The tech news industry can be frustrating to watch sometimes, BUT the past week has been like an epiphany for me.  Until very recently, if you asked me what I thought about biased reporters, I would have said that you can’t trust them.  They’re biased.  The clue is in the word!

I was wrong.  Very wrong.  In fact, the openly biased technology writers out there, are possibly the most trustworthy out there too.  Allow me to explain.

The beauty of disclosed, media bias

When I read Andy Ihnatko’s opinions of Apple, I know his perspective has a heavy Apple bias.  He’s an Apple guy.  He doesn’t suggest otherwise and he allows his readers to consume what he says, through that filter of disclosed bias.  It’s honest and transparent.

When I read what Paul Thurrott has to say about Microsoft, I know he’s a Microsoft guy.  He tells us clearly and up front.  Just like Andy, Paul is completely transparent about his Microsoft bias and we can read what he says knowing his perspective.  It’s open and honest.

So, where does that leave everyone else?

What kind of bias do the bloggers at mashable, CNET, techcrunch etc have?  These guys are supposed to report on what’s happening, without bias.  This would be great, but it’s impossible.  Everything you read is written by someone, with some kind of bias.  When you read what I write here, it’s MY opinion of what’s going on.  I’m not a Mac guy or a PC guy.  I own both, though I prefer PC’s.  I also use Ubuntu every day.  I use my xbox more than my PS3 and I am a huge admirer of Steve Jobs.  I prefer Google to Bing – You get the idea.

Is it so bad for someone to be a Microsoft or Apple fanboy?  At least with openly biased guys like Thurrott and Ihnatko, we know the perspective they are writing from and can apply or remove the appropriate filters.

Photo: Aslak Raanes

Whilst Adams is clearly a very bright guy, I believe this move is potentially an indicator of a MUCH bigger story, regarding the balance of power with these 2 Internet giants.

Power shift?

Until recently, the idea of anyone leaving Google for a competitor would have been unthinkable.  For years, Google has been regarded as THE place to work, for anyone seeking a career in the industry.  I believe it is telling that such a talented Googler has joined Facebook.  It’s also interesting that following Adams’ critique, Mark Zuckerberg and his team looked for what they could learn, rather than take it as some kind of attack.

For those who missed it, amongst other observations, Adams’ critique focused on the need for Groups, stating that people interact very differently with different people.  It’s alleged this was what prompted Facebook to go into “lock-down” in the summer, to create Facebook Groups.  Clearly, Zuckerberg saw the value in what Adams was saying and offered him a job, which Adams accepted.

With Facebook’s increasing reach and influence, I’m wondering if Google will find it increasingly hard to attract and retain the industry’s top talent?

Following some poorly handled announcements, it seems that Yahoo Buzz and delicious.com are being axed, scaled back or sold (depending on which announcement you heard.)

Bartz was brought in by Yahoo share holders as chief executive and paid $47,000,000 (yes that’s 47 million dollars), in her first year.  Her job was/is to try and transform the ailing giant’s fortunes, however, it’s still unclear what real progress Yahoo is making.  Having sacked hundreds of people and cut back on the number of Internet properties they own, it’s clear that Bartz is seeking to make Yahoo a leaner business.  Is it likely to unseat Google in search or email?  Is it likely to even gain significant ground?

The big question that remains unclear, following the latest round of sackings and cuts is this:

Is Yahoo a sleeping giant, waiting to be brought back from the brink by the brilliance of Bartz, or an ailing giant about to become acquired by a former competitor?

What say you?

Almost everyone who has been hands-on with a Windows Phone 7 device has been impressed to a lesser or greater degree.  However, many established technology writers seemed to report the same conflicting story: That Windows Phone 7 looked great, offered something genuinely different from what’s currently available BUT that it would fail.

It’s also important and relevant to point out that the exact same type of biased reporting was aimed at Apple when it launched the iPad.

Of course, the real value of these blatantly biased reports against brands like Apple or Microsoft, is that they serve as a useful indicator of where many of the so-called independent tech news outlets really stand.  Whilst the bigger tech news providers claim to be unbiased, there are clear differences in how they treat the big tech brands.

The traditional news outlets have well established political biases, with viewers / readers aware upfront if they are consuming left or right based opinion.  When you know up front that you are consuming biased reporting, you can run what you read or listen to through the appropriate filter.

Sadly, it seems there is no clear way to see which biases the leading tech news providers have.  As people base buying decisions on what they read on these sites, isn’t it time there was some honesty here?

If a headline sounds really interesting, there’s a better chance people will read it, than if that same, equally good article or blog post has a more “realistic” title.  However, there’s a big difference between making a headline as compelling as possible, and writing a headline that’s factually incorrect and linking it to a non-story, just for page views.

Tech news and page views

There’s what seems like an epidemic of fake rumours and inaccurate reports flying around the tech news industry, because these fake stories with their even more outrageous headlines grab the page views that pay for our favourite tech news sites.  These sites live or die based on the number of page views they can deliver to their advertisers.  This need for page views is also why, even respected publications like pcmag.com, now produce single blog posts, which run to many pages.  This simple post was stretched over (wait for it) 12 pages! It’s just a post about some WordPress plugins they like, which is a 1 page post!

The Elyse Porterfield dry erase hoax, is a great example of non-news getting widely reported, because tech news outlets knew it would drive lots of traffic.  The fact that the story featured a model, had a too-good-to-be-true story, came from someone with a history of hoaxes and was delivered via a series of professionally-shot photos, means EVERY leading tech news outlet knew it was fake.  However, they all published it as a fact – Before retracting.  They knew that the story was hot and that the retraction would ALSO be hot.  That means page views.

In my opinion, every time a news blog puts the need for page views above the needs of it’s readers, it fails it’s readers.  Failing their readers to appease their advertisers is maybe not a great long term strategy.

What was interesting, was that this question was even asked!  I don’t know Jeff or Pete and yet, because of the power Zuckerberg has in their industry and the fact that access to him is so valuable to people like Jeff and Pete, I found myself applying a filter, as I read what they wrote.

Can I reiterate, there is NO suggestion here that these guys did not write freely and from the heart.  My point is purely that brands like Facebook, Apple and Twitter etc, are now so important to A-List bloggers and ‘tech journalists, that I wonder how or if, that impacts what they say.  That’s what this post is about.

Leo Laporte is still paying the price for pissing off Twitter!

As Leo Laporte can testify, there can be a BIG price to pay for speaking from the heart.  It can see you seriously penalized!  Leo has previously spoken out against Twitter and was then omitted from Twitter’s enormously valuable Suggested User List. (Even though Leo was once the most followed person on Twitter!)  Twitter then decided to gift SUL places to less experienced and less outspoken tech journalists, including iJustine and Veronica Belmont.  Justine and Veronica ALSO picked up millions of Twitter followers between them, whilst Leo remained totally overlooked by the SUL. (Ouch!)

That’s a pretty clear message, for those who want to follow Leo’s route, when you consider that inclusion on that list can give you millions of followers.  Followers equal traffic, and these guy sell advertising – which makes a place on the SUL worth a fortune.

Here’s what I’m wondering: Are the top ‘tech brands, like Twitter, Google, Apple and Facebook now too important to A-List bloggers and ‘tech journalists?

Ten, twenty – Maybe a hundred?

OK, what if you were Leo Laporte, one of the best known and most respected people in your field with hundreds of thousands of followers and fans?

The answer might surprise you!

Leo Laporte & Google Buzz: It’s complicated

Yesterday, Leo Laporte was checking his Google Buzz account when he noticed that a recent post had not been published.  He looked again and saw that in fact, not one of his posts for the past 2 weeks had been published.  Moreover, according to Leo, no one even noticed he wasn’t posting to Buzz!

Now, Leo has hundreds of thousands of listeners and viewers to his various Internet TV shows and his nationwide radio show.  He also has a following on Twitter (at time of writing), of almost a quarter of a million people (including me.)  Ironically, he is also one of the most followed people on Google Buzz, with over 17,000 followers there.

Leo’s missing.  Why didn’t anyone notice?

The general belief is that Leo primarily uses social media to broadcast, so there was a complete communication breakdown.  The suggestion seems to be that he either wasn’t listening or when people saw he wasn’t posting, they assumed there was no point telling him, as he’d be highly unlikely to respond to them.  This, by the way, is based on an incorrect assumption – Leo DOES connect (more on that in a moment.)

However, I can understand where this suggestion comes from.

It did, after all, take Leo 2 weeks before he realised that 50% of his “communication” stream was broken (the broadcast part).  Had he been listening, he would have heard the defining silence and immediately noticed the drop in conversations with him on Buzz.  Ironically, Leo does communicate a great deal with his followers.  His challenge is that he is active on a number of social networks and between them all, he has hundreds of thousands of people sending messages to him, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  In other words, I believe his error was that he spread himself too thinly, across too many networks, to effectively communicate.

Is it even possible to communicate with that many followers?

I only have 16,000 followers on Twitter, but hundreds of thousands of followers must make 2-way communication almost impossible.  I have personally “chatted” many times with Leo on Friendfeed and equally, I have also had many messages ignored!  However, the same can be said of any “tech celeb” with a large following.  I’m guessing Leo’s Twitter stream looks like The Matrix, because HE IS seen by his followers as approachable and interested.

Clearly, if you follow someone with a massive following like Leo (or Veronica Belmont, Pete Cashmore etc), you need to accept that the way they connect via social networks will be very different from the average user, with a more manageable network of contacts.

Further reading

I found 2 really good posts on this subject:

• This post by Brad McCarty on The Next Web makes some excellent points about social media’s strengths and weaknesses.
• This post on Techcrunch, by Paul Parr is also well worth a read.  It widens the discussion to look at where to, and not to, post our content.

Photo Credit: Leo Laporte

So, why did Google announce yesterday that they were ceasing development of Google Wave?

The simple answer from Google, was that “we have not seen the level of adoption we would have liked.”  In other words, it attracted very few regular users.

The bigger question, and one that I believe a lesson can be gained from, is why did so few people use such a powerful, free service?

The Google Wave demo video was over an hour long!

Google Wave, like Google Buzz, came out of the blocks with a problem, which lost it a huge amount of early traction.  The initial Google Wave demo video, ran for over an hour – which was stupid.  People wanted to see something that showed them how to get started with Wave quickly, yet they had to wade through a shockingly poor, over long presentation instead.

By the time the problem was fixed, and the dumb-ass video replaced with something more appropriate, Wave had already lost millions of early adopters.

These early adopters (people like you and me) are the one’s who typically open new online services up to the non-geeks.

Google Wave User Interface was poor

The initial user interface was also far from instinctive, making it a lot harder to get things done, than needed to be the case.  In fact, lifehacker co-founder Gina Trapani was so frustrated by the lack of user information available, that she wrote a very useful book; The Complete Google Wave Guide – Which I’m guessing you will be able to get at a very reduced rate soon!

The worst part about the demise of Google Wave, is that it genuinely was a very good tool, which failed largely because of piss-poor launch marketing and a badly designed user interface.

Android users can relax again, in the knowledge that the Android OS is just as safe today as ever; despite yesterday’s incorrect reports of a malicious app that was on millions of Android users devices!

Yesterday, the blogosphere was full of stories about an Android wallpaper app, which was reportedly collecting sensitive user data and sending it off to a server in China.  LookOut (the firm who reported this supposed security problem) has since issued a statement saying that in fact, the app was NOT showing any malicious behaviour.

The problem here is that those stories are all still out there, indexed and searchable – Just waiting for potential, new Android users to find them and be wrongly alarmed.

Unbelievably, Venturebeat, The Wall Street Journal, CNET, Yahoo News, Fast Company and scores of other BIG outlets carried this story, even though it was based on the findings of a single security company.  In fact, such was the traction generated by this story, that The Inquirer is still reporting it as news today!

Of course, anything related to Android is big news, so there was a rush to get that story out there.  As a result, the news went viral and the toothpaste was well and truly out of the tube, by the time it became obvious there was nothing malicious to report.

If I were Jackeey Wu (the app developer) or Google, I’d be REALLY pissed right now.

Natali is host of Loaded; CNET’s popular daily tectnology newscast.  The former techcrunch journalist and regular contributor to the CBS Early Show, made her announcement in true geek fashion, via Twitter.

Everyone here would like to wish Natali and her little boy all the very best!

Photo credit: Natali Del Conte