Dan Gillmor Shares His 'Insider's View' of Silicon Valley

Once again, Dan Gillmor shows us why he is one of the world's most influential IT journalists, this time directly on Slashdot by way of his answers to your questions. Note that Dan reads Slashdot regularly, just like you. He'll surely read any comments you post to this article, although with his killer schedule he may not have time to post any replies.

How much longer will programming stay in the US?
by georgeha

It's getting easier and cheaper to outsource programming jobs to India, Russia and Singapore (among other nations). How much longer can programmers count on a healthy, US based industry?

Dan:

Hmmm, I have to raise eyebrows at the word "healthy" when you look at today's marketplace. These are horrible conditions for average programmers, at least the ones looking for work. Stars are still in demand, as always.

Timely question, though, as this recent story in Mercury News makes clear. It's definitely cheaper to send work offshore, and it's also getting easier. Whether it's sufficiently easy -- or ultimately all that cheap when companies account for the hassles -- is unclear for the moment, though the long-range trend is not good for the U.S.

The cultural differences, not to mention time zones, are always going to be something of a barrier. I've spoken with folks who have tried to manage international engineering projects, and they tell me it can be hugely difficult.

But the communication/collaboration tools are getting much better. English is becoming a default language of business and technology. And as people outside the U.S. get better technical educations -- even as America keeps killing its own educational system -- we're going to see more and more competition from abroad.

I'm also disturbed by what I'd call a "hire 'em young, burn 'em out, discard 'em" tendency among too many tech companies in the U.S. It sends a terrible message to young people, because it tells them that tech careers are foolish. But this is a chronic American problem -- a short-term mentality.

Future directions of technology
by knightwolf

Currently, most of the industry relies on a silicon based technology, using optics to burn silicon wafers. What technology areas do you see the industry looking into, as well as what are areas the industry isn't looking into that it should? Add to this, what technologies are out there that in your opinion aren't looked at heavily enough? As a last part of this, where do you see most of the innovation. Is it in large corporations, such as IBM, or smaller corporations or startup companies?

Dan:

Last question first: Innovation is happening most of all in universities and small companies. Innovation in larger enterprises does occur, but it often gets squashed or modified in order to preserve profitable business models. This is a gross generalization, of course, and many of you will no doubt point out the exceptions that prove (or disprove) the rule.

I'm not as knowledgable about process techniques as I'd like to be, so the rest of this answer is going to be a bit speculative. But I do know this: Every time I look at what's happening with semiconductors I'm amazed at how "out there" the industry stays.

Silicon-based chips have a long future ahead of them. Moore's Law won't hit the wall for another decade or so, as I understand it. Every time someone outside the industry predicts that progress will slow or stop, these guys laugh and speed it up.

I always try to keep the other part of Moore's Law meaning in mind, too. Chip improvements aren't all about how mega-gigahertz processors will look and perform. They're also about how small things can get; I'm at least as interested in miniaturization's benefits as what we can do on the high end. I heard not long ago about someone who'd found a new use for the Z80, for example, and people will be finding great embedded applications for the 386 in years to come. What does it mean when an Itanium-level chip is just a tiny blip inside a communications device? Beats me, but it's gotta be cool.

Will some new kinds of process and materials replace silicon at the high end and revolutionize the field? Sure. I'm intrigued by quantum computing, and am studying hard to understand it.

Intel's plan to add radios to everything strikes me as one of the most important design decisions in a long time, and I think the move deserves even more attention than it's received. I love the idea that we're not just adding intelligence and memory to everything, but also connecting it all. I'm also getting excited at the potential of OLEDs, which could totally transform displays. Nano and MEMS, too, of course.

One of my worries is that the industry is not focusing sufficiently on complexity, however. I don't think we can afford a muddle-through strategy when everything is tied together and interacting in what are likely to be unpredictable ways.

I also worry a lot about trends in the law, particularly in the area of "intellectual property" -- an expression I'd like to ban from the language.

The patent system is out of control. Yes, the USPTO has recognized some of the problems, but it's still issuing far too many overbroad, non-novel and just plain absurd patents. Congress keeps swiping money from application fees and using it for other programs, thereby making it harder for the PTO to have a competent staff. Courts are getting clogged with patent lawsuits, and those are just the cases that make it into the public eye. When companies are hiring lawyers instead of engineers, innovation takes a hit.

The copyright arena is another worrisome area for innovation (and free speech and research, as /. folks know well). Hollywood is asserting the right to decide what IT innovation will be allowed to enter the marketplace. Jack Valenti told me outright recently that Hollywood was going to do something about peer to peer (translation: control it). It's disappointing to see so many technology companies jumping into bed with the entertainment cartel instead of fighting for customers' rights.

Governments are reining in the Net, more successfully than anyone should want to see. Sure, the Slashdot community will always find a way around the barriers, but if China can block 98 percent of average Internet visitors from seeing what they want, freedom loses. Here in the U.S., meanwhile, we're moving toward having two or at most three ways to access the Net in any given community. That's terrifying from an innovation and free speech perspective.

Media Understanding of Technology
by Dr. Bent

While reading articles about new technology from various mainstream media sources, I get the impression that they have absolutly no idea what they're talking about. It's clear to me that the average mainstream journalist has, at best, a minimal understanding of the techology that he or she is reporting on.

What impact does this have on the public's perception and awareness of new technoloy, and will this lack of understanding dissapear as older journalists are replaced by a younger, more tech-savvy breed?

Dan:

I sometimes get that impression, too. But [defensively] I don't think it's as bad as you believe.[/defensively]

Mainstream journalists are generalists, for the most part. At most big newspapers, reporters frequently change beats. This is done for freshness of approach, and to avoid common problems (such as getting too close to sources) that can affect fairness. The downside, of course, is a lack of depth at times. Staying fresh on technology is easier than, say, politics because so much is new all the time.

It's also important to keep in mind the mission of mainstream news media. We tend to be introducing ideas and news to audiences that may or may not know a lot about the specific subject. I don't excuse outright technical errors (one reason I try to run things by people who know more than I do), but I hold general-news media to a different standard than trade publications that are aimed at people who already know a lot. In my own case, even though I'm working for a Silicon Valley audience in the print edition, I assume that readers are smart but don't necessarily know a great deal about the topic at hand. The online audience tends to be more focused on tech issues.

One of the great changes in my business has been the result of technology. I assume that my readers know more than I do. I also think that's a great opportunity, not a threat to my journalism. When we're in this together, we get better results.

It'll be interesting to see how tomorrow's audience and journalists handle this evolution. My sense is that the combination of traditional journalism, tech-savvy reporters, weblogs, etc., will lead to a wider understanding of the issues.

the cycle of things
by Hanno

We all know the economy is going in cycles, but how cyclic is IT, in your experience? When was the last big downturn, what happened back then and what changed because of it?

Right now, most of "us" IT-workers are facing the results of "new economy" bubble and the consecutive downturn of IT.

Here in Germany, I remember that in 1991 when I finished high school, people told me not to go study computer science because back then, the career outlook was bland and many IT academics were unemployed or received low figures. Then came the internet, salaries and everything else exploded, which was nice while it lastet, yet incredibly surreal.

Right now clients are sitting on every single penny. I know highly-skilled IT workers who are nevertheless unemployed because companies stopped hiring and around us and even some of the former key players of the industry are going bust...

So, do you remember a similar economic situation in IT and how did you experience it?

Dan:

I arrived in Silicon Valley just as the 1990s boom was beginning to happen. But I came here from Detroit, where I lived for about 6 years. Both places know business cycles.

Modern Silicon Valley has always had its boom/bust cycles. They're a natural part of an economic sector as dynamic and fast-growing as tech tends to be. The last time was in the early '90s, and the valley was in a distinctly uneasy mode. It was hard to find jobs. Housing prices dropped a lot -- something that hasn't happened this time, to my astonishment -- and no one had a clue what would happen to bring things back. The Mercury News published stories wondering if the valley's best days were behind it.

Then the valley experienced something that's happened before -- it got kickstarted by something out of left field. The most obvious catalyst was Netscape, both its technology and the subsequent IPO. But the expectations that developed were just nutty. I say that as someone who firmly believes that the Internet is changing everything just not as fast as some hypesters wanted us all to believe. What struck me in the late '90s was the ridiculous idea that somehow technology had eradicated the business cycle. Maybe it will someday (and it might once digital communications and nanotechnology become ubiquitous), but no one with a sense of history should have swallowed the hype.

People who've been here for more than a couple of downturns say this one's as bad as they've seen, maybe the worst. We got so far ahead of rationality in the bubble that it's probably going to take more time than usual to restore robust growth. There's plenty of innovation going on, but we now have a huge overhand of public mistrust of markets -- and people are absolutely right to hold the financial community, some VCs and others who helped inflate the bubble in contempt.

I doubt we'll see another boom like the one that just crashed. But we'll come out of this mess. It'll happen when people trust the markets again, because there's lots of innovation going on. Problem: I fear that anyone who trusts the markets right now -- especially when Bush and his crowd are doing everything they can to torpedo essential reform -- is misguided.

Conflict of Interest
by joyoflinux

Have you ever had a conflict of interest; like, what you should write, rather than what would get you promoted or would be better for your career? How do you deal with this?

Dan:

No one has ever told me what I had to write, or what I could not write, within the context of my beat at any paper where I've worked. Naturally, I've had the normal disagreement with editors over how stories and columns have turned out.

I've been lucky in one major respect here: It's my gig to have strong opinions -- even when they're contrary to powerful interests in the valley, as they often are.

Now, I'm not going to tell you that conflicts don't occur. Of course they do. The best andidote, and prevention, is sunlight. Several journalism publications keep an eye out for ethical transgressions, but they're not widely read except inside the trade. I'm encouraged by the Web's growing influence in journalism criticism, and not just in traditional ways. I think it's great, for example, that people who are interviewed are posting transcripts of the interviews on their websites, to provide context for how they've been quoted.

Are there things I won't write about? Sure. I've been dinged for this, but I won't shoot poison darts at my own company, as a rule, though I did publicly criticize my employer when a division of the company endorsed an anti-Microsoft lobbying organization (while I agreed with the views expressed about Microsoft, I thought the endorsement by the company was not helpful for the journalism we do every day).

Is Apple truly against DRM?
by dpbsmith

I'd really LIKE to believe that Apple is taking a conscious and principled stand against digital restrictions management, as suggested in your article here: www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/4193833.htm

Your article is, however, basically speculative.

Do you have any evidence that Apple really has an anti-DRM corporate strategy? Gateway has issued a limited but significant public statement of support for fair-use rights. Do you have any ideas why Apple has not done anything like this?

Dan:

Indeed it's speculative, but I tried to base this on the evidence instead of the rhetoric.

To answer directly: I don't think Apple has an anti-DRM strategy, though, even if I wish they'd go for it. I do think Apple has a generally pro-customer stance, which is a heck of a lot better than some other companies out there. Perhaps the company is looking for some balance in a situation where the sides are turning the issue into a binary question, i.e., total control or total anarchy. Example of balance: Apple doesn't enable iPod users to copy to other disks (not directly), but it hasn't done anything as far as I know to stop the third parties who make it easy to do so.

Gateway's campaign was terrific. But Gateway is part of the Wintel ecosystem, and there's no question that Microsoft is moving fast toward a Hollywood-friendly regime that's overtly pro-DRM. When Gateway starts selling nicely configured Linux boxes and promoting them in terms of customer choice and digital freedom, I'll be even more impressed.

Any changes in Valley startup culture?
by Infonaut

Thanks for taking the time to field our questions, Dan.

Silicon Valley venture capitalists in the late 1990s turned their money and attentions to bear on creating dozens of companies that never had any hope of turning a profit.

From personal experience I've seen just how powerful VCs are in shaping the development of the IT market through their iron-grip control of individual startups.

Have you noticed any fundamental power shifts or changes in the way startup IT companies are being funded and created in the Valley over the past couple of years?

Dan:

The major change is that hardly anyone is being funded at the moment. VCs run in herds, too.

I'm generally an admirer of venture capitalists, at least VCs who look far into the future and make risky bets. I do not have much respect for what VCs did in the late '90s, when they and their investment-bank pals pretty much shifted all risk into the public markets.

If there's a shift, I'm hopeful that it's back to the traditional risk-taking that helped spur so much innovation. The valley is returning to the idea of building sustainable businesses before cashing in. In the bubble, cashing in was almost the entire point. Good riddance to that.

The other major shift I've seen is the spreading of entrepreneurial risk-taking outside the valley. This is crucial to global progress. I've met smart VCs in other parts of the world, including places where long-term thinking is part of the culture, and they may have an advantage in the end.

Hidden corruption?
by PhotoGuy

I've seen an awful lot of money spent during the .COM boom, in awfully questionable ways. Ways that were just completely beyond comprehension. I've often thought that a better explanation than sheer stupidity, might be that there were kickbacks and other shady dealings going on (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours).

With so much money having been tossed around, surely there was a lot of corrupt dealings; however, I haven't seen any press or other talk of such happenings.

Is it primarily because these companies weren't public and thus publicly accountable that any mini-Enron's were simply never discovered? In some ways, corruption would be a little more comforting of an explanation than sheer stupidity. I feel like I might be pretty naive in not realizing some of this is going on. What's your take on corrupt dealings, patronage, and such in the industry?

Dan:

You're not naive. I don't doubt at all that there was plenty of beyond-questionable behavior in private companies. But it's difficult for reporters or anyone else to get a handle on how much, and you're exactly right to suggest it's because public accountability brings more sunlight to the process.

Unfortunately, the news from the front pages every day tells me that accountability was in awfully short supply even in the public markets. Too bad the news is coming so late. But every bubble -- every boom -- brings out the financial sharks. It comes with the territory.

This one also brought out the ideologues in politics, funded by the sharks. The result was massive deregulation, which was in general a good idea, accompanied by a deliberate campaign to stop watching for bad behavior. That's why we didn't have cops on the beat, and why even now certain ideologues want to thwart reform. The states pursuing the investment banks are doing the best job at the moment, while the S.E.C. chairman, Harvey Pitt, seems hellbent on proving that he's the corporate lackey many people suspected.

Maybe I'm the one who's naive, but I believe markets need rules, because without enforceable rules no one can have any trust.

Promises, Promises
by gcondon

The IT press has been promising us a variety of malarkey for years - Microsoft innovation, Apple going out of business, Linux on the desktop, flying cars, ...

As I see it, to a large extent this is due to an over-reliance of IT journalists on industry contacts and a highly incestuous meme-pool.

Since industry contacts are driven by their own agendas to poison the meme-pool with hype and FUD, reporters typically serve only to reinforce entrenched concerns in the industry.

This is particularly troublesome given that the IT industry of uniquely reliant upon innovation which has traditionally emerged from smaller players & upstarts.

Therefore, does IT journalism really contribute positively to the industry and, if so, how?

Dan:

Journalism contributes positively to everything. Okay, stop laughing.

I think your premise is somewhat one-sided. It's true that journalists tend to echo the entrenched interests in every field. We also run in herds, for good and bad reasons, and we tend to quote the sources who call us back.

But I also have to say that I see plenty of great reporting, challenging the conventional wisdom and pointing us toward the real future. What fascinates me is that some of the best information, or leads, comes from nontraditional sources (and you're visiting one of them right now).

That's wonderful, because one of the jobs of the journalist is to separate hype from reality. I do this in several ways, including reading everything I can (including Slashdot, where I always spot angles I hadn't considered), talking with as many people as I can and, in general, questioning my own assumptions. I have the luxury of a job where I have the time for all this.

I'll even challenge one of your examples of malarkey. I've been dismissive of desktop Linux, too. For me, Unix on the desktop is called Mac OS X. But the open-source ecosystem doesn't care what I think. It's slowly but surely pulling together the pieces of a desktop environment that will be more than adequate for large numbers of users. Just as we tend to underestimate the long-range impact of Moore's Law, because analog creatures can't really grasp exponential change, I suspect I've underestimated the collective power of the community development process, which is an intellectual barn-raising raised by many orders of magnitude.

Activism?
by Anonymous Coward

IIRC, back in the day you were pretty seriously activist: I seem to remember you at Usenix handing out buttons and carrying signs.

Do you still consider yourself an activist? If not, what changed? Is there still a place for activism in the geek community? What is it?

Dan:

I think you may have confused me with someone else, perhaps John Gilmore, whom I admire but who is not a relative. The last time I can remember carrying a sign was an anti-Vietnam War rally in Washington in the early 1970s.

I guess I'm an activist in a sense, given that I devote much of the column to policy issues such as copyright, competition policy, privacy, etc. I strongly believe geeks need to be much more active. The people who want central control of everything are shutting down innovation and freedom -- and geeks have as much to lose as anyone, maybe more.

Comments

Silicone valley

[macdaddy357]

Instead of asking questions about all the computer stuff in silicon valley, why not interview some of the prOn stars from silicone valley about their business.