Dan does know a lot about development. But compared to people like Marco and John Siracusa, who know about everything, Dan seems to take a back seat to the other co-hosts.
That's what makes the shows good. Dan, like most hosts that own networks (like Leo) don't really know a lot and don't really contribute to the conversation. Their job is to get the best cohorts and let them do their thing. As far as I'm concerned, the less Dan talks, the better. That's more time that people like Siracusa and Marco get to talk.
Exactly. Back in the earlier episodes when they were talking about development they were pulling the topics from concrete problems that they had solved.
Their topics now seem to stem from random anecdotes from their lives and their "expertise" on these topics is questionable at best.
I fear what will happen is once Marco's child is born, half of every Build & Analyze episode will be about Dan and Marco's children and how they manage their time. It is their show and they can talk about that if they want but at that point they will have finally stopped talking about topics that matter to me.
I think what Dan does really well is give his co-hosts room to do their thing. He's not got a huge ego, he knows for the most part it's not about him, but he's a great solid foil for others, providing structure.
I think you can only get away with being opinionated and outspoken if you have someone like Dan next to you as a balance and a tether.
I guess what I was trying to saw was not that Dan can/cannot control the amount of time his co-hosts spend orating, but that he gets them to come out of their shell and say what they truly think on topics. I think it's fair to say that the majority of people on the 5by5 network are not the stereotypical, media-friendly, smooth-talking celebs that we might be used to on traditional radio, but they are very knowledgeable about their topics and speak with conviction - something which is very important. Through various means, including playing dumb at times and asking 'obvious' questions, Dan does an excellent job in getting these 'geeks' to open up and talk at length about things that they are passionate about. I don't see what he does as a being passive and not contributing - I think he is very consciously getting the most out of his co-hosts.
I remember that episode and Dan seemed uncomfortable when John kept going and going about the topic. I don't know Dan personally, but I honestly think that he didn't like the fact that John called the "Readability guys" scumbags several times.
Or that he wouldn't like anyone saying that kind of stuff on his shows. I understand him.
I don't think Marco is too arrogant, just highly opinionated (like the way he doesn't want to support Android - he just isn't interested in that environment, and really like Apple), but I wish they'd talk more about Building and Analyzing and less about coffee or Macs. I was hoping he'd talk more about programming and software development. When he starts to overlap with Siracusa and Gruber I start to tune out. Especially Gruber, when they both talk about Apple stuff. Siracusa isn't too Apple centric on Hypercritical and has some good episodes on more general programming topics and things like Perl, so he doesn't overlap with Marco too often.
I agree, but on the other hand, Dan always says "it's your show" whenever they need to make a decision about something.
Dan also often refrains from correcting or informing Gruber at times when he's unsure or is wrong about something, much to Gruber's disappointment the following episode when Gruber has found it out, again with Dan excusing himself with saying "it's your show".
If I were to venture a guess, Gruber would prefer a co-host that contributes to, rather than mostly guides, the conversation.
I think we're all just spoiled by John's consistent insight and wit. Other tech podcasts are filled with people like Casey, who talk a lot but don't have anything to say. Marco is usually fine.
The Talk Show has always been unstructured in my experience. If you listen to some of the other 5by5 podcasts they are much more professionally done - intros/outros, some focus, and sections in some cases. I think Dan is very aware of traditional 'radio' methodology and knows that you do that stuff to guide listeners and give them context. The Talk Show didn't really need that... it was just him and Gruber BS'ing about whatever Apple/tech news was popular that week. Which is fine, because Gruber has some interesting insights on Apple.
Personally, I get that kind of content from the Web already and much prefer deeper analysis of issues. I am a huge fan of Hypercritical because of this, John Siracusa can take a topic and pick it completely apart - and I enjoy picking things apart in parallel while listening. My Talk Show listening was waning in favor of this type of podcast anyway.
In all honesty, Siracusa is, well, the only guy worth listening to in this particular podcast. Occasional smart comments by two other co-hosts are drowned in an overall sea of mediocre insight or factual errors.
I never questioned intelligence levels of any of the hosts. It's just that John is infinitely more entertaining, informative and insightful; Marco and Casey are often out of their depths on many subjects.
>I fear what will happen is once Marco's child is born, half of every Build & Analyze episode will be about Dan and Marco's children and how they manage their time.
Yeah. That'll be a mess. I'm a big 5by5 nerd, so I listen to almost all the main podcasts on there. And when I need advice about time management, I'll listen to Merlin. I don't need a half assed Merlin impression from someone with no employees or bosses.
You are right about it being their show. It's just a shame because I think it fills up a time slow in the 5by5 schedule which could be better utilized by finding someone who wants to talk about development topics. Without that discipline everything devolves into life-coach wankery.
Marco comes across as a real ass on his podcast. Which has made me not listen to Build & Analyze, or use his app. Hell, "Build & Analyze" isn't so much about "Building & Analyzing" as it is him bitching about stuff. I'm not even talking about the coffee discussions, I can get through that stuff, the bullshit attitude I can't get through though.
He used to be pretty humble in the first dozen episodes, but he's slowly gotten a big head and turned into a dick. At least from my perspective.
I don't recommend his app any longer, instead, I suggest people use one of it's competitors, Read It Later.
Again, the podcast isn't so much about building apps as it is a soapbox for him to complain about other applications and other developers. While he does discuss some of the aspects of Instapaper, he may as well have called the podcast something else. If you're expecting developer oriented discussion there are better podcasts to listen to.
If you're going to spend time listening to a 5by5 podcast, I suggest two that are much better. Hypercritical with John Siracusa. John at least knows how to complain while being constructive, unlike Marco. The second would be The Incomparable, on a totally different topic but very worthwhile.
As as example of marco being an ass. Just listen to any of the podcasts from 10-onward. Also, listen especially to the programming episodes where he tries to argue against Siracusa but instead sounds like a whiny brat.
edit: Keep on down voting people. Seriously. It's called an opinion. If you don't like it, too bad. But it helps people make a valid attempt at determining whether they want to listen to something, or read something, otherwise spending their time with something. Make your own opinion of the podcast and Marco. But down voting simply because my opinion is different than yours is just stupid.
I wouldn’t say hes a terrible host but he is a certain kind of host which is like the opposite of a Charlie Rose- who mostly glossed over the technical details of a person’s accomplishments to get to their more personal motivations and universal human interest type stuff. From the 3 or 4 episodes I’ve seem focuses entirely on the technical and is good at that but not very good at drawing the guest out emotionally. But this method still has a lot of value for a technical podcast.
He embellishes his MIT background (he has an unpaid position, is barely associated with them, and has basically zero real experience with AI or self-driving technology), and more importantly is just not that smart. He asks shallow questions and doesn't let his guests lead the conversation because he isn't smart enough to understand where they're going with the topic.
That said, he gets incredible guests, and I do listen to some episodes of his podcasts to hear what they say. I just wish there was a better podcast host with the same audience and ability to get those guests onto their show.
Along those lines, I listened to The Talk Show a few times, and it often sounded to me like Dan really had to work to pull material out of Gruber. I would've expected Gruber to just stop podcasting before taking the show elsewhere.
This is a shame, because I think that Dan Benjamin is a funny guy and good host. It took me a while to realize it. I initially came to 5by5 for Siracusa, Dediu, Gruber and Arment (in that order) but the longer I listen the more I appreciate Dan.
Just last week I was loving how Dan will say something outrageous, framed as a casual, factual statement about the co-host, to elicit a reaction. ("You just sit around in your underwear while you're doing this podcast." - not an actual quote, I'm just characterizing). Of everybody else, Gruber responded with the least appreciation of Dan's humor.
Oh well, maybe the new chemistry will be good too.
reply