Too much useless chatter in the intro

I listened to the episode on the singularity. I can boil down the discussion to this one theme: I don't like the idea of the singularity, so it seems unlikely. Other episodes were similarly lacking in substantive analysis. Too bad since the Ars website produces some stellary articles.

Bland and lifeless. Seems like someone high-up decided "we need a podcast" and it falls to the losers at foosball that week to be on it. Hosts often sound uninterested and ill-prepared. Production quality is mediocre. Content is well-intended but would be better served by commentators who have something to say. The Ars Technicast could be an insightful, dynamic counterpoint to the website. It's disappointing that this offering is so weak.

Ars website articles are well written and insightful, this podcast has neither of those qualities. The podcast has a lot of dead air, mindless verbal affirmations, and statements formed in speculation when the speaker should just be saying I do not know or not saying anything. I hope this podcast improves.

Some great topics. Production quality (volume levels, mic quality, ambient noise, etc.) make it almost unlistenable at times. Too bad.

Didn't even bother to try new WWDC app before talking about it. The app is very slightly flatter but still IOS standard and not at all like gmail app. Besides, standard widgets will not have new look until 7 is released.

Good choice of topics, bad application of pacing and consistent audio levels across the cast members. The show has a lot of potential but I hope they can reign in their pacing and regulate those audio levels.

Coming from such a good and respected web site, it's surprising both how insipid and uninformed the contributors to the podcast are, and how poor is the audio quality.

I really enjoyed the podcast series by Ars staff and it is an excellent addition to the reporting I normally read on the website. Looking forward to more.

Please equalize the volumes of the speakers in the future. Some people are too difficult to understand. Jacqui has the right volume.

I just started listening to this podcast (Dec 7). As someone new to the whole podcast thing, I found it really enjoyable! The people and subject are relatable, and the laid back feeling I get from the conversation is very welcoming. The only off putting thing about it is the inconsistent sound quality between all of the speakers. It sounds like a bunch of people calling in to a central office using phones of varying quality.

The latest show, on Windows RT devices, is absolutely painful to listen to. Peter stammers and sputters and takes huge pauses to get his words out and it sounds like he's just completely unprepared to talk. The whole thing sounds off the cuff in a bad way. A little more preparation and production would go a long way.

I enjoy Ars Technica and the content they provide. In general, Ars provides insightful reporting on all things technology. In my opinion, this podcast has not met these standards of excellence. Specific complaints: 1. Many words, very little tech content. This probably results from poor planning. These people may be wonderful Ars editors, but they aren't equipped to fluidly produce a high-quality podcast on the fly. 2. Narrow focus. The show reveals very little breadth of opinion related to a given topic. Very likely, this also relates to a lack of proper planning. 3. Unclear structure. When you listen, there's not a clear sense of "where are we going and why?” Again, proper planning. I support this endeavor. But, coming from Ars, I have high expectations. Keep improving.

I love Ars. Glad they are going into podcasting.

I just read the post for episode 3, clicked the link, and it's not even posted yet. What's up??

Might appeal to teens and very early 20s, but not much here beyond that. Shocked it's Conde Nast.

Glad Ars is taking a stab at a podcast, will be interesting to see if these shows are based on discussions of long term events rather than a news recap each week!