The Future of Tech Reviews
There’s been a lot of fuss about the future direction of tech reviews in traditional US media over the last couple of weeks. It’s almost as if technology is a critically important gearwheel that keeps our modern society ticking. Most of the discussion is, sadly, empty.
There’s something of a sea change going on in traditional technology writing (let’s not say “gadget reviews”, shall we? It’s more important than that) and some long-established names are changing hats and, possibly, directions. Opinions have been stated, re-stated and contradicted by players, observers and, basically, anyone with a voice and/or a modern internet-connected-gizmo-thing that lets them get the opinion out.
And before you say anything: Yes, this is my piece of that puzzle.
And before you sit back and conclude, with fixed all-knowing grin, that you know what I’m about to say, then I’ll have to pre-empt you. You don’t know. I think this entire debate is missing some very important points.
Perhaps the most strident voice in the “future of tech writing” clamor has been Dave Winer. His beautifully-written opinion piece suggests that tech writing has somewhat lost its way nowadays. One of the most interesting arguments he makes compares newspaper movie reviews with technology reviews—the former is rich with passion, opinion, great writing. Such reviews are something that the general public looks to with interest, with trust, with excitement. Dave’s suggestion is, in part, that this is what’s missing from tech writing. The mission to write about tech for the common man has strangely robbed tech writing of the ability to talk deeply, complicatedly, toothily, opinionatedly and meaningfully about things.
Hmmm.
Other opinions suggest that the “successor” to the classic tech writer/gadget reviewer (yes, I know, I said gadget) has actually been around for a while. It’s the crowd. It’s all those passionate fans of technology X or system Y who write painstaking, in-depth pieces of analysis on the various review-based social networks that are out there. The average Netizen is savvy enough, the theory goes, that nowadays they know where to look for an insight into brand new cameras/computers/health devices/etc etc etc. The reputation problem, that of being able to trust a particular review or reviewer, is probably smoothed out by the diversity of opinions available and, perhaps, by the implied quality of some of the review sites.
But here’s the thing. Technology writing is actually much more important than it’s perhaps given credit for. Tech, and gizmos, are not just the domain of geeks or nerds anymore (and can we ditch these hatefully negative descriptors, anyway?). Technology knits our lives, our minutes, our society together at deeply personal and deeply community-based levels at every scale from one’s daily emotional life through to how governments interact with each other over the biggest of diplomatic issues. Yes, it may be trivial if the public prefers this type of smartphone over that type of smartphone, but the fact that they’re now using smartphones to communicate in new ways is actually shaping the future of society. And that’s just smartphones—there are a trillion different categories of “techy, gadgety thing,” including ephemeral intangibles such as the social photography trend of “selfies,” that get lumped under the “tech” banner.
But unlike movies, which are an art and thus could be “reviewed” through the biased, opinion-led, personal view of a critic…even if that critic’s quirks are what attract his or her loyal audience…technology isn’t an “art.” It’s also not simply a science. It’s different from reviewing, say, kitchen knives. A knife either balances well in the hand or it doesn’t, it either keeps its sharp edge or loses it. “Technology” crosses such simple divisions nowadays. It is both art and science. It touches people’s emotions, their hopes and dreams and their self image just as much as it lets them accurately navigate from point A to point B at speed, or email their boss.
And this is what I mean.
I think that whatever happens in tech writing in the future will, frankly, just happen. It’s an emergent thing.
But I hope that the “next great tech reviewer” uses the opportunity to re-focus the lens a little. Remember that technology is an emotional thing. Remember that gadgets and devices have tactile, real sensations that meaningfully impact how their users’ days go (on this note, I loved how Damon Darlin described his iPad bonking him on the nose when he fell asleep watching a video on it). Remember that just as important as chip speed X or OS manufacturer Q is the fact that devices have heft and weight and unique quirks of their design in hardware or software that make people love them. Remember that the way people use/relate to/trust a type of tech in one country may be very different than the way folks in another nation use precisely the same thing. And remember that “fanboys” of a brand or gadget tend to forget the most important thing: Context. Passion is all very well, but a device or brand or whatnot also has real, scientific, measurable impact that goes far beyond a mis-quoted statistic or an overly sensational headline.
So let’s say this: Tech writing hasn’t lost its way. It is, however, in more flux than perhaps it has been in years because the pace of innovation itself seems to have picked up, and high technology has wormed its way into the fabric of our world. There’s no need to demand more “movie” like reviews. Nor is there a pressure to only look to the crowd for reviews. But a reviewer with emotional sensitivity, scientific nous, and the ability to frame a gadget’s importance in context…that’s critical. Technical details, yes. Fine critiques of the color of a UI button, maybe. How it feels, emotionally, to use stuff? Definitely.
That’s a really tricky mix.
[Image under CC via Flickr user William Warby]
