Cool sign in the lobby of @CNN headquarters in Atlanta. Whether you like or hate their network, or are indifferent to it, this message is indisputable. It’s tragic that we now have a president who rejects it.
— Walt Mossberg @waltmossberg
Grab some popcorn. The interview is 76 min. long.
In the age of digital politics, Russia launched "weaponized information“ on behalf of Trump. Robert Mercer is the King Maker. Rebekah Mercer was apart of Trump’s transition team.
“The only point I would make is if the Republican leadership begins to believe that Trump is a big political burden to them, then they will begin to be more open to a more thorough investigation,”
“I think it’s fair to ask, how did that actually influence the campaign, and how did they know what messages to deliver? Who told them? Who were they coordinating with, and colluding with?”
Mossberg: This is the DNC you’re talking about.
The DNC, to keep it going. Okay. Donald Trump, who did nothing about really setting up any kind of data operation, inherits an RNC data foundation that, after the Republicans lost in 2012, and they thought they had a very good operation with the setup that Romney did called ORCA, they thought that was really state of the art, they lose.
So they raised — best estimates are close to a hundred million dollars, they brought in their main vendors, they basically said, “We will never be behind the Democrats again,” and they invested between 2012 and 2016 this hundred million dollars to build this data foundation. They beta tested it. They ran it ... somebody was able to determine about 227,000 surveys to double check, triple check, quadruple check, the information.
So Trump becomes the nominee and he is basically handed this tried and true, effective foundation. Then you’ve got Cambridge Analytica and you know, you can believe the hype on how great they were or the hype on how they weren’t, but the fact is, they added something. And I think again, we better understand that the Mercers did not invest all that money just for their own amusement. We know they played in Brexit, and we know that they came to Jared Kushner and basically said, “We will marry our operation,” which was more as it’s been described, psychographic, sentiment, a lot of harvesting of Facebook information, “We will marry that with the RNC on two conditions: You pick Steve Bannon, and you pick Kellyanne Conway. And then we’re in.” Trump says, “Fine, who cares,” right? So Bannon, who’d been running the Breitbart operation, supplying a lot of the ... untrue, false stories ...
Mossberg: This is because Hollywood isn’t liberal enough? [laughter]
No, it’s because Democrats aren’t putting their money there. You know, there’s a classic line. Democrats give money to candidates, they want a personal connection. So the classic line is Democrats like to fall in love, Republicans just fall in line. Republicans build institutions, Republicans invest in those institutions, Republicans are much more willing to push and cross the line, and Democrats... I’ve talked to dozens of donors since my election experience and I’ve said, "Look, I’m all for you trying to figure out who you’re going to support in 2020, but what about 2017 and what about 2018 and what about helping the DNC try to leapfrog over its horrible data deficit, and how about supporting some of these new groups and see what they can do to generate some activity?"
We are not good historically at building institutions. And we’ve got to get a lot better. And that includes content. We have a great story to tell. You know, I found when I started the campaign that I had to say in practically everyone of my speeches, "Barack Obama save the economy, and he doesn’t get the credit he deserves." I had to say that because people had been told differently. They didn’t feel it yet. You know, income didn’t really start inching up until 2015, late 2015.
Mossberg: Right.
I don’t own one. Because no one can convince me of the real value proposition of smartwatches.
Well, for me, having no smartphone would be the worst. I’d feel cut off from other people. Losing my laptop would be a close second, since it’s my main work tool and my best display for browsing and video viewing. I’m a big tablet guy, so I’d hate to lose my iPad, which I now use for many things, including work tasks.
But my $700, stainless steel Apple Watch? If that somehow went away, I expect I’d stop missing it after a few days. Sure, it does just enough for me that I don’t feel terrible about buying it, or wish to get rid of it. But since I started wearing one after it launched last April, it just hasn’t become an integral part of my life. Unlike my phone, if I left my smartwatch at home one day, I wouldn’t drive back to get it.
And I’m not alone. I know lots of tech fans who either haven’t bought a smartwatch or who just haven’t formed an attachment to the one they have. One friend, a veteran and savvy tech journalist, removed her Apple Watch upon entering the hospital for a routine procedure, fearing it might be lost or stolen. And when she got out, she simply never put it back on.
So what’s the problem? The smartwatch isn’t smart enough to be essential, to feel like a natural part of daily life. So far, it mostly duplicates things you do on your smartphone — sometimes more conveniently, more often not. In most cases, it’s just sort of a companion to your phone, losing most of its power when left alone.
So what’s the solution? The watches — not just Apple’s, but all of them — need to find lots more independent functions, ones that are consistent with always being on you and knowing who you are, without the nearby presence of a smartphone.
The Tim Cook era at Apple emerged onto the public stage today in full force, and it bears subtle differences from Steve Jobs's Apple.
♥ Walt's personal insight into Jobs as a person
After his liver transplant, while he was recuperating at home in Palo Alto, California, Steve invited me over to catch up on industry events that had transpired during his illness. It turned into a three-hour visit, punctuated by a walk to a nearby park that he insisted we take, despite my nervousness about his frail condition.
He explained that he walked each day, and that each day he set a farther goal for himself, and that, today, the neighborhood park was his goal. As we were walking and talking, he suddenly stopped, not looking well. I begged him to return to the house, noting that I didn’t know CPR and could visualize the headline: “Helpless reporter Lets Steve Jobs Die on the Sidewalk.”
But he laughed, and refused, and, after a pause, kept heading for the park. We sat on a bench there, talking about life, our families, and our respective illnesses (I had had a heart attack some years earlier.) He lectured me about staying healthy. And then we walked back.
Steve Jobs didn’t die that day, to my everlasting relief. But now he really is gone, much too young, and it is the world’s loss.
