Category Archives: General

Academy Awards vs. Popularity: And the winner is…

Posted on by
I just read a Wall Street Journal article about the Academy Awards. It pointed out the now well-established discrepancy between what films win awards vs. which ones make the most money (i.e., are the most popular). The not-so-hidden subtext was there is something wrong here — and what’s wrong is that the Academy voters are “out-of-touch.”
 
I disagree. This situation is here is typical across all forms of art and entertainment. It’s not just a movies thing — and it doesn’t mean anything is wrong with the Awards process.
 
Take a look at the New York Times’ Best Seller lists for books. How many of these books go on to win a Pulitzer Prize or a National Book Award or a Nobel Prize or any other well-regarded award? The answer is almost none.
 
Or take a look at the Emmy Awards. Last year’s top winning shows were Veep, The Handmaid’s Tale, Big Little Lies and an episode of Black Mirror. The ratings of those shows were nowhere near the most popular shows (like NCIS or America’s Got Talent) which got no Emmy awards.
 
And so it goes. Sometimes there is overlap in popularity and awards — but that is the exception more than the rule. Movies are no different than other media. And rightly so.
 
To me, it reflects a basic truth: The “best” (as judged by critical standards of knowledgeable people) is often not what is most popular. Otherwise, a velvet Elvis would be hanging next to the Mona Lisa. If you want to see awards based just on popularity — watch the People’s Choice Awards.
 
That said, the Academy Awards do not have an unmarred history of picking quality over popularity. There are many occasions where the Best Picture award went to mediocre popular movies. And numerous articles decried those “injustices” at the time (and do so even today). I view the current situation as an improvement.
 
It is also true, as the WSJ article points out, that the gap between Oscar voters and the public has widened in recent years. There was a time when a truly great picture both won the Best Picture award and was among the most popular of the year (e.g., The Godfather). This almost never happens anymore. The WSJ attributes this to a shift in viewing habits (with more and more viewers watching the latest Netflix movie rather than going to the theater) and to the importance of international markets (which reward comic-book, sci-fi and action movies above all else) for box office success. Again, I don’t view this as indicating that Academy voters are “out of touch.”
 
In fact, I was astounded by one statistic in the WSJ article: The average American sees only 4 movies a year! And these are almost all super-hero blockbusters like Wonder Woman. Given that, how can you expect the public to make any sort of informed judgment on what is the best of the year?

Presidential debates, stock markets and basketball announcers all go off the rails

Posted on by

A trio of unrelated snippets, each one not long enough for a solo entry but still worth noting…

The Close But No Cigar award has been announced

About a month ago, I told my wife: “I’m gonna wait till after the end of the year and then pull most of our money out of the stock market. I’m worried that the market is headed for trouble.”

If only I had said “I’m not gonna wait…”

Just when you think things can’t sink any lower, Trump and Cruz find a shovel

Last night was another Republican “Presidential” debate. If you can call it that. I mean, really? In a debate by one of our two major parties, an event that could have a significant impact on the future of the entire nation, the most notable moment is several minutes of bickering between Trump and Cruz as to who is or is not constitutionally eligible to assume the office of President. I half expected Cruz to spurt out “And so’s your mama” before he was done.

It’s both sad and scary that we have sunk this low. Today’s New York Times column by Frank Bruni comes closest to my personal reaction to the debate.

I find it hard to believe that either one of these candidates believes most of the crap they spew. They say it because they know it will play well with their supporters. Its veracity is, at best, of secondary concern. These two are at the forefront of our march toward a post-truth America, where even after a candidate’s lies are clearly exposed (and I mean huge lies, not merely self-serving exaggerations), they have no negative impact on the candidate.

I wish I could take comfort in the thought that all of this will make a Democratic victory a certainty this fall. But I am no longer confident of this. A potential Trump presidency is no longer a dark fantasy.

As someone who was born in Brooklyn, and grew up just outside New York City, I suppose Cruz would say my attitudes are due to my “New York values.” If so, I’m proud of them. And of New York.

Last night’s Preparation H Irritation of the Game (basketball)

I have a love-hate relationship with television play-by-play and color commentators. On the one hand, most of what they say is redundant to what you are seeing on the screen. I mean, do we really need to hear someone say “And the basket counts”? On the other hand, with their enthusiasm, they can add an enjoyable emotional tone to the game. And, when things on the court get confusing, the announcers can help sort out what’s going on. At their best, they also provide useful background context.

What they definitely shouldn’t do is chatter endlessly about stuff that is irrelevant to the game in progress, while the viewer is left wondering why that last foul was called or whatever. It’s worse than if they were just silent. It’s distracting.

That’s why, while watching last night’s Warriors-Lakers game on TNT, the announcers drove me up a wall. They went on and on for minutes, reminiscing about Kobe’s career or interviewing Jerry West or whatever other inane thoughts were on their minds — all while the players continued up and down the court. For crying out loud, you’re there to cover the game. Do so!

It got so bad, I had to hit the Mute button for long stretches of time.

 

Hanging up my virtual pen

Posted on by

The first time I was paid for writing about the Mac was in 1985 when A+ magazine published a reader’s tip I submitted. It detailed how to use ResEdit to modify the Welcome to Macintosh message. For 300 words, I got paid $50. It was far from a momentous event. At the time, I didn’t expect it to lead anywhere. My day job was still as a professor of psychology. But, as it turned out, the reader’s tip was the spark that ignited a flame.

I had the good fortune to be around for the dawn of some of the most significant technological developments in human history: the arrival of personal computers, the emergence of the Internet and the World Wide Web, and the current dominance of social media and mobile devices. These and other technological advances continue to alter our world at an ever accelerating pace. One day Apple is on the verge of bankruptcy. The next day (or so it sometimes seems), it is the largest most profitable company on earth. Who’d have guessed?

At a personal level, these changes became the impetus for a new career direction — a career I did not foresee and would never have predicted. That initial reader’s submission led to me becoming a contributing editor for several Mac magazines, a book author (most notably of Sad Macs, Bombs & Other Disasters) and the creator/editor of one of the earliest Mac websites (MacFixIt). Again, who’d have guessed? Certainly not me.

The result has been three decades of doing things I thoroughly enjoyed and getting paid for doing them. Who could ask for more?

Which brings me to today. I’ve decided to call it quits and hang up my virtual pen. What I expect to be the last article I get paid to write was posted to Macworld last December.

To any of you who have followed my work, this should not be a surprise. In fact, some of you may feel this announcement is more than a bit anti-climactic. I’ve been flirting with retirement for the past two years, gradually diminishing my published output — even giving a “retirement” session at Macworld/iWorld last year. For the past year, the only paid writing I did was a small number of articles for Macworld. A few weeks ago, I “gave notice” and told the folks at Macworld that I was done. That made it official — and made it real to me in a way that it had not been before.

Why now? There’s no mystery. I’m old enough that it seems appropriate and financially well-off enough to manage it, so why not? While I could keep writing occasional articles for Macworld, it seemed better to make a clean break. Recent events helped move me in this direction.

In the past year, Macworld ended its print publication (as well as laying off almost its entire editorial staff, who just happened to be the people I had known and worked with for more than a decade). Around the same time, Macworld/iWorld announced its demise. Several notable Mac websites similarly came to an end in the last year or so, including TUAW and my own MacFixIt (which, subsequent to my leaving it, had been run by CNET).

At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I began to feel that these were all signs of a “torch-passing” moment. There is a generation of tech writers (of which I am a member) whose careers date back to the 80’s. We still vividly recall “highlight reel” moments from prior decades — like Steve Jobs unveiling the original Mac or the Boston Macworld Expo keynote that kicked off Steve’s triumphant return to Apple. For much of a younger generation, these events are tantamount to ancient history.

For now, these two generations co-exist in many work environments. However, as is inevitable and appropriate, the balance is steadily shifting towards the younger generation. Over the next decade, I expect the older generation to exit the stage in increasing numbers. As one of the oldest members of that generation, I am merely at the leading edge of this trend — which makes now seem like a perfect time to leave. I expect there will be times when I miss being “part of the action.” But I leave without regrets.

I don’t intend to entirely disappear from the online world. I plan to write columns here at Slanted Viewpoint from time to time. And I may still do occasional podcasts at MacVoices. Of course, I will continue to post tweets. Beyond that, my life will be lived offline.

One last thing

Whatever success I have had, I could not have achieved it without help. Lots of help — from a great bunch of people. To all of those listed below (and to any I may have forgotten), I offer my heartfelt thanks.

Bob LeVitus. In addition to giving me my start as a freelance writer (when he was editor of MACazine), Bob was essential in getting me started as a book author and as a speaker at Macworld Expo.

Dan Frakes. A colleague of mine at MacUser and later Macworld, Dan was also my co-author for Mac OS X Help Line. For a while, he was even an editor at MacFixIt. He remains a good friend.

Chris Breen. Another friend and colleague from both MacUser and Macworld. Prior to his recent move to Apple, Chris, as an editor at Macworld, was the editor of my Bugs & Fixes column.

Chuck Joiner. As the person behind MacNotables and MacVoices, Chuck was my conduit into the world of podcasting. Thanks to Chuck, I was able to have all the fun of podcasting without having to do any of the work.

Dave Rogelberg. While at Addison-Wesley, Dave was the incredibly patient editor of my first edition of Sad Macs. He also generously provided advice that helped further my book authoring career.

Cliff Colby. Cliff was the project editor of the books I wrote for Peachpit Press. His friendship and encouragement were a big part of what made it such a delight to work for Peachpit.

Ric Ford, Eric Belsley, Kurt Christensen and Stan Flack. When I first started MacFixIt, these four ran competing websites (MacInTouch, The Macintosh Resource Page, VersionTracker and MacCentral, respectively). Yet each one went far out of their way to provide the help I needed to get MacFixIt up and running.

Robert DeLaurentis, Ilene Hoffman and Shawn Platkus. When the work at MacFixIt became more than one person could handle, these three joined the site and became essential in preventing me from collapsing under the load.

Ralph Risch. When I was looking to sell MacFixIt, Ralph, as CEO of TechTracker, made me an “offer I couldn’t refuse.” I’m glad he did.

Jason Snell. As the editor of Macworld, Jason consistently made it easy for me to work there.

Scholle McFarland. As a copy editor at Macworld, Scholle never failed to improve whatever I submitted.

Dave Hamilton, Bryan Chaffin, Jeff Gamet and John Martellero. For several years, I did a column for The Mac Observer called User Friendly View. It was my first gig writing op-ed columns — which I had long wanted to do. As a bonus, I got to work with these great guys every day.

Tonya Engst and Adam Engst. As the publishers of the Take Control book series, Tonya and Adam gave me the opportunity to write one of the first books about the iPhone.

Paul Kent and Kathy Moran. During my almost two decades as a speaker at Macworld Expo, Paul and Kathy were the hard-working duo most responsible for making it such a fantastic experience.

Jonathan Cerf and George Sullivan. Back in the early 1980’s, I worked with Jonathan and George on a journal about the game of Othello. They helped me hone the skills I would later use when writing about Macs.

And many many more, including:

John Anderson, Marjorie Baer, Neil Bauman, Jeff Baudin, Gordon Bell, Jennifer Bell, P.A.M Borys, John Braun, Gleb Budman, Jim Bruce, Serenity Caldwell, Jeff Carlson, John Chaffee, Adam Christianson, John Christopher, Raines Cohen, Robert Coffman, Peter Cohen, Marty Cortinas, Colin Crawford, Matt Deatherage, Albert Dion, Charles Downs, Glenn Fleishman, Lex Friedman, Lynda Gousha, Anne Griffin, Rob Griffiths, Jon Gotow, Andy Ihnatko, Russ Ito, Susan Janus, Shawn King, Rocky LaRochelle, Chuck LaTournas, Robert Leeds, Dan Littman, Jean MacDonald, Carol McClendon, Kirk McElhearn, Philip Michaels, Dan Miller, Dan Moren, David Morgenstern, Rik Myslewski, Tom Negrino, Gary-Paul Prince, Naomi Pearce, Nancy Peterson, Elissa Rabellino, Schoun Regan, Nadyne Richmond, John Rizzo, Lorene Romero, Michael Rose, Nancy Ruenzel, Ian Schray, Jon Seff, Sal Soghoian, Dori Smith, David Sparks, David Stillman, Derrick Story, Duane Straub, Dave Taylor, Neil Ticktin, Ladd Van Tol, John Welch, Ben Wilson, Dan Wood and Jon Zilber.

Of course, a special thanks to my wife Naomi. None of this would have been possible without her support.

Finally, thanks to Apple and all the people who have worked there. Without them, I would have had nothing to write about. As a related postscript, I was recently contacted by Apple about a potential job. Bad timing — given that I was on the verge of retirement. But I was none-the-less flattered, surprised, intrigued and very much tempted. As you might imagine, much internal conflict ensued. In the end, I remained on my retirement path.

Update: May 19: I made a few additions and corrections to the “thank you” list.

Paris shooting and “extremist groups”

Posted on by

As reported in today’s New York Times, “masked gunmen burst into the Paris offices of a French satirical newspaper (Charlie Hebdo) and killed 12 people, including top journalists and two police officers.”

A cry of “Allahu akbar!” — Arabic for “God is great” — was heard among the gunshots.

The article goes on to note that “there was no immediate claim of responsibility, but several websites and Twitter accounts associated with extremist groups applauded the violence, calling it revenge for the newspaper’s satirical treatment of Islam and its prophet.”

The “satirical treatment” consists mainly of images of the prophet Muhammad posted in a humorous context.

Clearly, the shooting is an act of terrorism. I hope we can all agree that condemning this act does not make one Islamophobic or anti-Muslim or racist. These shootings have no justification. We would be condemning it just as strongly if the action had been taken by Christians, Jews, or any other group that falsely cited religion as justification.

Still, while it is all but certain that a majority of Muslims condemn this act, it also appears true that members of subsets of the religion praise it.

I know some people want to claim that such extremist groups are not “true” Muslims because they don’t represent the majority of the religion. I reject that idea. Otherwise it would be accurate to say that Hassidic Jews are not “true” Jews or Christian Scientists are not “true” Christians. At the same time, I recognize that it is not appropriate to paint the mainstream of a religion with the conflicting beliefs of an extremist sect.

Similarly, a significant, possibly majority, segment of the Muslim religion opposes the depiction of Muhammad in almost any context. This has led to the unfortunate result of numerous non-Muslim organizations self-censoring themselves and removing (even respectful) images of the prophet from their publications, displays etc. I say “unfortunate” because I believe that the removals were done primarily out of a fear of violence. At the same time, I recognize that most Muslim opposition does not threaten violence as potential retaliation for a refusal to comply.

Life is complicated and usually doesn’t divide into easy black and white distinctions.

One thing should be certain however: There should be no sympathy for those who murder a dozen people because of words or images published in a newspaper. If there are sects, Muslim or otherwise, that officially praise such actions or claim such actions are justified or even use silence to convey tacit approval, then we should similarly oppose those sects.