Slashdot Mirror
The Most Powerful Man in Technology Journalism
prostoalex writes "The Wired magazine takes a look at Walt Mossberg, technology columnist for Wall Street Journal Personal Technology section. The magazine quotes some of the technology advances and fixes, for which we should be thankful to Walt Mossberg: 'RealNetworks overhauled its RealJukebox player. Intuit revamped TurboTax. Mossberg even forced Microsoft to scrap Smart Tags, which would have hijacked millions of Web sites by inserting unwanted links to advertisers' sites. Few reviewers have held so much power to shape an industry's successes and failures.'"
Mossberg also has one of the most powerful positions in all of tech journalism... The Wall Street Journal is read by an audience of stock investors.
In short, if you're a tech company and you don't do what he says, Wall Street's going to notice what he called you out over. That'd be harmful to your stock price...
CmdrTaco isn't the most powerful man in technology journalism?
RMS is clearly the most important voice in technology. Duh!
...what this really tells me is that anyone who is fortunate to write for the WSJ wields a stupdi amount of power over a lot of folks with stock portfolios, who in turn knee-jerk their way to whatever thing they read next in the investment bible of choice. Mossberg is not evil, stupdi, or a hack, but he isn't writing gospel (even if some folks seem to think he is).
"Few reviewers have held so much power to shape an industry's successes and failures.'"
Now all we need him to say is that Linux is ready for the desktop, and we are so there.
Call me when he's managed to get the RIAA to stop being jerks... then I'll be impressed.
"I don't give a fuck about your stock price!" Finally, a man with a vision. I mean, great, he might be right sometimes, but how many good technologies might this man stop with a simple off-the-cuff remark in an article? A little too much power I think.
Or when he gets Real to link to their free player from their front page :-)
Normal people worry me!
Mossberg might be powerful in terms of the flow of money (ie: entropy), but the collective minds of Slashdot readers will always be more powerful in terms of long-term product/service viability because it's communities like Slashdot that truly direct the whole world-influence; if we see shit, we call it shit, and if we see gold we call it gold. Sites like Slashdot influence informed technology purchases, I would think, much more than someone like Mossberg could.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I.e. get some new devices, play around with them, and write the obvious stuff about them. The article talks about how he "stopped" Smart Tags and Turbo Tax licensing ... but I'd argue "DUHHHH" ... everyone agreed these were bad ideas ... but if the WSJ writes about, then I guess it must be true! And his comments on the user interfaces aren't exactly rocket science. Note that since he is such as "name", he gets amazingly early access to stuff, and folks I know in "bizness" say he has a HUGE influence.
It has seemed in the last few years that his assistants are mentioned more often in the columns, which leads me to wonder if he has scaled back his workload/reviewing/writing and just coasting on his name/column.
I.e. I'm not sure that whoever is the technology editor at the WSJ makes that much difference - as long as they are reasonably competent in their reviews/writings, they will be well read.
Having said all of the above, he has an column read by millions in the WSJ ... where all I have is my personal web page! ;-)
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Belonged to Cowboy Neal!
In general his columns are nontechnical and harmless almost to the point of being fluffy. Walt has good intentions but I can't put his commentary above the other hundreds of gadget dudes providing pedestrian reviews of consumer electronics.
Boy, I bet Cringely is pissed.
We should be thankful that at least he understands what he's writing about event from user rather than geek level. There are a lot of people out there who write reviews/opinions without the full facts etc...
Well I've got that beat.
This morning I woke up, ordered the sun to rise, and it rose high into the sky. The only possible conclusion is that I am the most powerful man in the world.
Point, game, match.
-rt
Hello! Of course I read Slashdot!
Where else do you think I get all of my information? If I was not required to cite sources to my bosses, I would not go anywhere else.
Although I'm not sure if he had a direct impact on their decision, soon after his columns ran, Real revamped their site to make it "easier" to download the free player...
Go figure...
My point is that he is not writing to tell you and me what is up. He is 57 years old and he is writing to tell my partents what is up. And frankly, I think he does a good service. My folks are clueless when it comes to using their Tivo and iMac and miniDV camera. The fact that Wall Street gives him so much credit makes sense, old people have more money.
If you are starting a company that needs Wall Street support, or needs old people's money, by all means, appeal to this man. If you are like me and don't give a darn whether or not you are one of 100 or one of 1 million people using the BEST of what is around, you can feel free to ignore everything this guy says.
I have had a very fullfilling time finding my own favorite tech gadets and software, I don't need this guy to tell me anything. I will point out his column to my Dad though.
Here's an upcoming test of Mossberg power:
He suggests in today's Wall Street Journal that Google should offer an ad-free Gmail for a nominal fee, much like Slashdot's ad-free version.
In its current form, he fears that Gmail, will undermine Google's integrity, something that is perhaps more important than their technology. He says, "I'm calling on Google to preserve its sterling reputation for honesty and customer focus by offering an alternative form of the new Gmail service. The company should offer Gmail accounts without the ads, and without the scanning, for a modest annual fee. That would put the choice where Google has always placed it: in the hands of its users."
Here's the link, but unfortunately you'll need to be a WSJ online subscriber to see it:
Clean Image Is So Key To Google's Success, Why Take Gmail Risk?
I have nothing against the journalist so don't take my comment in that manner... This just goes to show how much power the capitalists have over everything. I can guarantee you that he has the impact that he does simply because WSJ is read by investors and executives.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
because all the PHBs are folks that don't know what their product actually _is_ or how _real_ people
/. article) as we
would use it and they need someone to slap them a bit so they can see the problems. If a lot of tech
companies actually spent any time _using_, testing, and refining a product before releasing it, things
could be a lot better. The bottom line is that many technology products need to be like the proverbial
toaster/phone; it does exactly what you think it should do and you don't necessarily need a manual to operate it.
At any rate, I agree with his philosophy, i.e. that much of technology products today are too hard to
use when they don't have to be. Part of the problem is really analysing what the function
purpose/workflow is; If you don't actually _use_ a product you designed or test it on someone not
familiar with its purpose, you might not see all those places that break your train of thought or the flow.
When I went to college(1979), a CS degree was more programmer/analyst and less code
monkey/god. As a result, while I'm not the greatest programmer, I write easy-to-use, reliable,
maintainable, functional programs that do what they're supposed to, the way the operator
wants them to work. I spend a lot of time _in_ the process so I can feel the way the workflow is going.
In a production environment, things that break the flow or require you to go someplace else to get
required information encourage operator error. It's also less efficient.
We shouldn't worry so much about how optimised the code is(see
should be worrying about whether people will continue to use a product again and again(and recommend
it to others) because it's easy to use and it works as advertised.
Computers are way fast enough as it is for 95% of the work that gets done on them, so spend more time refining!
I don't want to get into a platform flame-fest, so i'll be brief;
I still prefer to use my Mac simply because it's just easier. Dialog boxes, file browsers, etc. that are
too complicated and especially inconsistent like in many "designed for Windows" products
are my pet peeve(this applies to Open Office too.) The order of the file formats in "open" dialog boxes
seem like they're never the same from app to app; "all formats" is sometimes at the top, sometimes at
the bottom. Just pick one way and keep doing it that way!
Here are some of the things I've learned over the years:
For Designers:
- Pretty doesn't necessarily mean useful.
- Consistency, consistency, consistency.
- Can your Mom use it without calling you?
- Simplicity over complexity.
For Programmers:
- Whoever wrote, "If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read" should be caned.
Please write good comments and documentation. I've had to ponder over too many
modules with two-letter variable names.
- Assume that You will be supporting the code you just wrote for the next Ten Years off and on.
Will you remember why you wrote that module that way ten years later?
"...that's as white as it gets; all the bits are on..."