After last week's Retro tech (a trip to the Boston Computer Museum, circa 1983) I decided to find out more about the whereabouts of the old Computer Chronicles gang. Today, we talk to Paul Schindler, Computer Chronicle's software reviewer, and a 20-year technology journalist. These days Schindler teaches middle school history, and if he looks vaguely familiar, but you never watched Chronicles, well it might be from his appearances on five different game shows.
Longtime Mac users might remember Schindler's review of the original Macintosh as being akin to a Big Mac from McDonald's: "Both come in pretty boxes that don't have much in them." We'll talk about that too...
First, tell us about your journey from tech reporter/reviewer to school teacher. Had you always wanted to teach? What appealed to you?
After more than 20 years in tech reporting, I was laid off in October 2001 by CMP Publications. At that point, my choice was to seek another tech reporting job or change careers entirely. My mother, my wife, my sister-in-law and my best friend had all been teachers. I had reached the point where I was uncertain of the societal utility of reporting, but quite certain the world needed better teachers. I used my severance to pay for my teaching credential. I have not written a word professionally since the day I was laid off. My time as a reviewer ended earlier, as funding for the Computer Chronicles tailed off in its later years.
Most of my print reporting was aimed at the industry, explaining events in the industry to people who knew computers. My review work at the Chronicles (and the one season when I did editorials) involved explaining technology to the general public. I've always enjoyed explaining, and I believe I have a talent for it. Also, I benefited from an excellent public education as a boy. I've never forgotten President Lyndon Johnson, quoting the bible, reminding the American people that "from those whom much is given, much is expected."
I believe both of those motivations, a love of explaining and a desire for public service, also motivate other people in the computer business. We are (or were in the 80s and 90s) a pretty idealistic bunch.
Given that you were seeing some of the best (and not so great) computing products of the 80's/90's, did tech turn out the way you thought it would 20 years later?
Technology rarely turns out the way you expect. A cellphone may well resemble a Star Trek communicator, but I don't recall a communicator looking much like an Iphone--and I never saw a laptop, in science fiction of any form.
At MIT I knew some of the people who were inventing the Internet; it's safe to say few if any of them foresaw the ultimate trajectory of the Arpanet. Technology is the intersection of science and imagination, and imagination is unpredictable (that's why it's imagination).
That intersection explains why two people invented the telephone, literally, on the same day--and why most major technical innovations are accurately credited to several people. When the idea is ripe, when science has advanced far enough. the innovators at the edge all see a new technology at once. The rest of us simply expect linear progress that looks like what we already know.
No, technology did not turn out the way I expected it would. Most of the technology we know today seemed impossible in prospect, then seemed inevitable in retrospect.
The Computer Chronicles is revered by many in the tech journalism world today. What was it like doing the show at that time: before blogs, youtube, heck before mainstream internet use.
The Chronicles existed at a time when there was a market for "information aribtrage." We were desirable and useful because we had access to the information output of the technology industry, and could serve as gatekeepers, deciding what was important to the mass market and sharing it each week. We dipped a teacup into the fire-hydrant flow of information and passed the cup around. Now everyone has the opportunity to drink directly from the fire hydrant. I believe in the gatekeeper role, and I think most people get tired pretty quickly of trying to get a drink of water from the fire hydrant.
There will be gatekeepers in the future. But there won't be just a few of them, at newspapers, magazines, televisions and radio stations with their large-capital barriers to entry. There will be dozens or hundreds of them on the Internet at inexpensive PCs. Who's going to pay their salaries? Who knows? But in a capitalist society, where there is demand (and I think there's still demand for gatekeepers, to separate the wheat from the chaff), there will be supply.
Speaking of "drinking from the hydrant," it seems the role of today's gatekeepers is different in that people have to be more actively interested in finding the content. Do you think we've lost something in the fact that someone casually flipping through the channels on TV today won't come across a Computer Chronicles-type show to be exposed to technology news?
I mourn the loss of serendipity. My friend Richard Dalton, an IT industry consultant, has been proposing for years that search engines and news agreggation sites include a random "look at this" feature, so you could still sometimes read something you didn't know you might be interested in reading. Again, gatekeepers can help with that, but I think they're being squeezed out.
Is there any prediction or review that you got so wrong, you'd go back and change it today if you could?
Quite the opposite. My students find my 1984 review of the Macintosh (long posted on Youtube) to be hysterical, because I compared it to the Big Mac; both come in pretty boxes that don't have much in them, I said. I stand by that review. I wouldn't change a word.
The thing I got wrong was not so much what I said as what I chose to review. I went with what seemed like a good idea in time. If I had been blessed with prescience when I selected the 150 or so products I reviewed, I probably would have picked a different mix.
We're going to have to talk about that Mac review a minute... When you say you stand by that review, do you mean of the Original Macintosh, or do you feel the platform today is still "Big Mac" like?
I didn't like the MAC from day one. My daughters and wife are Mac lovers. I won't have one in my office. It's like computing with gloves on. And there aren't as many aps for it. And the universe assumes the PC as a default, so, for example, lots of web sites don't work on Macs. It's lovely for pictures, but so's a photo album.
What's up with all the gameshow appearances?
I have always loved game shows, since I watched the original Jeopardy and Concentration during summers as a boy. I first tried out for Jeopardy in 1970, as a college freshman. When I was a reporter, I frequently traveled to LA for interviews. If I had free time, I'd go to game show auditions. I quickly discovered that what you need for "knowledge" game shows was a loud voice, a big personality and a quick wit. I am blessed with all three, which is why I have appeared on Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, Scrabble, Win Ben Stein's Money and Merv Griffen's Crosswords.
And finally, as an educator, is there any piece of technology that you feel has truly improved learning in schools? From laptop initiatives, to smartboards, to Wikipedia, we hear a lot about new tech in schools, but do you see anything that makes a tangible difference?
The Internet has made a tangible difference, for better by providing rapid access to information, for worse by encouraging fragmented rather than concentrated reading. Also, since much of the information on the Internet is crap, there is a danger of Gresham's Law applying, with bad data driving out good. Just check Wikipedia!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 7:03AM 