tavis: good evening. from los angeles, i am tavis smiley. tonight, a conversation with actor keanu reeves, the star of many notable films, including, of course, "the matrix" trilogy. he now has a new documentary out called "side by side." next year, he is said to make his feature film directing debut. we are glad you could join us. a conversation with key honorees' coming up right now. -- keanu reeves coming up right now.

>> there is a saying that dr. king had that said there is always the right time to do the right thing. i just try to live my life every day by doing the right thing. we know that we are only halfway to completely eliminate hunger, and we have a lot of work to do. walmart committed $2 billion to fighting hunger in the u.s. as we work together, we can stamp hunger out. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. smiley. pleased to welcome keanu reeves to this program. the talented and popular star of so many notable projects, including, of course, "the matrix" trilogy, is out now

with a terrific new documentary about the changing nature of filmmaking. the project is called "side by side." >> are you done with them? >> do not hold me to it, but i think i am. >> we are going through a very significant enlarged transition in cinema, -- and large transition in cinema, and the visual process democratizes the whole thing. >> i always thought you have to have a certain kind of knowledge. basically, you have to be a dude who knows how to operate machines to do this job. >> i want to push the art form even further, to be able to make things you could not envision before. >> we are being forced into transition. >> periscopic lee, you need the

two images to exist. >> you cannot shoot three-d on film. film has been dead in my heart for 10 years. >> i hate 3-d. it is a marketing scheme. >> i really thought this is the future. >> how is it different, and how do you use it to tell a story? it is up to the filmmaker. tavis: first of all, i'm honored to have you on the program. >> oh, thank you. tavis: so much to talk to you about, and i want to jump right into it in just a second. but i suspect i should probably start with a layman's definition of digital versus film. my mother watches our show every night - >> okay. tavis: and i figure if mama don't understand, then the

conversation can't get lift-off. >> right. tavis: so for my mother and those other folk watching who don't really get the difference between digital and film and why this is worthy of a documentary and a conversation, let's explain that first and we'll jump from there. >> okay. what we're talking about, we're pretty much in the context of talking about the impact of digital cinema through editorial, through visual effects, through exhibition, so how do you project it, and then for me, which was the emotional connection, the digital camera. when we talk about how movies used to be made, it was over 100 years of film, literal, physical film, with emulsion, that we would expose to light and we would get pictures. then came this new technology that would basically take photons and hit a sensor that would turn the photon impulses, the energy of the photons, instead of hitting film, would hit a sensor, and instead of a chemical reaction happening, you would basically get ones and zeros you'd get a value for a color, red, green, or blue. so we're just kind of talking

about here's some light, we've got some film, and we just process it and then we'd project it and we'd watch a movie. now we're talking about sunlight hitting a sensor and going to ones and zeros into a box, and we take that box and then we project that, and now we're watching a movie. tavis: so another one of these technological advances. >> yes. tavis: you paused when you said yes, and i want to dig into that. i ask is it really a technological advance. obviously, it could be argued in some ways that it is advancing us. but is it causing challenges in other ways? >> well, it's an industry shift, so practically, it's like what is the role of the cinematographer in making a movie now? he used to be in control of the image. he was the magician. he knew how to do just dealing

with exposure for film, and he was the one who knew, or she was the one who knew. that image now digitally, it's on the monitor, everyone can look at it. now it's like, cinematographer, i don't know, that's not looking so good right there. it's a little dark up there. so it becomes more of a collaborative art. also, it's had impact in terms of jobs, in terms of processing film and film camera makers have stopped making film cameras. i just want to kind of back up a little bit too. in terms of when i was explaining the digital part of that, that was just for the camera. but that's also in terms of when we're talking about digital we're talking about computers, computing, computing power. so for visual effects, where you used to film stop-motion or if you were doing models, now it's just in the computer. when we talk about films like

"avatar," james cameron in the documentary says there's not one frame of a real jungle. so now he can do whatever he can dream. digital has opened up a world of possibilities to filmmakers and artists, whereas before, you can't film it, you can't, you know. so that's a very exciting time. to come back around to your question, what are we losing? what have we gained and what are we losing. the documentary takes you through the workflow of a movie, so if you love movies, when you're watching it, it kind of holds your hand and says this is editorial, this is a visual effect, and it kind of walks you through movies so that hopefully when you watch a film, you'll have a for me, my

ambition and hope was that you would have a richer appreciation for what you're looking at, and to enjoy movies in a different way. but what are we losing? it's a hundred years of how we did things, the big screen film. it's gone. artists are losing the choice to use film. people have a love for it the grain, how it feels, the texture. now it's christopher nolan, the director of the "batman" films, is an example. he was saying this industry, artists are being forced to make a change that isn't as good as film. take this digital camera well, it's cheaper, it's faster, it's lighter, it's quicker, and he's like, but it's not as good. yeah, but it's cheaper, it's faster, it's quicker. [laughter] yeah, but it's not as good. but it's cheaper. tavis: yeah. >> so there's a lot of the producing pressures on artists to use that. when we started to make the documentary, that was kind of transitioning and i kept asking, well, how much longer? what that means is that when you go to the movies now you won't see a photochemical

projection. some people would say that's great, there's no scratches. digitally now it'll just be all perfect and clean and just settled. but then other people would say, but it's not as rich. so are you getting an inferior product? is that and then also digitally now with distribution we're seeing different ways of storytelling, right? so now you can stream it when you're on demand, you can go on your computer, people are watching movies on their pads, on their phones, on everything. so how is that changing? tavis: you mentioned earlier that this is and obviously, you're right about this it is a transition that the industry is undergoing. but to your earlier point as well, there is still debate about this. you talked to some great directors in the project; some of the names have already come up in this conversation. how would you characterize the debate that's happening in the business, or is it much ado about nothing, given that it is the way of the future and there

may be a few hold-outs, but the debate is the debate meaningful at this point? >> it depends who you're asking. i think i don't know, maybe it's nostalgia. but the choice, losing the choice to be able to use film is going to be it's gone. it's going to be gone. of course like you said, some artists, some people will be able to have a kind of i'm going to choose to use film, but i don't know, maybe it's just romantic or not, but it's, it's gone. it's not completely, but it's changing. like all of the projection. the studios, hollywood, they don't have to pay for the prints, they don't have to ship the prints. there's all of those kinds of things. tavis: earlier in this clip and

in the documentary, somebody made the point that what this does is it democratizes the process. i think george lucas is the one who said that in the film it democratizes the process. you agree with that? >> absolutely. yeah, absolutely. on different we're looking at still cameras that ended up to have video capability. the dslrs, the 5d the 7d, and filmmakers were like, "wow, if i put a lens on this and i can shoot video, i can make a movie." so the means of production are so much less expensive, the quality of what you're getting now is getting it's becoming fantastic. you can put almost professional lenses on these cameras. so yeah, it's cheaper, and if it's cheaper and more accessible and it takes less technicians, i don't need all these people - tavis: right, that means

anybody can do it, ultimately. >> there's the short answer. tavis: but is that a good thing? >> is it a bad thing? tavis: there are enough bad films already being made in this town. [laughter] there are enough bad films coming out of this town already without the process being more democratized. i'm a guy who loves democracy. i'm all for democratizing any process, but i think there is a price to pay for that. it's like the blogosphere. everybody has an opinion now, but i don't really freaking care about all opinions ain't created equal, because everybody can go out there and express themselves and hide behind some character we don't know who you really are, a bunch of cowards i'm sorry. i'm sorry. i got carried away there for a second. but the point is that because it's democratized and anybody can do it, does that mean we're going to have greater access to better film? i'm not sure i believe that. >> yeah, who knows? i don't know the law, the kind of law of quantity and quality,

but i think the opportunity of people being able to express themselves and to have the means of production is a great thing. it's also changing how we're telling stories. the serialization through the internet or through digital portals, means of ways of communicating, and i think that's great. i think the form, the hollywood movie, i think the quality is obviously always going to be there and i think that the question of taste, there's always a question of taste. tavis: right. >> but it's really an exciting time for storytellers and for people to get their story out. so that's kind of cool, whether we like it or not. tavis: yeah, i accept that. let me ask a personal question. i wonder if this technology had been available to you at the start of your now three-decade career as an actor, whether or not you might have made different choices, whether or

not you might have jumped behind the camera before you did. how might this technology, had it been around 30 years ago, impacted keanu reeves' career choices? >> i don't know if it would. no, i don't think if there was a great story to tell, if i had the opportunity to play this role or to work with such-and- such, i don't think the idea of like well, "i'm shooting digital." "oh, well, i can't do that. no, no. i don't want to act on digital"" [laughter] so i don't think so. i don't know, i was thinking like what would my own private idaho have been like if that was a digitized movie? would that have i don't know. it becomes quantum, doesn't it, because you can't know, you can't project those ideas. but personally, i don't think so. tavis: so what then second personal question what got you, then, interested in this

particular subject matter, to the point of spending all this time to do a documentary about it? >> yeah, i was doing the post on a film called "henry's crime" that i was involved in, and there comes a time in a i was in new york at technicolor new york, and we were doing a process which is explained in the documentary called the di, or color correction. so we shot the movie on film. then they scanned it, digitized it, and then they start working on the color, balancing all of the edits and everything together digitally. then there comes a time where they're like okay, we've got this great digital image now on the screen. now we have to match it back to film, photochemical film. so behind you is a colorist and a timer one guy who works on digital color and another guy who works on photochemical. they start talking, and that's

where "side by side" came up. because the old and the new were kind of speaking to each other, or this medium. then at the same time, the cinematographer was showing me images on his 5d, going, "look, i just shot this for a commercial," and then the director was saying to me, "yeah, i've been shooting digitally." then i was talking to the guy at technicolor saying that they weren't, the film companies who were making film, their business was changing. i was working with chris kenneally, the director of the documentary, in post, he was working on the film, and i was looking around, and i just had this moment where i was, film is going away. this is all going to change. this is already changing. that hit me, and i guess because i grew up with film, i wanted to go on an expedition to find out what that meant and what was the impact of digital. where did we come from, where are we going and where are we today. tavis: i've had similar

conversations. you're the first person to really dig into a documentary about this, so i'm glad you did, but i've been honored to talk to a lot of folk in this very chair about this issue. james cameron and i had a great conversation about this one night on this program. >> oh, yeah, great. tavis: danny boyle and i had a great conversation about this one night on this program. so i've kind of played around the edges with this, and i can see how digital allows for things that heretofore have not existed. you mentioned "avatar" early in this conversation. so i get that. the flip side of that though is at while it's true that nothing we see coming out of hollywood is real i mean, it's all hollywood, these are actors and these are stories that are being told so nothing is really real in that sense, but i wonder how it ultimately impacts the movie profession, the actors. you're in front of and behind the camera these days. one day you could completely be written out. if everything is "avatar" like and you get to create characters and nothing is as it appears, what's it do for people actors and et cetera in this business? >> yeah, it starts to grow. the ideas start simply and then the possibilities of it are is it a virtual actor, the idea of

real becomes even it just starts going. because the artificiality can be presented so real, and that's always been the case, but now it really is. in terms of i hope i don't become just an animation. [laughter] the idea and it turns into things as well, is that we talk about the materiality of things, that something exists. when something doesn't exist anymore, it's just in a box. you can't shine light through it. it's not there. the experience of doing it, living to edit and cut and have contact, to changing the rolls of film, to hearing the [makes noise]. to have it being that it's even though it's pretend, there still feels, i think, in a human way, some kind of contact, a reality to that there's something really, physically capturing us.

or whoever, however we are in the light, low light, whatever, something's actually there. when it's digital, it's a recreation of this event, and i don't know if it it's a different version of real, isn't it? it's some other i'm sure we're seeing that in printing, just the loss of books into digital, so less the content is there, but the object isn't. well, an object is, but it's not the independence of it. i don't know if that's philosophy or if that's something else, but to me it has an emotional feeling to it, that this materiality, the loss of the materiality. tavis: i'm feeling like i'm

getting lost in the matrix right about now. [laughter] i'm getting lost. >> i don't know. it's like i don't know, it's like a contact with your medium. like if we shake hands, it's flesh and blood, a contact. if we have a simulation, if something is there and then we kind of, our avatars have contact so we're sharing an idea of like, let's shake hands, but we haven't shook hands. i think that's something that's changing. tavis: i wonder if how do i phrase this? >> cameron would just be laughing at me right now. he'd be like, "reeves, come on, i spend hours," but this is a different person. i'm sorry to interrupt. tavis: no, no, please. >> it's just that the artist who's making that artificial world, the sweat, the blood, the creativity, the time spent, that's as valid as well. so i don't mean to -

tavis: no, no, no. i was going to ask two other things. one, i wonder how much, if any i have my own thoughts about this how much to this push to digital, and if not, the push to, the overwhelming embrace of, has to do with the fact that audiences are getting harder and harder and harder to impress. so it's not even so much about great storytelling. i'm not trying to bash the industry that you are a part of. it's not even that we're not getting great stories told anymore. it's that you don't even have to do that. if you can come up with something, if you've got a great story and it's told digitally well and you impress people, then god bless you. but i wonder how much of it has to do with the fact that audiences are just harder and harder to impress nowadays, and if you can play these tricks and games and do all this mimicry with digital, why not? and, to your point, it's cheaper, it's faster, it's all those other things. but how much of -

>> sometimes. tavis: this has to do with that we're getting harder and harder to impress with old-line, old-school filmmaking? >> mm, i don't know. "batman" was shot on film. tavis: yeah. >> but there's still digital visual effects in that. i don't know, that's the idea of the audience, then, right? tavis: right. >> what is spectacle, what is spectacle playing the part of entertainment? what are we looking for? martin scorsese in the documentary talks about young people not believing the image anymore. i don't quite know the implications of that, but that ties in to me something about that idea, of spectacle and entertainment and not but that happens as well in traditional filmmaking as well. the ambition to go further imagistically, to do the more impossible. i think that's part of the fun. but i think we're also just talking about the literacy of

the audience. the visual literacy of the audience. they've seen so many images now, especially here in the states. there's so much to look at, to watch. so the visual storytelling literacy is harder to impress. tavis: you talked earlier about the fact my time is running here, so i have to do this quickly. you talked earlier about the fact that this digital makes the project in many ways much more collaborative. this is inside baseball, but over the years of doing this and being a film lover and being in this town, i've come to appreciate what cinematographers do. like i appreciate costumers. you do this long enough, you start to really appreciate all the names of all those folk who you see at the end of the movie. is this a friend, digital, the friend or the foe of cinematographers? >> certainly in the early days it was the foe, because it wasn't good enough. as digital cameras are getting better and color recreation and the technical side of the camera is improving, that's becoming less of the issue from the cinematographers i've spoken

to. also, the other issue for them was who controls the image. so in that room with the cinematographer was the colorist, and so he's now changing the color and that has always been happening, but now it's like okay, well, when it goes to vis effects, what does it look like? then when it comes back, and once it starts going into the cinemas, to the bluray, the ownership of the image is getting the time spent for the cinematographer is getting more and more involved. tavis: i've got 30 seconds to go. can you just tell me a quick work about the "tai chi" project? >> oh, sure. thank you. tavis: yeah, please. >> i directed a film called "man of tai chi." tavis: your directorial debut. >> yes, indeed. tavis: yes, sir. >> yes, indeed. a kung-fu movie that we shot in

beijing and hong kong, and it's a kung-fu film. i play the villain. this lovely actor named chen hu, tiger chen, is playing this innocent man of tai chi who, because of life and responsibilities, has to get involved in underground fighting. it's about the yin and yang and power, and power is an illusion. tavis: all you have to do is say it's a kung-fu film. that's it. >> okay, i'm sorry. it's a kung-fu movie. tavis: [laughter] no - >> with some ideas. with some big idea. tavis: all you got to do is say, "kung-fu movie, keanu reeves," we're there. i think that pretty much works. >> thank you. tavis: the new project, the documentary from mr. reeves, is called "side by side." glad to have you on this program. >> thank you. tavis: i enjoyed this immensely. that's our show for tonight. until next time, keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, a visit to abbas miley at pbs.org. tavis: high, i am tavis smiley.

joining next time for our chat with kristen stewart and her new film, "on the road." >> there is a saying that dr. king had that said there is always the right time to do the right thing. i just try to live my life every day by doing the right thing. we know that we are only halfway to completely eliminate hunger, and we have a lot of work to do. walmart committed $2 billion to fighting hunger in the u.s. as we work together, we can stamp hunger out. >> and by contributions to your pbs station by viewers like you. thank you.

% >> welcome to "this is us." this week we're in mountain view at the computer history museum and look at their new exhibit, revolution. we'll look at some neat items such as the kitchen computer, which costs almost as much as a house. and we'll talk to people who played a pivotal role in apple computer. first, guy kawasaki. today he is a best selling

author. >> i am joined by the curator of this museum. where does this new seeium begin and end?

>> two a computer idea over 1 a hundred years old -- a hundred years old all the way up to the iphone. some of this information was used in implements the social security act of 1935. u.s. president fdr passed this act to help americans get out of the depths of the depression, and in the course of that, created the biggest accounting problem of all time. how were you going to administer terms of millions of social security checks to americans. you couldn't use paper and ledger books anymore, the problem was just to los angeles. so ibm kept full employment and -- just too large. so ibm said we have machines that will tackle this problem. >> with their punch cards?

>> yes, it's all done with punch cards. >> that's amazing. >> they're doing data entry in this picture. >> tom watson of ibm, a pretty unfully ential guy. >> he was, and keeping full employment during the degrees was considered crazy by other business men, but turned out to be a stroke of genius. >> a lot of people were thought crazy in this museum, and came up with breakthrough ideas. >> exactly. >> let's go take a look at more of them. in this room is the work of a lot of visionaries. tell us where we are. >> we're in the supercomputing gallery, which is we display the fastest and most expensive computers of any time. >> this is one of the most aesthetic of its time.

>> the kray1 came out in 1976. it was at least 10 times faster than any other computer available at the time. >> and it was a real thorn in watson's side, wasn't it. >> it was. thomas watson once wrote that he failed to understand how see moore cray who had only 34 employees plus the jauntier, could beat ibm with its resources. >> and this has 64 miles of wire. tell us about that? >> it connecting everything, and it's done by hand. it took about six months for a team of women assemblers to quire up a cray 1. >> and how much did it cost? ed. >> 10 million. >> holy cow. in 1970s money, that was a lot

of money. what was the main motivation? >> well, a lot of defense problems, for example nuclear weapons design, even weather forecasting required intense amounts of computer power, and theca 1 was the -- the cray 1 was the only computer that could handle that problem. >> tell us about the design. >> well, it's round because it keeps the amount of wire there shorter and thus faster. >> all right. let's take a look now at the minis. >> okay. >> this is my favorite computer in the whole museum. tell us about this bright horsage honeywell computer.

>> this was put out by neiman marcus, who puts out the fancy christmas list. this was the gag item, or the kind of crazy gift for that year, 1969. >> so there's presumably women at home dying for this. so how many people purchased one of these? >> no one purchased one of these. >> why not >> well, part of the reason is was really expensive, it was $10,600, which in 1969 was the better part of a house. so you really have to want those recipes to buy one. >> so tell us how it works. >> well, it worked by entering your data, which could be carrots, broccoli, let he us, whatever, one character at a time, so the c in carrots has to be entered in using 8 switches, and then push a

button load the letter c, and go through a, r, and so on. you could spend two hours just entering your raw ingredients, and then logical give you an answer -- and then it will give you an answer back in the form of illuminated lights on the cover of the machine, so again you have to decode it one character at a time, so you can see it has no practical purpose, at least as a recesspy machine. >> and no bought them. was it significant in any way? >> i think it is, in that it shows a widening of the idea of computers entering our lives, and computers in the home, for example, was a very popular idea, and people were predicting that computers would be in the home in the future, so this is a very futuristic kind of project. so it's kind of a jet son's era

design. john greg now has the story of a best selling author and entrepreneur who has made a name for himself practicing what he calls enchantment. >> he's a new york times best- selling author, the has written 10 books, and also has a position for a game. >> -- has a passion for a game. >> the first time i played hockey, it was religious experience, i just loved it. i loved the team play, the physics of it. you know, not a lot of people take up hockey. the key to my success is i'm willing to grind it out. >> the dedication that guy kawasaki puts into his lunch time hobby is the same devotion that has brought him success in three careers in silicon valley. he is the author of boob likes enchantment and the art of the start. in the world of venture capital investing, he's one of the co founders of garage

technologies. and he introduced apple computers to the world with a new style of marketing, evangelism. >> so our job was to convince software companies and hardware companies to create products before this platform truly insists, lousy tools, to just join our sort of religion. >> he grew up on the island of oahu the kawasaki family emphasized education. >> back in those days, if you're an asian american, your parents want you to to either be a doctor, a lawyer, or adenitis. >> we length to ucla, but the most value lesson he learned was making connections. he had a classmate who needed help counts diamonds. >> today i think many people

underappreciate the value of knowing how to sell. what tech entrepreneurs have difficult understanding is they think the difficult part of starting the company is making the ridge it or the software. not to say this is easy, but really the hard part is selling the software or the ridge it. >> another contact was mike boich who worked with apple computers. he got a tree pry view of the first mcintosh. guy fell in love with the product and recognized that it was going to be revolutionary. he was hired by apples marketing director mike murray to be the company's software evangel itself. >> he wanted someone who would go out to evangelize, to enchant them, to sell the dream of creating great software that would empower people who could never use a personal computer

before to use a personal computer. >> the sales pitch emphasized the greater meaning behind a product. you were actually convincing people to join your cause. he even yale became an apple fellow for marketing during some of apples dark effort years. the -- darkest years. guy thought the time was right to start a second career. >> no matter how hard you work at apple, no matter how righteous you think you are, and how challenged you think you are, really, when you're out from the mother ship, that's where you separate the men from the boys or the women from the girls. i wanted to be rich. hard to get into venture

capitalism, because of the shear number of people you're compete against. >> >> guy kawasaki met with a lot of young entrepreneurs. >> in college, you think everything is a signs. the older you get, the more you realize, man, it's just people. >> he then became an oughter and speaker. he -- author and speaker. his philosophy went main stream in 2004 with the publication of what is now recognized as the start-up bible, "the art of the start. ">> if i were to guess, it would be the 10, 20, 30 rule of power point, the optimal number of power point presentation slides should be 10, and there could be no font smaller than

30 points, and if people in the world would just embrace that rule, this would be a better world. the other thing that has achieved notoriety is i tell people to make a mantra, not a mission statement. and a mantra is two or three words. nike's mantra could be authentic athletic performance. so my mantra is empower people. sometimes i empower them as a venture capitalist, sometimes as a speaker, sometimes as a writer. >> some say that kawasaki is just another talking head. how much of this is hot air? >> if you look at my 1040, you would see the bulk of my income is from speaking. however, i don't consider myself a professional speaker.

not in the sense that -- like tony robins is a real professional speaker, right? so i happen to be a business person who writes and speaks. >> the idea for his writing and speaking continue to be enhanced by this daily experience at garage technologies. >> we would all like to have a google. yeah, you know, and i i would like to be wayne gretzky, but the point is, there's only one wayne gretzky, there's only one google. life is like that. a lot of people are not willing to grind it out. i am not only willing to grind it out, i love to grind it out. welcome back. we are now in the real-time computer gallery, and what is real-time computing? >> well, it means the computer, which is controlling a system, must respond as events are

happening. soonso an example would be a cereal factory, where a computer monitors how much is being put in a box and can make adjustmenting as they are required, or in real-time to optimise the production. >> so it calibrates and slows things or speeds things to make sure that happens? >> that's exactly right. >> so an example of that for the average guy would be this mercedes-benz. >> that's right. we have half of one on display here, and it shows one of the early effort antilock breaking systems, which used integrated circuits. it's only when modern electronics have arrived in the 70s and '80s that they became standard equipment. >> and that was because they could make the computerration quick enough >> that's correct. before they used a hydraulic

system, which is a little slower. >> so this is a way for computers to save lives? >> it is. and in fact cars with antilock braking systems in them make all of the cars around them safer, as well. >> the man behind us with a telltale heart, how do the computers enter into that? >> well, the man is wearing a pacemaker. only recently has the pacemaker incorporated microprocessors, and so essentially they are now computers inside, controlling your heart beat and rhythm, and, of course, these are life- saving technologies for people. in many cases people live another 10 or 20 years or longer because they have a pacemaker. >> okay. well, let's take a look at the next gallery, shall we? >> okay. >> that high above us is a wagon wheel. tell us why there's a wagon

wheel. >> well, it's symbolic of a bar, also called the wagon wheel, which was just about a mile away from the museum, and a hotbed of innovative ideas and projects in the '70s among silicon valley companies, especially semiconductor companies. >> so is all the engineers would be going there for lunch or dinner and exchange ideas? >> exactly. the alcohol was flowing freely, won't a lot of lawyers around at that time, so they helped each other solve their manufacturing problems. >> talk about the home of innovation. >> yes. >> now, there was like a wagon on the top of the place. tell us a little about the ambience of the wagon wheel. >> well, i would describe it as kind of western dive bar, so it was not a fancy place by any means, it was place to get a drink and a sandwich and hang out with your buddies. >> so one of the things that

the rumor is may have happened there, there was a journalist who hung out there, and he was the one to coin the phrase silicon valley. tell us about that. >> well, as a term, it was coined by don heaviler -- heffler, a journalist. he decided to write a story about the region, and because the material they worked with was silicon, he decided to call it silicon valley, and the term has stuck ever since. >> well, there at another place called the home brew computer club. steve wozniak debuted the apple one there. with just one switch, the world would never be the same. >> i started typing, and things appeared on my tv set, and i knew, oh, my god, this machine is here. >> the machine is better known today as the apple computer. >> so this is a product that

really launched the company. this product became so successful at and her other good, lucky things happen, but with the luck, we had the foresite, and it was the finest eninearing work i ever did in my life, and some great ideas to spring sparkle and fun to computers. i'm so glad for my part in making computers fun instead of boring, i don't know, engineering devices. >> that's the birth of one of the most -- connick brands ever launched in the 20th century. >> it was just a little thing we were doing on the side, you didn't think you're going to make a million bucks or something, no. >> reporter: little did he know. steve wozniak was a wiz kid who grew up in the heart of silicon valley. >> i had a very lucky childhood, i was exposed to a lot of engineering principals, and i was advanced

mathematically in school, and had a ham radio by sixth grade, so i was heavy duty into electronics, so i had this life of just building interesting projects. >> his curious nature it was nurtured by his father, an engineer for lock heed. >> whenever i had a question, he would help me learn what i had a question about, whether it was at onlies, space, stars, or electronics. >> he wasn't just your average geek. >> i was on the swim team in my school, and on track team in my school. if i played football with my friends, i was always the star, and baseball, i was an all- star. made really good sports education. so i did that. i wasn't like a in other words who sales just sort of -- a nerd who was just sort of the too weak to be going out for the teams. >> it earned him rock star reputation during his early

years, but by junior high it had worn off. >> all of a sudden i was left out of other people's thinks, so a lot of my development towards real computers happened in that time. >> reporter: he spent that time honing his craft until a fateful introduction by a high school friend changed his life forever. >> he said you have to meet this other guy, steve jobs, because he goes to our high school, and he knows electronics and digital electronics, and also like duding some pranks at the high school, and i was always looking for pranks to do, so steve and i met, discussed things, and, wow, we hit it off. >> reporter: in january of 1973, while attending uc berkeley, steve landed his dream job with how let's packard. >> they hire med to design their hand--- they hire med to design their hand-held

calculator, and it was the first scientific calculator ever, the wing that changed everything for the world. it cost $400 when it was new. in today's money, what is that, $2,000? so they were very valuable. and then i was working on designing some of the chips that were inside these calculators from hewlett- packard. a real highlight of my life, one of the greatest companies in the world, and i wanted to work there forever, i would be an engineer for life at hewlett- packard. >> luckily for us, that was not the case, steve joshes convinced him to go -- steve jobs convinced him to go into business, and it was a match made in heaven. they debuted the apple 1 at the home brew computer club. a diy gathering for like-minded engineers. it caused a commotion. >> that caused a lot of people to start believing we could have a computer in the home some day, and we were thinking an ugly little box like this

would be in people's homes, if you can believe that. no, it had took little different. >> his design jeanious compared with jobs marketing magic proved to be a fruitful collaboration. >> we both knew this was a change in the world, and we got chilled and knew that that was a eureka moment. we knew this product, you don't give away. this is going to the gig big hot one of all time. these were the three earliest personal computers. they were very good. it's just that the apple 2 was the exceptional one that had color and graphics, and games, and expandability galore, so that's why we really got the lead to and took over the world, the apple 2. >> was a cult-like following, and apple became one of the most powerful companies on the planet, but wozniak never aspired to world domination. >> i was having fun. i think steve had a lot more of

the business mentality, and i had come up just believing that big businessmen, a lot of wealth and the greed that goes with it maybe corrupts you. >> reporter: despite the humility, the honors kept coming, and he is jobs were awarded an honor by president reagan. >> when i did the important stuff at apple that gets me here, i was so shy, i wouldn't even talk to people, and then when i went to shows, computer shows and people came up and said could i have your autograph? i thought, you don't ask engineers for autographs. >> he went back to uc berkeley and finished his degree in engineering, and also taught 5th graders and sponsored music festivals, included an event in russia with bill graham. >> i picked up from his voice

it was something he had been wanting to do for a long, long time. was a major move, kind of a change to the world, a significant event. >> and within a minute, his first question was, can i have four tickets? i'll never forget that. within the first four minutes. >> the notoriously hard-nosed new yorker was won over by steve's modesty. >> steve is basically a trusting, honest, good, decent person. what he represents is quality. >> and loyalty. wozniak's generosity is evident in his hometown. >> i grew up in san jose. every school i went to, when they would call and ask for money and contributions, i would give it to those schools, because that's where i came from, and i was born in the city of san jose, and i loved that city, so now i helped create a museum there, and a ballet company. to get these -- kind of like my

city, you know, help it grow up in the direction of a san francisco culturally. >> from wiz kid to celebrated icon to philanthropist. what is the secret to his success? >> the best thing is don't get attached to things have to turn out a certain way. the world just kind of flows, and whichever way it goes is right. it's just how it went. but really the keys to my happiness came about when i was about 18 to 20 years old, working it out in my hid what kind of person i would be. from then on, i had the keys to happiness, and all of this other stuff didn't matter, apples success, i would be designing need thing no, sir matter what. -- need neat things no matter what. >> before we leave you, we want to show you this interesting

contraption, the digital no mad. what is this? >> it's one of the largest bicycles ever made. it was used for -- it's inventer, steve roberts, weren't around the country cycling, 17,000 miles across the country, filing stories for various magazines and journals he was writing for. >> so computer magazines, or bike magazines? >> mainly computer magazines. in the similar way you play the piano by playing cards, you could generate all of the information you needed by playing kind of cords on this these hand bars. >> what about this visor? >> well, that allows him to have projected into his right eye the image on the computer, while his left eye can still look ahead at the road and be safe. >> sounds perfectly safe. well, there's a lot of solar panel action here on the back. what is that for? >> those are are for powering

the system and it's three mcintosh computers inside here, as well as an amateur radio and trance seaver, he would charge up during the day, while he was riding, and at night, he would typically use his amateur radio to send messages. >> so what has he done since he wrapped up this journey? >> well, he is still an innovator and tech no nomad, as he calls himself, he is now building cat a ma rans in puget sound that are full of this type of technology. >> thank you for joining us. for all of us at "this is us," it's time to say so long.