't mean any laws or policies have changed yet but it's a pretty clear sign of where we're headed.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah I believe that in December he co-authored a paper for the FCC detailing why he does not believe in net neutrality and why the agency is in a blanket statement here going to be going more unfriendly to companies and the byproduct of that is they will be less friendly to consumers in all likelihood I would say.
 
Dana Wollman:
And to be clear too when he was appointed this week basically every telecom issued a press release.
 
Terrence O.:
We should name this person by the way.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yes.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yes.
 
Terrence O.:
I'm probably gonna screw up his name and I feel really bad and I apologize for it but is it Ajit Pai.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yep.
 
Terrence O.:
I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly and I apologize if I'm not. I'm the worst at pronouncing things in general.
 
Nate Ingram:
He's been at the FCC for a good four years already. He was appointed under Obama as a republican commissioner to balance things out there but yeah he's always been pretty clear-
 
Dana Wollman:
Every telecom shared his appointment this week which says a lot.
 
Terrence O.:
To be fair most telecoms also cheered the appointment of Tom Wheeler.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
I mean he was very much an industry insider. He was very much friend to the telecommunication industry. He worked int he telecommunications industry. He was not a consumer advocate in the previous life.
 
Nate Ingram:
Sure. Even if he was they probably would've sent some milk toast PR saying blabbity blah.
 
Dana Wollman:
And Tom Wheeler's legacy in net neutrality is I think fair to say mixed.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
I think early on he was definitely hesitant to push as hard on net neutrality as we probably think he should have. I mean even by the end when we got some really solid rules around title two and the regulation of the internet and stuff like that, there's still a lot of pretty big loopholes-
 
Nate Ingram:
That's a gray area I feel like.
 
Terrence O.:
Especially on the wireless end, which is why we have things like-
 
Nate Ingram:
[Ben John 00:27:47], right?
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah. It's sort of a weird thing because I don't want to judge him too harshly because I think Tom Wheeler surprised a lot of us who were paying attention. He surprised me I know. When he was named I went, "Well there's no chance in hell we're getting net neutrality now. That's just not gonna happen," and especially after the first plan came out and I think it was very underwhelming for a lot of people who were proponents of net neutrality.
 
Nate Ingram:
They seem to take the criticism to heart and improve it I would say.
 
Terrence O.:
Another question is does the Trump administration and the new FCC chairman take that criticism and the public desire for net neutrality to heart?
 
Nate Ingram:
I would go with no because Trump is so clearly pro-business that I think that's just gonna be the default position and anything contrary to that-
 
Dana Wollman:
That's what I would've said. I don't think he is specifically that strongly anti-net neutrality.
 
Nate Ingram:
Right.
 
Dana Wollman:
I don't think it's a pet issue of his but I think he is indeed pro-business.
 
Terrence O.:
He is pro-business. Donald Trump has spoken very little about net neutrality in general. What little he has said about net neutrality I will say shows that he doesn't understand the issue and I'm not saying that to be like flippant or dismissive of him. I mean I'm clearly not a fan of his in general but his statements about net neutrality reflect minimal understanding of the issue. He's compared it to the Fairness Doctrine and the two things are in no way related whatsoever. It's kind of hard to pinpoint where he's at personally on it. If only because while he's been very openly against he also hasn't really clearly stated why at least in any sort of reasonable terms. We kind of have to go on-
 
Nate Ingram:
What I imagine is that the FCC will just kind of push the rulings forward and he'll probably just go with them because I don't think he's gonna care enough to invest any attention in the issue.
 
Terrence O.:
Probably not. I get the feeling that what you're looking at is an undoing of net neutrality just because I think it's the sort of thing where Trump feels like it's an easy point to score with the republican establishment who tend to be very pro-business. This is probably getting a little bit off topic so I'll avoid going too far down this rabbit hole but I think if you look at Trump as a candidate and as a President he holds a lot of beliefs and is pushing a lot of policies that are kind of [anthema 00:30:35] to traditional Republican values. And so he kind of has to like-
 
Nate Ingram:
Slide a few things in there.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah he's got a throw a couple of bones their way and be like, "You don't want net neutrality? That's fine, we don't have to have net neutrality but I want big infrastructure spending," and stuff like that. He's gonna kind of figure out ways to wheel and deal.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah, and it seems like an easy card to play because he doesn't care about it so just do it, it'll make them happy.
 
Terrence O.:
Any other thoughts on that Dana?
 
Dana Wollman:
No I basically agree. I mean I'm willing to be surprised but expect him to err on the side of fewer regulations.
 
Nate Ingram:
The good news is that I think it'll take some time at the very least and I think this kind of goes back to what has happened this week. There's been a lot laying grind work for stuff to change but I think not a lot has actually changed, which is at least somewhat heartening right? Eventually he can issue all these executive orders and appoint people but at some point it's gonna get down to dealing with the rest of the government and that's when things will slow down. I think changing net neutrality is one of the things that will at least take a little bit of work to get done.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah. The other big storyline this week in his first week has been this sort of stuff about gag orders put on certain agencies or departments of the agencies, in particular the EPA.
 
Nate Ingram:
National park.
 
Terrence O.:
The national park service. The USDA but not the entire USDA. It was specifically the agricultural research service I believe.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
And certain sub-departments in the health and human services, right? Am I correct on all these things?
 
Nate Ingram:
I don't know about the last one.
 
Dana Wollman:
That doesn't ring as familiar.
 
Terrence O.:
Hang on, let me double check this. I may-
 
Nate Ingram:
But the overarching theme seems definitely to be an attack on science related parts of the government is how I would categorize it anyway.
 
Terrence O.:
Okay so-
 
Nate Ingram:
What do you got?
 
Terrence O.:
Well I was gonna say talk a little bit about that.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
So lay out that argument for me.
 
Nate Ingram:
Well so Trump has been very anti-EPA for a while. He said he wants to do some major reform in the EPA so he started off the presidency by putting a freeze on grants and contracts and while that's not totally unprecedented, I think it was a little more of an aggressive move than has been made in the past usually. Every time a new administration comes along they want to kind of put the brakes on things and figure out what work is being done before they move forward with it but going along with that it's been like a gag order on the EPA and the other agencies you mentioned that no press releases, no social media, and that's kind of troubling because these are government agencies that our tax dollars are paying for who are being told not to communicate with the public.
 
 
That is a problem and the fact that it is very specifically science related, climate change related, is troubling. They're basically saying, "We don't want you guys putting out this propaganda about climate change being a thing because we want to destroy the environment with our pro-business plans." On the White House website this week as the transition happened they removed all the pages relating to climate change, which again I think people are overstating the impact of that. It's a totally new website. Some things are not making the transition to the new site but if they cared about climate change they would have a page about it. They do not. That sends a message. All this stuff is sending messages about what's important in this administration.
 
Dana Wollman:
And all this website stuff I don't think, in general by the way, I don't think are accidents.
 
Nate Ingram:
No.
 
Dana Wollman:
I also don't think it's an accident that the Spanish language option was removed from the website. That was also symbolic and meaningful.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yes. It's all very much like you can look at all these actions happening and say, "This shows what the priority is even if it's not necessarily enacting a new policy yet." That's how I would categorize it.
 
Terrence O.:
I mean I think there is certain stuff about this that is struggling but I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple of days. The hopeful part of me, the optimistic part of me, has like ... Yeah.-
 
Nate Ingram:
Wait, there is an optimistic part of you?
 
Terrence O.:
There is.
 
Nate Ingram:
Okay.
 
Terrence O.:
That has come to the idea that there's two ways of looking at this that suggest that's not necessarily as malicious as-
 
Nate Ingram:
It might seem.
 
Terrence O.:
It might seem. One of these I think, one of these ways of looking at it I think is part of what you were saying before is that not everything's gonna make the transition. I think this is the first transition of power from president to president in the truly digital age.
 
Nate Ingram:
That's true.
 
Terrence O.:
It's been very messy on all levels.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
They couldn't even get the Twitter account handover for @POTUS right at first.
 
Nate Ingram:
I'm gonna say actually that I'm surprised they got it done as well as they did to be perfectly honest. The fact that they were able to take everything that was on POTUS and transfer it to a new account. The fact that that worked seamlessly at noon that day, the fact the transferring of that content worked, was pretty surprising to me. The follower stuff I can almost see why that was weird but anyway I'm just throwing out a word of support for Twitter there. I think it did a decent job.
 
Terrence O.:
It wasn't a complete debacle but it was also not super smooth.
 
Nate Ingram:
True.
 
Terrence O.:
And I think you're gonna see a lot of issues like that. You're gonna see the sort of bits and pieces that aren't working the way they should.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
And it's also abundantly clear that Trump and his transition team are not stocked up the way they should be. I'd have to go double check what the number is on this but if you go back. I'm a big fan of the Weeds VOX podcast which is all about policy and stuff and they were talking about-
 
Nate Ingram:
The name of the podcast is The Weeds?
 
Terrence O.:
It's called The Weeds.
 
Nate Ingram:
Nice.
 
Terrence O.:
I suggest people listen to it. It's a very good show and they kind of get into the nitty gritty of policy and running the government and stuff. They were speaking about sort of the way the transition has been handled so far and basically the number of appointees, presidential appointees, that you're supposed to have running is somewhere around the range-
 
Nate Ingram:
Some thousands right?
 
Terrence O.:
Not thousands but there's hundreds of positions that need to be filled by presidential appointment and generally by the time inauguration comes around most of those people are named and ready to go, even if they have to go through confirmation. Stuff is laid the groundwork and the Trump transition team has less than half of what the other administrations have had coming in.
 
Nate Ingram:
So they're operating at a deficit ...
 
Terrence O.:
They're operating at a deficit.
 
Nate Ingram:
... In terms of manpower really.
 
Terrence O.:
In terms of manpower and getting a lot of these agencies under control, I think they were not prepared for things like the fact that the government has however many dozens, probably hundreds, of Twitter accounts run by all of these people and sort of getting them in line and getting on message has proven extremely difficult.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah, hence the freeze. Hence the freeze.
 
Terrence O.:
Hence the freeze.
 
Nate Ingram:
Like we need sometime to figure out what the heck we're doing here, so just stop.
 
Terrence O.:
I think can seem more malicious than it is in reality. I think to a certain extent we are probably projecting a little bit because we obviously don't like him.
 
Nate Ingram:
And the word is the EPA freeze will be lifted possibly as soon as Friday, which is when you guys are watching this so it could happen today.
 
Terrence O.:
It's kind of a wait and see thing.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah I mean the one thing I would say to counter that is I saw the other day I think it was the department of defense twitter even seemed to be subtweeting Trump.
 
Terrence O.:
Oh yeah.
 
Dana Wollman:
It was basically tweeting thanks to Muslim soldier-
 
Terrence O.:
Refugee.
 
Dana Wollman:
Right, which seemed, excuse me.
 
Terrence O.:
Like we said, woman is dying. We're all dying.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah, and yes just for the viewers at home, yes I did just get on the floor to pick up a tissue that I dropped and yes I'm about to wipe my noise with it so just give me some slack okay?
 
Nate Ingram:
Slow clap, slow clap.
 
Terrence O.:
We'll point the camera away from you while that happens.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah there's been a whole lot of subtweeting the president from a number of the agencies, including the department of defense.
 
Dana Wollman:
But I don't see a gag on the department of defense Twitter account.
 
Nate Ingram:
I'm gonna say forget about subtweeting. The Badlands National Park just went full on yolo and started tweeting out a whole bunch of climate change facts. I think that was on Friday or Monday.
 
Dana Wollman:
The claim after that was that it was a former employee who still had access to the accounts, which how is that possible?
 
Nate Ingram:
I think it goes to what Terrence was saying with the lack of preparation and transition there.
 
Terrence O.:
It just seems like a lot of this might just be poorly handling the transition.
 
Nate Ingram:
And so people are getting in their jabs where they can.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah. It's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm hesitant to say necessarily that this is the beginning of wide spread government censorship. I'm not saying that's not gonna happen but I'm trying to be a little bit less pessimistic.
 
Dana Wollman:
That's generous of you considering this is the week of the phrase "alternative facts".
 
Nate Ingram:
I was about to say you have a point except when we look at the way the White House has been treating truth, it doesn't paint a good picture. On it's own perhaps we could just say this is poor transitional stuff but when you take into account the fact that facts seem to have no place in the administration to a large degree.
 
Terrence O.:
So I want to come back to that.
 
Nate Ingram:
I bet you do.
 
Terrence O.:
Well I have some things to say about that. I always have things to say. I never shut up, do I?
 
Dana Wollman:
I mean that's good energy to have.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah. Before we move on to that though I did want to say the other sort of way of looking at this. The other sort of piece of this, and this is going back to what we were talking about earlier, is Donald Trump kind of sees himself, and this is a slightly more malicious take and I think this is also somewhat true, which is Donald Trump sees himself as a wheeler and dealer kind of guy, a negotiator kind of guy and one really basic negotiation tactic is to go out and ask for the world and then roll it back. So it's really easy to just go out there and go, "Everybody, shut up. No communication with the public," and the moment there's an uproar, "All right fine, you can talk to the public." And everybody goes, "See, it's not that bad. He let the agricultural research service talk to the public," because that's one of the agencies that mattered.
 
Nate Ingram:
Before we move on from environmental stuff all together, I think we also need to mention the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipeline executive order-
 
Terrence O.:
Yes.
 
Nate Ingram:
Which is that those are back on the table for construction and again the New York Times said this was to some extent a symbolic thing more than a major somehow it's gonna affect major change but Obama fought to restrict the Keystone XL pipeline in 2015 and now as soon as Trump is in office he reverses that. Again it's broadcasting what his priorities are gonna be, environment low on that list.
 
Terrence O.:
By the way I did have to look up this department of defense tweet because I couldn't remember exactly what it was and it's still there, it has not been deleted by the way.
 
Nate Ingram:
Well to that point you're not supposed to delete these tweets from government owned accounts because they're supposed to be stored under the Freedom of Information Act.
 
Terrence O.:
For those who don't know this was sent out pretty much at the exact same time that Donald Trump was signing the executive orders around immigration and cutting back on resettling refugees-
 
Nate Ingram:
That was yesterday right? Or Wednesday I should say.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah. As that was being signed basically, the department of defense sent out a tweet that read, "From refugee to #marine, US Marine Core Corporal Ali J Muhammad takes the fight to the doorstep of those who cast his family out." That is pretty directly a spit in the face of the executive order being signed as this was going on.
 
Dana Wollman:
By the way if you could use your time machine and go back 20 years, talk to your younger self, how would you explain the sentence, "The government is subtweeting itself."
 
Nate Ingram:
Ooh.
 
Terrence O.:
I mean you wouldn't be able to because tweeting did not exist.
 
Dana Wollman:
Yeah.
 
Terrence O.:
It's such a weird thing to be watching. Yeah just think about that for a second. The American government is subtweeting-
 
Nate Ingram:
It's fighting with itself on the internet.
 
Terrence O.:
It's such a bizarre thing to watch. It's very, very weird, which I mean also again makes sense for some of the gag order. It's like, "Guys, you gotta stop this. Everybody's gotta get on the same page. We have to at least agree on a certain set of decorum and what we can and can't."
 
Nate Ingram:
We're not gonna troll ourselves except-
 
Terrence O.:
As much as I clearly have my political differences with the president, I also think that maybe the defense department should not be openly hostile to him on Twitter. That's kind of a bad thing.
 
Nate Ingram:
There's enough real trouble in the world that we need to deal with so let's not in-fight.
 
Terrence O.:
Well it's not even about in-fighting. If Donald Trump and his administration are actively trying to suppress information about climate change, if they're trying to suppress data from NASA, leaking that information to journalists is valuable.
 
Nate Ingram:
Subtweeting is not.
 
Terrence O.:
Flippant tweets, while amusing to me as a person, don't necessarily perform that much of a service.
 
Nate Ingram:
Except to make people more annoyed.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah, which is kind of my issue. Again I appreciate it. It's nice. I get a chuckle out of it but is it doing some great good? I don't know about that.
 
Nate Ingram:
It's a stretch.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah.
 
Nate Ingram:
I do think that the deletion of any of these tweets though is really something to pay attention to because you're not supposed to do that and the official POTUS account has already removed several tweets only because of typos so not a big deal in the grand scheme of things-
 
Dana Wollman:
Slippery slope.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah exactly, you're just not supposed to do that and they're doing it.
 
Terrence O.:
Well here's the thing is the rules around that aren't necessarily these things need to be updated and clear, aren't necessarily that you can't delete them.
 
Nate Ingram:
Okay.
 
Terrence O.:
They just need to be archived some place.
 
Nate Ingram:
Gotcha.
 
Terrence O.:
If they delete the tweets, so long as a record of that tweet exists some place that can be provided under a freedom of information act request, then that's in compliance with the law.
 
Nate Ingram:
All right, once again try explaining this to ourselves 20 years ago.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah, but again this is also why a lot of these rules need to be updated as well. So I don't know.
 
Nate Ingram:
Do we want to talk about the media sort of mess that you wanted to refer to? The restrictions under what people can say. I think you said there was one more thing you wanted to get into, like sink your teeth into.
 
Terrence O.:
God I don't even remember at this point. My brain is not working today apparently.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yeah.
 
Dana Wollman:
That happened very suddenly.
 
Terrence O.:
It really did.
 
Nate Ingram:
We've touched upon the main things in terms of-
 
Terrence O.:
Oh so I remember what we were supposed to talk about which is the alternative facts.
 
Nate Ingram:
Alternative facts.
 
Terrence O.:
I don't want to dig too much into this. If I'm honest I think there's a whole lot to be said there. A lot of it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with technology or science, so I don't want to go too deep down that rabbit hole. I understand that we are a technology and science website, try to keep it at least somewhat on topic. The one thing I will say that makes that phrase and sort of the first week of this administration a little bit troubling is how the concept of alternative facts could be levied against things like scientific research. How that would play at the EPA.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yesterday there was that news about how all the EPA stuff has to go through political review first and again I think that's one of those things where it's something that happened under previous administrations but it's something that's gonna be amplified now.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah and I think this goes across governmental agencies. It doesn't begin and end with the EPA or NASA or anything like that. There's a lot of ways that sort of thing could be abused. A lot of it's gonna have to come down I think maintaining all of that research available to the public. The public needs to have access to the raw data from the EPA or from NASA. NASA's always been good about making that available. You can actually go through all of NASA's publicly funded research I believe. It was actually the story circulating yesterday again although the portal is very old for whatever reason. The issue I think is gonna come from how those facts are interpreted by the administration and that's-
 
Nate Ingram:
Their sort of publicly given to the public, like the way they make these statements.
 
Terrence O.:
And I think that's gonna be where the biggest problem lies is in sort of making sure that people understand there is no such thing as alternative facts. There are facts and there are lies and that's kind of the end of the debate.
 
Dana Wollman:
And if there are alternative facts where do things like data fit in?
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah, like facts and data are the same thing. They are true no matter how much you don't want to believe them.
 
Nate Ingram:
You can spin it all you want.
 
Terrence O.:
But at the end of the day the data kind of speaks for itself and so that's gonna be sort of the interesting challenge I think for journalists going forward, especially in science and to a slightly lesser degree in technology but also there too.
 
Nate Ingram:
And for the public digesting this stuff.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah.
 
Nate Ingram:
The fact that it sounds like the White House press room is a big state run media basically because they're gonna present us with alternative facts. You have to know where to go to get the other facts I guess.
 
Dana Wollman:
As for Sean Spicer himself as we were beginning the recording of this podcast he tweeted out a string of letters and numbers that could have been a password. It could've also just been butt tweeting.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah, I'm gonna go with butt tweeting because it's not the first time he's done that in the last couple of days. He did it yesterday too.
 
Dana Wollman:
By the time we record our next podcast a week from now we should know the answer.
 
Terrence O.:
I hope so.
 
Dana Wollman:
But yes.
 
Terrence O.:
Clearly it was a password of some kind and you know what we did not ... We don't have time to talk about this now. We're gonna move on.
 
Nate Ingram:
What is it? Give us a tease.
 
Terrence O.:
I wanted to talk about the private email [inaudible 00:49:44].
 
Nate Ingram:
Oh my god.
 
Dana Wollman:
That would've been relevant.
 
Terrence O.:
It would've been. I was so focused on the science gag orders and stuff that I forgot about that.
 
Dana Wollman:
You got excited, I know.
 
Terrence O.:
I did. I will say this before we go. It's very early in the stages of planning a scientist march on DC now.
 
Nate Ingram:
Yes.
 
Terrence O.:
As a follow up we will be bringing you more information about that as we learn it. It's going to be sort of interesting to see what the turnout for that is like. I mean obviously it's not gonna be anywhere near the size of the women's march but hopefully a solid, strong turnout for guys in white lab coats.
 
Dana Wollman:
And I hope that their signs are as clever as the ones at the women's marches. They have a big bar to clear there, high bar.
 
Terrence O.:
I'm gonna go with probably not. Gonna be a lot of bad science puns and we all know how much you hate puns.
 
Dana Wollman:
I hate puns except-
 
Nate Ingram:
I think we need to send a reporter down there and just get all the signs.
 
Dana Wollman:
I think so too.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah.
 
Nate Ingram:
That's what Twitter is for I suppose.
 
Terrence O.:
Yep. Dana, any last thoughts before we call this?
 
Dana Wollman:
No, I've still got a walloper of a sneeze up there so I'd rather not do it into the mic.
 
Terrence O.:
You need to get off the air before you actually get that sneeze out. I'm gonna see if I can drag this out long enough so that you actually do it on the air.
 
Dana Wollman:
Oh no. Listeners at home you really don't want to hear my sneeze.
 
Terrence O.:
I think they might.
 
Dana Wollman:
No.
 
Terrence O.:
Where can the fine people find you on the internet?
 
Dana Wollman:
I am Dana Wollman with no space.
 
Terrence O.:
Nate, any final thoughts?
 
Nate Ingram:
I will say that I went to one of the women's marches this weekend and it was the lone bright point in a week of hard news and so support to all of the people who made that happen. All the organizers and there's gonna be more coming so that should be good times.
 
Terrence O.:
And where can the fine people find you?
 
Nate Ingram:
I'm on the Twitters at Nate Ingram no space.
 
Terrence O.:
I am at Terrence O'Brien, lots of E's, no A's. Please hit us up on Twitter. Let us know what you think, what you want to hear on the show.
 
Dana Wollman:
Stay out of my mentions please.
 
Nate Ingram:
Slide in the DM's, whatever you gotta do.
 
Terrence O.:
You can hit me up on Twitter. Leave poor Dana alone. Let me know what you think of the show, what you want to hear, what you want to see. All of that stuff you. You can also get us podcastatengadget.com or just hit us at Engadget Podcast on Twitter. If you have questions, comments, anything like that we want to hear it. Make sure to subscribe in your podcast app of choice. Rate us on iTunes, all that stuff that helps more people find the show and obviously we want people to listen to the show as much as I said maybe you should tune out at the beginning. That's clearly bad advice. We do not have a comment of the week for you this week because-
 
Nate Ingram:
You're all grounded.
 
Dana Wollman:
We would've chosen Aaron on our staff.
 
Terrence O.:
Yeah, honestly the best comment we had of the week came from our own employee and that just felt like cheating. So yeah, thanks for watching and we will see you next week.
 
Nate Ingram:
Later.
 

Posted 0m ago

Gaming Video

Sony at Paris Games Week 2017 in under 10 minutes

Sony at Paris Games Week 2017 in under 10 minutes

Posted   10.30.17
View
Razer's John Wilson Backstage at Expand

Razer's John Wilson Backstage at Expand

Posted   08.20.17
View
Crash Banicoot N. Sane Trilogy | Hands-On | E3 2017

Crash Banicoot N. Sane Trilogy | Hands-On | E3 2017

Posted   06.15.17
View
E3 wrap-up with Engadget | E3 2017

E3 wrap-up with Engadget | E3 2017

Posted   06.15.17
View
Xsens | First Look | E3 2017

Xsens | First Look | E3 2017

Posted   06.15.17
View

Entertainment Video

Twitter's timeline to 280 characters

Twitter's timeline to 280 characters

Posted   10.09.17
View
Samsung Unpacked 2017 in under 10 minutes

Samsung Unpacked 2017 in under 10 minutes

Posted   08.23.17
View
Video and TV in the age of social media

Video and TV in the age of social media

Posted   07.24.17
View
World's largest wind farm gets rolling | ICYMI

World's largest wind farm gets rolling | ICYMI

Posted   05.23.17
View
The evolution of car safety and a tiny search and rescue robot | ICYMI

The evolution of car safety and a tiny search and rescue robot | ICYMI

Posted   05.18.17
View

Gear Video

Can the iPad Pro replace you PC?

Can the iPad Pro replace you PC?

Posted   10.16.17
View
What is Intel Coffee Lake?

What is Intel Coffee Lake?

Posted   10.11.17
View
Twitter's timeline to 280 characters

Twitter's timeline to 280 characters

Posted   10.09.17
View
Google Pixel 2 event in under 15 minutes

Google Pixel 2 event in under 15 minutes

Posted   10.04.17
View
Automakers use Frankfurt to pledge their allegiance to electricity

Automakers use Frankfurt to pledge their allegiance to electricity

Posted   09.19.17
View

Science Video

Getting humans to Mars

Getting humans to Mars

Posted   10.27.17
View
What is Intel Coffee Lake?

What is Intel Coffee Lake?

Posted   10.11.17
View
Inside SpaceX's Hyperloop Pod Competition 2017

Inside SpaceX's Hyperloop Pod Competition 2017

Posted   08.29.17
View
Dan Tepfer’s player piano blends coding and jazz

Dan Tepfer’s player piano blends coding and jazz

Posted   08.28.17
View
The Ethics of Tomorrow’s Autonomous Weapons

The Ethics of Tomorrow’s Autonomous Weapons

Posted   07.25.17
View

Culture Video

What is Intel Coffee Lake?

What is Intel Coffee Lake?

Posted   10.11.17
View
Twitter's timeline to 280 characters

Twitter's timeline to 280 characters

Posted   10.09.17
View
Moving arms with thought and painting faces with light | ICYMI

Moving arms with thought and painting faces with light | ICYMI

Posted   03.31.17
View
How not to get hacked | Adulting Week

How not to get hacked | Adulting Week

Posted   03.24.17
View
How to do good online | Adulting

How to do good online | Adulting

Posted   03.20.17
View