The critics of gaming are typically over 40, those who play under 40.
But as Steven Johnson, a cultural critic, points out in a recent book, "Everything Bad Is Good for You", gaming is now so widespread that if it did make people more violent, it ought to be obvious. Instead, he notes, in America violent crime actually fell sharply in the 1990s, just as the use of video and computer games was taking off (see chart 2). Of course, it's possible that crime would have fallen by even more over the period had America not taken up video games; still, video gaming has clearly not turned America into a more violent place than it was.
It's a problem that I think comes up every 20-40 years: something new that changes society, and those too old to "get it".
10 years ago listening to rap music and heavy metal would get you into jail because you'd go kill people. Crime rates drop.
20 years ago playing Dungeons and Dragons would turn you into a Satan worshipper, you'd kill your parents and commit suicide. Amazingly, 99.9% of all players survived, and those who did kill themselves were in the statistical group who would have anyway.
20 years before, watching Elvis dance would turn you into a sexual deviant. Somehow, those same parents who watched Elvis's hips were able to complain about Britney Spears and her kinderslut outfits.
Reading comic books would turn you into a criminal, since it was the preferred activity of juvenile delinquents. (Or, at least the three that were studied.)
20 years before, and listening to rock and roll in general would cause kids to become pregnant just by being in the room, boys would go on rape sprees, and society would enter total decay.
20 years before that, and Glenn Miller was dangerous.
Keep going back, and every era will have something new that the older generation didn't get. The question with gaming is:
Will it follow the model of comic books, where a heavy handed fist comes down to regulate it into "kid safe"-ness, until decades later where it starts to spring again (mainly thanks to an underground movement and the explosion of interest in manga and anime)? Or will it follow rock and roll, and already be so entrenched that the Jack Thompsons and Hilary Clintons and Leibermans of the world will rage, and ten years later people will wonder what the big deal about was?
My bet is on the latter - but only if people take the time to educate each other on it. I've sat down with people who came to my office to ask me about the whole Grand Theft Auto games (they know I used to run a web site, now turned into a wiki), and I've explained the rating system, the arguments, what "Hot Coffee" is all about. And 99% of the time, they go "Oh, ok, that makes sense." The 1% of the time they're just looking to steal some of my Triscuits.
Write to your congressman. We should, in the same fashion as those who set up a web site to protest the broadcast flag, set up a similiar Political Action Committee who's whole goal is to educate politicians on the issue and send them notices when they go for "hearings" and "new laws".
If we don't, then I can see an age where the gaming industry is regulated like the comic book industry was. And that would be a huge blow to what could be a fascinating new artistic medium.
Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.
And yet, nobody is being forced to make software for the PSP either, so who cares? It's an idea - I don't think it's perfect, but it's better than nothing.
Unfortunately I'm fairly certain that very few US Senators are listening over the sound of hype.
The bigger problem is, I believe, that they don't hear anything but the hype. Most politicians don't troll Slashdot or gaming sites. They have enough to do with meetings, looking at bills, more meetings, campaigning, photo ops, and the rest.
I wrote a small piece on this not too long ago that talked about this issue. It's not just that Senator Clinton is believing the hype - that's all she's probably hearing! Who in the gaming community is really going to her and the other politicians who discuss the issue?
Where's the Hollywood style lobbyists from the gaming industry? Isn't this what the ESRB and other gaming organizations should be doing - going to politicians and explaining how an R rating is the same as an M rating, how they're working with stores to keep M rated games out of the hands of minors (and if they aren't, then they damn well better be before Washington does it for them), why the "Hot Coffee" mod was never meant to be played and discovered by people voluntarily choosing to play the nude scene (and if they are minors, do you really think they can't get nude people easier than installing a mod in a $50 PC game?).
Yeah, I'm pissed at Ms. Clinton and Thomson and all of the ilk who "don't get it" - but I don't entirely blame them, because odds are there are few people who have really taken the time to explain it to all of them. (Well, except for Thomson - in my opinion, he's just a money grubbing lawyer now using nudity-in-games claims to line his pocket).
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I wrote a thing on this some time ago, but here's my humble thoughts. They are probably flawed, but it's a good launching point.
What I would do as Sony is release a $100 "amateur developers kit", with the license that all programs created can only be offered free of charge unless published by Sony, and Sony has no liability on programs. With the program as compiled is a big warning "Sony takes no responsibility if you break your PSP running this program!"
This way, Sony gets both money and developers creating content. They can cherry pick what they really like and publish it if they want (since the author is not allowed to charge money under the license). Regular publishers know that they have more competition, but as the PSP's list of apps grow this sells more PSP's, so "big name" developers get to step up and market to a larger base. (And let's face it - shareware/freeware games hasn't killed off big PC publishing games - mainly console competition.)
This is kind of my "launching point" on this thought. Yes, it severely restricts development - but it's still a hell of a lot more open than the Nintendo systems, but not as open as the GP32, so Sony stands to win either way.
Yay. I can spend $20 on the DVD version of the movie, and another $20 on the PSP version (unless I simply encode the movie myself with Yade/FFMPEG on OS X and copy it up to the memory stick).
Seems that Sony's more excited about the portable movie player stuff. Maybe they fear a video iPod so they're trying to flood the market with PSP releases to make the studios think that the PSP is the "format of choice" or some such. Either way, as a gamer the PSP is getting more use reading killyourfm.com than it is as a game device.
Sadly, I've enjoyed too much of the homebrew software to stop now (such as playing my Game Boy games - yes, I own copies of them on my PSP, or Chess, or watching the progress of the movie player that supports AVI and OGG), so while the web browser is nifty, and better playback of MPEG-4 video is nice, I'm keeping my PSP at 1.5 for as long as I can (which means I can't buy any new games, which is all right since there aren't any PSP games right now that interest me, and looking ahead none that will until early 2006, while the DS has some good ones coming out late next month).
Odds are, though, a Sony rep/fanpeople probably read the above as:
"Blah, blah, blah, I pirate software, blah, blah, blah, I'm a thief, blah, blah, blah, I have a tiny pee-pee because I like the DS".
But I'll give points to Sony for at least trying to meet people's needs. Good start - just needs better follow through.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Don't know. I'm suggesting all of this navel gazing about how Apple "should" let OS X run on all Intel based systems is pointless. That if you want OS X on all those systems, then yet - stop buying Macs and write a letter saying what you want. If enough people choose to do that, and Apple was forced with the decision of either clone or die - they'd clone.
But to say "Wah - I want OS X on my system not the ones they sell me!" is ridiculous otherwise, and as long as Apple's making more money than probably every Slashdot poster combined, they have no incentive in changing their business practices.
After reading through the article, I'm not sure that I was convinced that it was in Apple's best interests to allow clones.
Look at it from Apple's point of view, the things he points out as negatives work more like positives:
1. Forced upgrades. Apple has announced "dual binary" support for their applications for an unspecified length of time, but either way the company has to be salivating at how many people will be buying new machines in 10 more months. And as recent reports show, they're selling more machine now than ever, so it would appear that the "halo effect" is greater than the "Osborne effect".
2. If Apple sales continue to do well after the final shift to Intel, then Apple can keep on their plans: make money off of computer and iPod sales (and whatever other new devices they come up with). Right now, they have a good line of movie editing software which only works on their software set (and they control the hardware to run it), they are developing other business tools (Pages and the like). So as long as people keep buying their machines and their market share is growing with the company making good profits, why change?
3. If, in some future, Apple decides to do cloning, it is in their best interest to do it later than sooner. My reasoning? They can use the next 10-36 months to iron out all of the issues dealing with the Intel transfer, see how the market reacts, how things like an "OS X WINE" works out, and so on. Then, with this expertise, they will be in a perfect position to dictate to cloners how things will work so the "Mac Experience" will be maintained, rather than just throwing the OS to the winds and hoping for the best.
Would I like it if Apple just let OS X free? Sure - but that's not in Apple's best interest. So, as long as they show a steady rise in profit and sales, I don't see them changing their minds any time soon. They seem to be doing what works, which probably makes them and their investors happy.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I think he's referring to the book "Rising Sun", which was the basis of the movie of the same name starring Sean Connery and Wesley Snipes.
The book was probably one of the most racist diatribes I've ever read. Basically, the Japanese are buying everything, putting sobbing Montana farmers out of business, being racists who treat everyone with a physical deformity or unJapanese as less than human, murdering sexy white women - and only our brave, resourceful American detectives can possibly stop them.
I found it to be rather horrible. His other book on business, "Disclosure" dealing with sexual harassment at least had some interesting writing (the scene on the ferry ride home gave me the shivers), but "Rising Sun" felt like it was written to get people to run out into the streets and start smashing in Toyotas.
[sarcasm] Too bad they're going out of business any day now.... [/sarcasm]
True story:
"You know that Apple's going to be bought out by Microsoft eventually," my father told me.
I raised an eyebrow. "Oh? How do you figure that?"
"Well, they've only got 3% of the market, and now they've got a problem with iPod inventories building up. People just aren't buying enough iPods."
"Oh. Well, I know I'm getting Emily a 512 MB iPod Shuffle for Christmas, since she's started listening to her own music."
"I have one of those." He pulled into the parking lot at Best Buy. The task was to find a set of 801.11g XR transmitters. It seems that my sister was sucking down all of the bandwidth in the house with her stuff, so he wanted to keep her on the g (54 Mbps) while he coasted at g XR (108 Mbps), so he'd have priority on the downloads.
"Yeah, I remember." My father had received a free 512 MB iPod Shuffle for appearing at a CIO convention or something like that.
"I really like it, but I had to upgrade to the 1 GB Shuffle for more space."
I looked down at the dashboard, where his 60 GB iPod Photo sat in its iPod charger/radio transmitter. "This one's to hold more of my music," he said, changing the tracks from country to blues.
We went into Best Buy. It turned out they didn't have the router, but they did have iPods, of which he bought a 30 GB iPod Photo for my sister. "I got Deby one, and once I had Dejah use iTunes she bought some music, but it doesn't work on her Rio, so I had to get her one. I got Amber a Shuffle too not to long ago." Amber was my niece, his granddaughter.
Once we were home, he went into the back room for a bit and came out with his old iPod shuffle in a purple protector case. "Here - this is for Emily. I don't need it any more."
Emily, of course, was so excited and gave her Grandpa all the thanks in the world. Along with the shuffle came another two protector cases, a set of iPod socks made by Apple, then the dock adapter we had to get so it could be charged away from a computer.
"Gee, too bad that Apple's going out of business because they're not selling enough iPods," I mused.
"Well, Microsoft will just buy them out." Dad started inserted CD's into his laptop, ripping his entire collection to his hard drive to take with him on his portable music player. "Want to help your sister figure out her playlists in iTunes?"
"Ah - sure."
And that is how Emily got an iPod. And I learned that Apple may go out of business in the next bit - but odds are, my family alone will keep them floating for quite some time.
I posted this on my wiki site, but figured I'd put my own $0.02 here since it was appropriate. (Besides, I'm not so sure my server could handle the traffic;) ).
Whenever I run across people who are against something, I usually ask two important questions:
What exactly are you looking to protect?
And
Do you profit by it?
For example: people who are against abortion would probably tell you that they're doing it to save human life (in this case, unborn children). Now, whether you agree with that statement or not, that's the point: protecting life.
People who are against dumping chemicals in our water are usually trying to protect the environment and our health.
People who are against pornography are usually doing so because they feel, or have studies that show, that pornography can cause other addictive behavior (including increased sexual promiscuity, abuse, etc).
Again - people can argue one side or the other until they are blue in the face, and since I don't feel like looking like a http://www.smurf.com/homepage.html Smuff, I'm not going to debate that here. That's what the "discussion" link up at the top is for. (Go ahead - click it if you need to. I'm not going to stop you.)
But the second question can often be just as important. When Microsoft gives talks about how Free Software Movement is just http://cs.senecac.on.ca/~selmys/quotes.html communism, you know that if Open Source software usage drops, Microsoft's will rise. When a group promoting nuclear energy comes out against the use of oil and coal, you know they're really saying "Nuclear energy is better - buy it!"
Some people protest things for good motives - some are less than pure. And if there's anything that protesters soon learn, it's "use what works", over and over again.
Take the case of Jack Thompson. Not too long ago, there was the "Hot Coffee Scandal". Here's the short version: somebody discovered there was a sex mini-game in "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" (GTA: SA), but no way to play it. In other words, Rockstar shipped a game with unplayable content, feeling that nobody would ever figure out how to turn it on.
Stupidly, they forgot that unlike the PS2 and Xbox versions, people are more than willing to modify PC versions of the games. In fact, PC modifications of "Grand Theft Auto III" are very popular, including the mod http://www.mtavc.com/ "Multi Theft Auto", which modifies the PC version to allow multiplayer use.
So, when the PC version of "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" hit the shelves, of course people started looking at what they could modify. Next thing you know, the sex game is found, someone releases a mod that turns it on, and to the horror of religious conservatives everywhere, people can watch polygons of a naked woman and a man with no penis having sex.
Trust me. I've seen the video. It's not that hot.
Once the news is out, politicians are going nuts. Senator Hillary Clinton wants senate hearings. The ESRB, under major pressure, changes the game's rating from "M" to "AO for Adults Only". Stores pull the game from the shelves. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1441534/p osts Dogs and cats are sleeping together - mass hysteria!
Chart out the steps you have to get to this content: First you have to buy the game. Since the game is rated "M for Mature", this means that you should have to be at least 17 or older to even purchase the game. Second, you have to willingly install the game on your computer. Third, go online and find the mod. Fourth, install it.
The number of steps here are very important: it's not like you can just be play
My theory is that this wasn't done on purpose, but it demonstrates that Google's sources are more "up to date" than Microsoft's.
As least, I hope so. Either way, it only erodes any kind of trust I'd have in a Microsoft solution for encyclopedias, maps, and so on. If they did it on purpose, then why should I trust them for anything? And if done in ignorance - then that means that their competitor has more accurate information.
Either way, it doesn't make Microsoft look good. Which, in a weird way, I almost feel bad about. I'd love to see Google with a real competitor if only because I like seeing competition, because it usually benefits me (the customer (but not consumer)) - but if Microsoft is only going to make a half-assed shot at it, then they may as well stay out of the game.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Don't tell the Kansas schoolboard - they have enough on their hands trying to deny all of the other evidence for evolution to have to handle another one.
Considering that it was the will of the voters, which could said to be the equal footing of, say, voters in a corporation, and it was over 70% of the voters who said "yes", I'd say this is a form of market force - only here the "corporation" is also called the "city council", and the voting is "one person, one vote" not "they who own the most shares get the most votes".
I purchased a PSP first because of the initial draw of Metal Gear Acid (eh - not bad, but not that great really). Putting movies onto it lost its appeal, and right now I'm using it as an emulator with the 1.5 BIOS hacks. (Playing, oddly enough, my Game Boy Color games that I haven't finished, that I can't play on the DS).
But the DS has a ton of games. Between the Ace Phoenix, Advance Wars (drool), Castlevania (mega-drool), Animal Crossing (eh, but I know many geeks going ga-ga over it), the Coded Memories (or Another Code, whatever the name is, and I'm too damn lazy to look it up), and on throughout the year, the next six months look *very* nice between the GBA and the DS - and with my new blue DS I can play both of those.
If Sony wants the PSP to do better, it better stop focusing on the UMB movie announcements. Where are the friggin' games, Sony? The only one that looks interesting to me is "Ghost in the Shell", maybe Popocrolis and Medieval (probably not the latter). I look at the "upcoming games" list on ebworld.com, and it's looking good for the DS, and only good for the PSP if you don't plan on buying movies on DVD anymore (and transferring them to my Memory Stick Duo 512 MB).
OK, so this is one of those "well, I just pulled this idea out of my ass so I could write my column thought".
But if nothing else, it's a very interesting one. Several commentators, including Bill Gates, have stated that they believe that the cell phone will overtake the iPod. You're more likely to carry around a cell, it has an established system of purchasing music (among other things), and so on.
Granted, I still take that with a heavy grain of salt, considering that my own PDA/phone (Treo 650) tends to go about a full day on the charge, and that's from a heavy user who uses it for email, AIM, speech, ebook reading, notes, calendar, and so on. I have to make sure I plug it in before I go to bed. My iPod lasts a bit longer (though if I used it as much as the Treo, it would probably die as quickly, if not faster). The iPod is just a better interface for music, and crappy for all else.
So the concept that Apple could go after the wireless market isn't so far fetched. Would anyone have thought of them a major player in the music industry? They have a brand name that's good (if not growing), and it would be a good way to suppliment the PC business. And it would remove some problems. Right now, according to the rumors, most wireless carriers don't want to carry the iTunes Mobile Phone because it would cut into their business.
So, fine: Apple makes their own service and gives the finger to the phone companies. How many iPod users (and Mac heads) would switch?
For it to work, they would need:
Capital - check, they still have a few billion left in the bank. Manufacturing - check, not a major problem Engineers - check, though they'd probably need to hire some Wireless access points - Hm.... That may be a reach, but as the article points out (yes, I did RTFA) if Disney can do it, so can Apple. Whether that means they go out and buy someone, or just buy up/rent the wireless access points, they certainly have the means and the business acumen. Jobs has demonstrated the ability to negotiate in the past, if done right (say like the current Sprint model I'm using, where $40 gives 500 minutes, and an extra $15 gets me unlimited Internet access), they could make it work. Make the phones a combo phone/802.11 device for Skype/Gizmo like communications, and those Airports become all the more useful to their business model. Or start installing WiMax stations around the country for the same effect.
So, points to the author for coming up with a possibly viable idea. Will Apple do it? Probably not now - they have enough risk on their hands with the shift to the Intel processors and dealing with a potential loss of sales over the next 18-24 months. But if the wireless companies continue to play hardball with Jobs's (note to the picky: his name is Steve Jobs, the plural then becomes Jobs's, thank you) music domination plans, he might just do an end around.
We'll see. Most of this I'm pulling out of my ass, so of course I could be wrong.
The writings of Josephus, who was a Jewish scholar, hold that Moses was one of the major generals or some such for Pharaoh, and brought him much glory.
This is something I'd also like to see built into the next version of iTunes or iPodderX for getting Podcasts and the like (so as to reduce the bandwidth on shows I'm interested in listening to).
Of course, to make sure that Opera doesn't get sued for having a P2P network built into their client that could be used for copyright infringements, they need to add a note into their EULA that says something akin to "Don't steal music, or movies, or - just don't steal, OK? If you do, don't blame us. Thanks." to that their intent in supplying the technology is clear.
Re:The future of Podcasting here?
on
P2P and TV
·
· Score: 1
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe not for another 10 years until broadband is nearly universal. But it would be interesting to see. I mean, evidently this show has been seen 10,000 times just on bootleg. If it had been legally P2P'ed and promoted at all (some Google ads, ad on Slashdot, CNN, etc) maybe it could have gotten 100,000 viewers. If the pilot got that many viewers, they could put in ads and raise some cash, offer DVD sales, hook into a forum with Google ads - who knows?
Maybe not as much as the WB could have given them, but on the other hand, maybe in time it will. We'll just have to wait and see.
The future of Podcasting here?
on
P2P and TV
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think guy now "gets it" - he doesn't *need* the studios anymore. Get some funding, put together a pilot and a few episodes, and then do it himself. He could sell DVDs. He could do it via hostageware (until X amount of money or DVDs are sold, we won't make any more). He could make it, get it popular, then have a major network pick it up. Tell people that if he can raise X amount of money he can film a pilot episode (and if they're someone such as the producer/director of "Firefly" or "Battlestar Gallactica", maybe the fans would do it - look how much people raised to try and save "Star Trek").
Makes you wonder if Podcasting might not take this route. I once listened to the "Catholic Insider" (not because I'm Catholic, mind you, but I liked his reporting on the death on the last Pope), and he had a joke Podcast about podcasting in the future - where people all around the world online edit the video, set up production, then distribute it online with the ads built in (or people pay for certain individual content).
It's rather optimistic, and I'm not saying the major networks will "go away", but if gentlemen such as this guy can go "Woah - wait - now I have an option on how to promote my work", then there's a chance that it will bring a new level of pressure onto the networks. Which would mean more competition. And that is always good for the customer (I don't like using the word "consumer" for myself, sorry).
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be totally wrong. But I hope not.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a problem that I think comes up every 20-40 years: something new that changes society, and those too old to "get it".
10 years ago listening to rap music and heavy metal would get you into jail because you'd go kill people. Crime rates drop.
20 years ago playing Dungeons and Dragons would turn you into a Satan worshipper, you'd kill your parents and commit suicide. Amazingly, 99.9% of all players survived, and those who did kill themselves were in the statistical group who would have anyway.
20 years before, watching Elvis dance would turn you into a sexual deviant. Somehow, those same parents who watched Elvis's hips were able to complain about Britney Spears and her kinderslut outfits.
Reading comic books would turn you into a criminal, since it was the preferred activity of juvenile delinquents. (Or, at least the three that were studied.)
20 years before, and listening to rock and roll in general would cause kids to become pregnant just by being in the room, boys would go on rape sprees, and society would enter total decay.
20 years before that, and Glenn Miller was dangerous.
Keep going back, and every era will have something new that the older generation didn't get. The question with gaming is:
Will it follow the model of comic books, where a heavy handed fist comes down to regulate it into "kid safe"-ness, until decades later where it starts to spring again (mainly thanks to an underground movement and the explosion of interest in manga and anime)? Or will it follow rock and roll, and already be so entrenched that the Jack Thompsons and Hilary Clintons and Leibermans of the world will rage, and ten years later people will wonder what the big deal about was?
My bet is on the latter - but only if people take the time to educate each other on it. I've sat down with people who came to my office to ask me about the whole Grand Theft Auto games (they know I used to run a web site, now turned into a wiki), and I've explained the rating system, the arguments, what "Hot Coffee" is all about. And 99% of the time, they go "Oh, ok, that makes sense." The 1% of the time they're just looking to steal some of my Triscuits.
Write to your congressman. We should, in the same fashion as those who set up a web site to protest the broadcast flag, set up a similiar Political Action Committee who's whole goal is to educate politicians on the issue and send them notices when they go for "hearings" and "new laws".
If we don't, then I can see an age where the gaming industry is regulated like the comic book industry was. And that would be a huge blow to what could be a fascinating new artistic medium.
Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.
Or Palm Pilots/Windows CE devices (or, whatever they're calling them these days).
And yet, nobody is being forced to make software for the PSP either, so who cares? It's an idea - I don't think it's perfect, but it's better than nothing.
The bigger problem is, I believe, that they don't hear anything but the hype. Most politicians don't troll Slashdot or gaming sites. They have enough to do with meetings, looking at bills, more meetings, campaigning, photo ops, and the rest.
I wrote a small piece on this not too long ago that talked about this issue. It's not just that Senator Clinton is believing the hype - that's all she's probably hearing! Who in the gaming community is really going to her and the other politicians who discuss the issue?
Where's the Hollywood style lobbyists from the gaming industry? Isn't this what the ESRB and other gaming organizations should be doing - going to politicians and explaining how an R rating is the same as an M rating, how they're working with stores to keep M rated games out of the hands of minors (and if they aren't, then they damn well better be before Washington does it for them), why the "Hot Coffee" mod was never meant to be played and discovered by people voluntarily choosing to play the nude scene (and if they are minors, do you really think they can't get nude people easier than installing a mod in a $50 PC game?).
Yeah, I'm pissed at Ms. Clinton and Thomson and all of the ilk who "don't get it" - but I don't entirely blame them, because odds are there are few people who have really taken the time to explain it to all of them. (Well, except for Thomson - in my opinion, he's just a money grubbing lawyer now using nudity-in-games claims to line his pocket).
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I wrote a thing on this some time ago, but here's my humble thoughts. They are probably flawed, but it's a good launching point.
What I would do as Sony is release a $100 "amateur developers kit", with the license that all programs created can only be offered free of charge unless published by Sony, and Sony has no liability on programs. With the program as compiled is a big warning "Sony takes no responsibility if you break your PSP running this program!"
This way, Sony gets both money and developers creating content. They can cherry pick what they really like and publish it if they want (since the author is not allowed to charge money under the license). Regular publishers know that they have more competition, but as the PSP's list of apps grow this sells more PSP's, so "big name" developers get to step up and market to a larger base. (And let's face it - shareware/freeware games hasn't killed off big PC publishing games - mainly console competition.)
This is kind of my "launching point" on this thought. Yes, it severely restricts development - but it's still a hell of a lot more open than the Nintendo systems, but not as open as the GP32, so Sony stands to win either way.
Like I said, just an idea. I could be wrong.
But all of the PSP releases are - movies.
Yay. I can spend $20 on the DVD version of the movie, and another $20 on the PSP version (unless I simply encode the movie myself with Yade/FFMPEG on OS X and copy it up to the memory stick).
Seems that Sony's more excited about the portable movie player stuff. Maybe they fear a video iPod so they're trying to flood the market with PSP releases to make the studios think that the PSP is the "format of choice" or some such. Either way, as a gamer the PSP is getting more use reading killyourfm.com than it is as a game device.
Sadly, I've enjoyed too much of the homebrew software to stop now (such as playing my Game Boy games - yes, I own copies of them on my PSP, or Chess, or watching the progress of the movie player that supports AVI and OGG), so while the web browser is nifty, and better playback of MPEG-4 video is nice, I'm keeping my PSP at 1.5 for as long as I can (which means I can't buy any new games, which is all right since there aren't any PSP games right now that interest me, and looking ahead none that will until early 2006, while the DS has some good ones coming out late next month).
Odds are, though, a Sony rep/fanpeople probably read the above as:
"Blah, blah, blah, I pirate software, blah, blah, blah, I'm a thief, blah, blah, blah, I have a tiny pee-pee because I like the DS".
But I'll give points to Sony for at least trying to meet people's needs. Good start - just needs better follow through.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Don't know. I'm suggesting all of this navel gazing about how Apple "should" let OS X run on all Intel based systems is pointless. That if you want OS X on all those systems, then yet - stop buying Macs and write a letter saying what you want. If enough people choose to do that, and Apple was forced with the decision of either clone or die - they'd clone.
But to say "Wah - I want OS X on my system not the ones they sell me!" is ridiculous otherwise, and as long as Apple's making more money than probably every Slashdot poster combined, they have no incentive in changing their business practices.
That's all.
After reading through the article, I'm not sure that I was convinced that it was in Apple's best interests to allow clones.
Look at it from Apple's point of view, the things he points out as negatives work more like positives:
1. Forced upgrades. Apple has announced "dual binary" support for their applications for an unspecified length of time, but either way the company has to be salivating at how many people will be buying new machines in 10 more months. And as recent reports show, they're selling more machine now than ever, so it would appear that the "halo effect" is greater than the "Osborne effect".
2. If Apple sales continue to do well after the final shift to Intel, then Apple can keep on their plans: make money off of computer and iPod sales (and whatever other new devices they come up with). Right now, they have a good line of movie editing software which only works on their software set (and they control the hardware to run it), they are developing other business tools (Pages and the like). So as long as people keep buying their machines and their market share is growing with the company making good profits, why change?
3. If, in some future, Apple decides to do cloning, it is in their best interest to do it later than sooner. My reasoning? They can use the next 10-36 months to iron out all of the issues dealing with the Intel transfer, see how the market reacts, how things like an "OS X WINE" works out, and so on. Then, with this expertise, they will be in a perfect position to dictate to cloners how things will work so the "Mac Experience" will be maintained, rather than just throwing the OS to the winds and hoping for the best.
Would I like it if Apple just let OS X free? Sure - but that's not in Apple's best interest. So, as long as they show a steady rise in profit and sales, I don't see them changing their minds any time soon. They seem to be doing what works, which probably makes them and their investors happy.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I think he's referring to the book "Rising Sun", which was the basis of the movie of the same name starring Sean Connery and Wesley Snipes.
The book was probably one of the most racist diatribes I've ever read. Basically, the Japanese are buying everything, putting sobbing Montana farmers out of business, being racists who treat everyone with a physical deformity or unJapanese as less than human, murdering sexy white women - and only our brave, resourceful American detectives can possibly stop them.
I found it to be rather horrible. His other book on business, "Disclosure" dealing with sexual harassment at least had some interesting writing (the scene on the ferry ride home gave me the shivers), but "Rising Sun" felt like it was written to get people to run out into the streets and start smashing in Toyotas.
Once, but then my spell checker caught it.
...already happen?
Dang - and here I was hoping I could seduce you so you'd lick my balls.
Now I have no more purpose in life. Bummer. Obviously your biting critique will cause me to stop writing forever.
[sarcasm]
Too bad they're going out of business any day now....
[/sarcasm]
True story:
"You know that Apple's going to be bought out by Microsoft eventually," my father told me.
I raised an eyebrow. "Oh? How do you figure that?"
"Well, they've only got 3% of the market, and now they've got a problem with iPod inventories building up. People just aren't buying enough iPods."
"Oh. Well, I know I'm getting Emily a 512 MB iPod Shuffle for Christmas, since she's started listening to her own music."
"I have one of those." He pulled into the parking lot at Best Buy. The task was to find a set of 801.11g XR transmitters. It seems that my sister was sucking down all of the bandwidth in the house with her stuff, so he wanted to keep her on the g (54 Mbps) while he coasted at g XR (108 Mbps), so he'd have priority on the downloads.
"Yeah, I remember." My father had received a free 512 MB iPod Shuffle for appearing at a CIO convention or something like that.
"I really like it, but I had to upgrade to the 1 GB Shuffle for more space."
I looked down at the dashboard, where his 60 GB iPod Photo sat in its iPod charger/radio transmitter. "This one's to hold more of my music," he said, changing the tracks from country to blues.
We went into Best Buy. It turned out they didn't have the router, but they did have iPods, of which he bought a 30 GB iPod Photo for my sister. "I got Deby one, and once I had Dejah use iTunes she bought some music, but it doesn't work on her Rio, so I had to get her one. I got Amber a Shuffle too not to long ago." Amber was my niece, his granddaughter.
Once we were home, he went into the back room for a bit and came out with his old iPod shuffle in a purple protector case. "Here - this is for Emily. I don't need it any more."
Emily, of course, was so excited and gave her Grandpa all the thanks in the world. Along with the shuffle came another two protector cases, a set of iPod socks made by Apple, then the dock adapter we had to get so it could be charged away from a computer.
"Gee, too bad that Apple's going out of business because they're not selling enough iPods," I mused.
"Well, Microsoft will just buy them out." Dad started inserted CD's into his laptop, ripping his entire collection to his hard drive to take with him on his portable music player. "Want to help your sister figure out her playlists in iTunes?"
"Ah - sure."
And that is how Emily got an iPod. And I learned that Apple may go out of business in the next bit - but odds are, my family alone will keep them floating for quite some time.
I posted this on my wiki site, but figured I'd put my own $0.02 here since it was appropriate. (Besides, I'm not so sure my server could handle the traffic ;) ).
Whenever I run across people who are against something, I usually ask two important questions:
What exactly are you looking to protect?
And
Do you profit by it?
For example: people who are against abortion would probably tell you that they're doing it to save human life (in this case, unborn children). Now, whether you agree with that statement or not, that's the point: protecting life.
People who are against dumping chemicals in our water are usually trying to protect the environment and our health.
People who are against pornography are usually doing so because they feel, or have studies that show, that pornography can cause other addictive behavior (including increased sexual promiscuity, abuse, etc).
Again - people can argue one side or the other until they are blue in the face, and since I don't feel like looking like a http://www.smurf.com/homepage.html Smuff, I'm not going to debate that here. That's what the "discussion" link up at the top is for. (Go ahead - click it if you need to. I'm not going to stop you.)
But the second question can often be just as important. When Microsoft gives talks about how Free Software Movement is just http://cs.senecac.on.ca/~selmys/quotes.html communism, you know that if Open Source software usage drops, Microsoft's will rise. When a group promoting nuclear energy comes out against the use of oil and coal, you know they're really saying "Nuclear energy is better - buy it!"
Some people protest things for good motives - some are less than pure. And if there's anything that protesters soon learn, it's "use what works", over and over again.
Take the case of Jack Thompson. Not too long ago, there was the "Hot Coffee Scandal". Here's the short version: somebody discovered there was a sex mini-game in "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" (GTA: SA), but no way to play it. In other words, Rockstar shipped a game with unplayable content, feeling that nobody would ever figure out how to turn it on.
Stupidly, they forgot that unlike the PS2 and Xbox versions, people are more than willing to modify PC versions of the games. In fact, PC modifications of "Grand Theft Auto III" are very popular, including the mod http://www.mtavc.com/ "Multi Theft Auto", which modifies the PC version to allow multiplayer use.
So, when the PC version of "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" hit the shelves, of course people started looking at what they could modify. Next thing you know, the sex game is found, someone releases a mod that turns it on, and to the horror of religious conservatives everywhere, people can watch polygons of a naked woman and a man with no penis having sex.
Trust me. I've seen the video. It's not that hot.
Once the news is out, politicians are going nuts. Senator Hillary Clinton wants senate hearings. The ESRB, under major pressure, changes the game's rating from "M" to "AO for Adults Only". Stores pull the game from the shelves. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1441534/p osts Dogs and cats are sleeping together - mass hysteria!
Chart out the steps you have to get to this content: First you have to buy the game. Since the game is rated "M for Mature", this means that you should have to be at least 17 or older to even purchase the game. Second, you have to willingly install the game on your computer. Third, go online and find the mod. Fourth, install it.
The number of steps here are very important: it's not like you can just be play
My theory is that this wasn't done on purpose, but it demonstrates that Google's sources are more "up to date" than Microsoft's.
As least, I hope so. Either way, it only erodes any kind of trust I'd have in a Microsoft solution for encyclopedias, maps, and so on. If they did it on purpose, then why should I trust them for anything? And if done in ignorance - then that means that their competitor has more accurate information.
Either way, it doesn't make Microsoft look good. Which, in a weird way, I almost feel bad about. I'd love to see Google with a real competitor if only because I like seeing competition, because it usually benefits me (the customer (but not consumer)) - but if Microsoft is only going to make a half-assed shot at it, then they may as well stay out of the game.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Don't tell the Kansas schoolboard - they have enough on their hands trying to deny all of the other evidence for evolution to have to handle another one.
Well, it worked to get GTA III off the shelves, so maybe he thinks that going after Sims 2 the same way will work.
Considering that it was the will of the voters, which could said to be the equal footing of, say, voters in a corporation, and it was over 70% of the voters who said "yes", I'd say this is a form of market force - only here the "corporation" is also called the "city council", and the voting is "one person, one vote" not "they who own the most shares get the most votes".
I purchased a PSP first because of the initial draw of Metal Gear Acid (eh - not bad, but not that great really). Putting movies onto it lost its appeal, and right now I'm using it as an emulator with the 1.5 BIOS hacks. (Playing, oddly enough, my Game Boy Color games that I haven't finished, that I can't play on the DS).
But the DS has a ton of games. Between the Ace Phoenix, Advance Wars (drool), Castlevania (mega-drool), Animal Crossing (eh, but I know many geeks going ga-ga over it), the Coded Memories (or Another Code, whatever the name is, and I'm too damn lazy to look it up), and on throughout the year, the next six months look *very* nice between the GBA and the DS - and with my new blue DS I can play both of those.
If Sony wants the PSP to do better, it better stop focusing on the UMB movie announcements. Where are the friggin' games, Sony? The only one that looks interesting to me is "Ghost in the Shell", maybe Popocrolis and Medieval (probably not the latter). I look at the "upcoming games" list on ebworld.com, and it's looking good for the DS, and only good for the PSP if you don't plan on buying movies on DVD anymore (and transferring them to my Memory Stick Duo 512 MB).
OK, so this is one of those "well, I just pulled this idea out of my ass so I could write my column thought".
But if nothing else, it's a very interesting one. Several commentators, including Bill Gates, have stated that they believe that the cell phone will overtake the iPod. You're more likely to carry around a cell, it has an established system of purchasing music (among other things), and so on.
Granted, I still take that with a heavy grain of salt, considering that my own PDA/phone (Treo 650) tends to go about a full day on the charge, and that's from a heavy user who uses it for email, AIM, speech, ebook reading, notes, calendar, and so on. I have to make sure I plug it in before I go to bed. My iPod lasts a bit longer (though if I used it as much as the Treo, it would probably die as quickly, if not faster). The iPod is just a better interface for music, and crappy for all else.
So the concept that Apple could go after the wireless market isn't so far fetched. Would anyone have thought of them a major player in the music industry? They have a brand name that's good (if not growing), and it would be a good way to suppliment the PC business. And it would remove some problems. Right now, according to the rumors, most wireless carriers don't want to carry the iTunes Mobile Phone because it would cut into their business.
So, fine: Apple makes their own service and gives the finger to the phone companies. How many iPod users (and Mac heads) would switch?
For it to work, they would need:
Capital - check, they still have a few billion left in the bank.
Manufacturing - check, not a major problem
Engineers - check, though they'd probably need to hire some
Wireless access points - Hm.... That may be a reach, but as the article points out (yes, I did RTFA) if Disney can do it, so can Apple. Whether that means they go out and buy someone, or just buy up/rent the wireless access points, they certainly have the means and the business acumen. Jobs has demonstrated the ability to negotiate in the past, if done right (say like the current Sprint model I'm using, where $40 gives 500 minutes, and an extra $15 gets me unlimited Internet access), they could make it work. Make the phones a combo phone/802.11 device for Skype/Gizmo like communications, and those Airports become all the more useful to their business model. Or start installing WiMax stations around the country for the same effect.
So, points to the author for coming up with a possibly viable idea. Will Apple do it? Probably not now - they have enough risk on their hands with the shift to the Intel processors and dealing with a potential loss of sales over the next 18-24 months. But if the wireless companies continue to play hardball with Jobs's (note to the picky: his name is Steve Jobs, the plural then becomes Jobs's, thank you) music domination plans, he might just do an end around.
We'll see. Most of this I'm pulling out of my ass, so of course I could be wrong.
The writings of Josephus, who was a Jewish scholar, hold that Moses was one of the major generals or some such for Pharaoh, and brought him much glory.
I'm a little off on the details I'm sure, but you can check out more here.
This is something I'd also like to see built into the next version of iTunes or iPodderX for getting Podcasts and the like (so as to reduce the bandwidth on shows I'm interested in listening to).
Of course, to make sure that Opera doesn't get sued for having a P2P network built into their client that could be used for copyright infringements, they need to add a note into their EULA that says something akin to "Don't steal music, or movies, or - just don't steal, OK? If you do, don't blame us. Thanks." to that their intent in supplying the technology is clear.
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe not for another 10 years until broadband is nearly universal. But it would be interesting to see. I mean, evidently this show has been seen 10,000 times just on bootleg. If it had been legally P2P'ed and promoted at all (some Google ads, ad on Slashdot, CNN, etc) maybe it could have gotten 100,000 viewers. If the pilot got that many viewers, they could put in ads and raise some cash, offer DVD sales, hook into a forum with Google ads - who knows?
Maybe not as much as the WB could have given them, but on the other hand, maybe in time it will. We'll just have to wait and see.
I think guy now "gets it" - he doesn't *need* the studios anymore. Get some funding, put together a pilot and a few episodes, and then do it himself. He could sell DVDs. He could do it via hostageware (until X amount of money or DVDs are sold, we won't make any more). He could make it, get it popular, then have a major network pick it up. Tell people that if he can raise X amount of money he can film a pilot episode (and if they're someone such as the producer/director of "Firefly" or "Battlestar Gallactica", maybe the fans would do it - look how much people raised to try and save "Star Trek").
Makes you wonder if Podcasting might not take this route. I once listened to the "Catholic Insider" (not because I'm Catholic, mind you, but I liked his reporting on the death on the last Pope), and he had a joke Podcast about podcasting in the future - where people all around the world online edit the video, set up production, then distribute it online with the ads built in (or people pay for certain individual content).
It's rather optimistic, and I'm not saying the major networks will "go away", but if gentlemen such as this guy can go "Woah - wait - now I have an option on how to promote my work", then there's a chance that it will bring a new level of pressure onto the networks. Which would mean more competition. And that is always good for the customer (I don't like using the word "consumer" for myself, sorry).
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be totally wrong. But I hope not.