Gaming Innovation: The Dark Age of Gaming?
I’m a relatively hard core gamer. I’ve played video games for ages and have owned nearly every console ever made. I say nearly every console, but there are some I’ve chosen not to own. Specifically, the Vectrex, the Neo Geo and the Atari Jaguar, just to name a few. Basically, lesser consoles that really didn’t go anywhere. I digress.
Necessity is the mother of invention
Entertainment is a huge business. With music, movies, books and theater, it was inevitable that when electronic technology was invented, someone would find a way to use it for entertainment value. Enter Nolan Bushnell who created the first commercially sold arcade video game. Albeit, not the first coin operated video game. Needless to say, after that the race was on. Magnavox was the first to the home market with their Magnavox Odyssey console without sound and which included a game similar to the later Atari Pong.
These early video games sparked a revolution in home electronic entertainment that leads us up to video games we play today. From the widescreen hardcore franchises such as Call of Duty, Halo, Assassin’s Creed, Grand Theft Auto, Zelda and Need for Speed to the massively online multiplayer systems of World of Warcraft to the small screen games like Farmville and Angry Birds. We have tons of options for entertaining ourselves with video games. All of these games are massive leaps ahead of Pong, Space Invaders, Defender and Battle Zone of years long past.
Waxing Nostalgic
I look fondly on these past video games for a lot of reasons. They were inventive and different. The developers were always trying to find a new way to bring their idea to that small 4:3 arcade screen. And ‘wow’ us they did with such inventive titles as Gauntlet, Paperboy, Battle Zone, Marble Madness, Joust, Sinistar, Dig Dug and even Donkey Kong. Simplistic games, yes, but challenging, unique and different. These were games that really defied categorization other than being ‘level based’, but just about every game today has levels. These spurred our imagination and let us meld into that video game world for a short time and then move to another one with a completely different concept. To take our minds off of whatever it was we were doing. Yes, these were all arcade games, but they were inventive, unique and different. In fact, during the arcade heyday, it was rare to find games copying each other.
Lack of Inventiveness
Gone are those unique inventive days where you could walk into an arcade and find something new, original and unique to play. Today, it’s all about the almighty buck. Well, 60 of them actually. It’s less about producing something inventive and more about producing something developers think kids will buy. Developers have lost their inventive edge.
Today, games are categorized into genres:
- First Person Shooter (FPS)
- Third Person Shooter (TPS)
- Rail Shooter
- Sports: Hockey, Football, Basketball, Snowboarding, Skateboarding, Surfing, Hunting/Fishing
- Online Multiplayer (MMO)
- Campaign based
- Button Masher (aka Fighting)
- Real Time Simulation (RTS)
- Music
- 2D side scroller
- Role Playing
- Open World (the most rare type of games)
- Simulation
- …
There are rarely any games today that break or even attempt to break these molds. Occasionally, something comes along that tries to think different like Naughty Bear, Traxxpad or Rez. Or, games that try to combine genres like Grand Theft Auto (mission based with free roaming) in a unique way. But, these games are so few that you might not even see one per year.
Talent Drought?
I’m beginning to wonder what’s going on with developers. Are they really so adamant that the above genres is all there is? Have we lost our ability to invent new things? Are we moving into a new self-inflicted Dark Age? I’m not talking about not having entertainment, no. I’m talking about that we as a society have become so jaded, that we won’t accept any new ideas in games? Personally, I want to see more Pongs, Defenders and Marble Madnesses. Not specifically these games, but the idea that these games represent. That is, something new, unique and different.
Take Portal and Portal 2, for instance. These are a completely unique and different take on the first person shooter. This game has also become a commercial success in its own right. It’s a mostly non-violent game built on a relatively unique story, puzzles and lots of humor. The game itself involves challenging puzzles. These games are from Gabe Newell’s Valve. I’ve always found that Valve’s games tend to involve more unique ideas and less trying to fit molds. Valve, unfortunately, is mostly the odd-man-out. The development cycles are extremely long for games from Valve. It might take 5 years to release the next installment. But, I’m willing to wait 5 years to get a unique game experience that’s unlike anything else I’ve ever played.
Unfortunately, most game developers today just want to make the next quick buck instead of putting out award winning high quality unique gaming experiences. This leaves the gaming market fairly high, dry and devoid of unique games.
What’s left are the Batman Arkhams of the world which always inevitably come down to being a button masher after everything is said and done. Yes, they wrap the Batman games around a seemingly open world, but when it comes down to the final boss, it’s just another glorified fighting game. I don’t want yet another reason to get carpal tunnel. I want to have a unique gaming experience. I want to be challenged not by how fast I mash my thumb against a button, but how I can think strategically. How I can take down the final enemy on my own terms, not on the video game designer’s terms.
Inventiveness Reignited
Basically, give me open worlds to roam. Give me tools to use in that world. Let me level up as I gain experience in the world. Give me stores where I can buy things. Let me even buy the stores themselves. Let me earn money to spend. But don’t force me into a final boss sequence that requires me to follow a script. If you’re going to give me an open world, give it to me all the way. Let me make my own final boss choices. Let me decide how to deal with the final boss on my own terms. Give me the tools to deal with him or her as I see fit. If you provide cages and I choose to lock the boss in a cage and send that cage off to a prison, that’s my ending choice. If I choose to have a final button masher battle, my choice. If I choose a strategic battle systematically wiping out all of the boss’s advantages, my choice. If I choose to befriend them and go off with them into the sunset, my choice. Open world means open world and all that goes with that.
Choice is what we have in life. Taking that away in video games and forcing a contrived outcome during the final moments is just not inventive. It’s trite. It’s cliche. It’s frustrating. We’ve spent hours getting to that point only to find out that the final battle is basically a complete waste of time. That the ending is ‘stupid’.
No, simply provide the gaming tools. That’s all the game needs to do. Let the gamer choose the final outcome entirely. Sure, you can tie in some befitting movie ending dialog sequence, that’s fine. But, how I choose to end my game should be my choice, not some game developer’s choice who was sitting in a room miles away and months ago making that decision. Let me make my own decisions, my own choices which result in my own outcomes. I realize that games need to have some form of rules, so there are limits to what can be provided. But, within those limits, let me choose how to use them all. Don’t rope me into a small area, don’t take away all of my advantages that I earned, don’t throw 40 men at me and expect me to button mash them all out of existence in a few minutes. Again, I don’t need aching joints and to inflame the median nerve running down my hand. Give me strategic options. Let me utilize the tools I’ve spent hours obtaining through the game to my own full strategic advantage. Giving me all of those tools and then taking them all away only to force a 40 man fight is worthless, frustrating and not at all inventive.
Even Better Ideas?
Better, give me games that break FPS/TPS molds. Give me games where the idea is completely unique. There are many ways to devise video games in 3D worlds that don’t involve the tired FPS mold. I want new unique games. Games that involve strategic thinking, unique environments, unique character traits (super powers of my choice). As an example, how about a superhero role playing game? Let me choose my character’s traits, history, powers, good vs evil, etc. Let me choose the outcomes that unfolds. Let me write my own story and outcomes?
How about a game within a game? The gamer becomes a gamer within the game and who gets lost in that video game world only to work his/her way back out? There are lots of cool story ideas. It’s the stories here that matter, the gaming aspect is just the tool to get it there.
Basically, we need inventive new unique gaming experiences that do not presently exist. I want to see games that are today as inventive as Pong was back in its day. Games that inspire gamers to think, rather than blindly mash buttons. I like thinking and strategy games within an action framework. Not so much puzzles as in pulling ropes to open doors, but even more unique then that. Let’s get some new ideas flowing into the gaming world. It’s definitely time.
Where are all the games?
Unfortunately, there is a major game drought today. We have many many consoles today: PS3, Xbox, PS Vita, Wii U and even the iPad, yet we’re firmly stuck playing the ‘AA’ titles which are neither inventive nor unique. In fact, most of them are rehashes of rehashes. Things that we’ve both played before and will likely play again. I don’t want to play games I’ve already played. I want to play new unique games. Games that I look at and think, “Wow, this is cool. I’ve never played something like that”. I don’t want to get to the end only to find out that I’m trapped in the ever-so-familiar button masher. I want strategic choices to the outcomes. Games should actually reward players for the most unique ways to end the game.
Even though we have only just ended out 2012 and there were many titles released at the end of 2012, not many of them were truly imaginative titles. Yes, there were highlights in some games, but most of them are far too often been-there-done-that experiences.
Even though EA, Atari, Capcom and the other big gaming companies are out there working to produce new games, they’re just not providing quality original games. They’re providing, at best, copies of previously released and rehashed game ideas. Nearly every one of those big game company games is boring within the first day of play. It’s too easy to get stuck into a firm set of rules that force the player into silly and frustrating game play. If the bosses end up being simple button mashers only to provide the same enemies wave after wave, what makes development companies think that this is what gamers really want? After a while it just becomes mindless, monontonous and boring. The point to entertainment is to entertain. There is nothing entertaining about tedium, frustration and boredom. It’s no wonder I see a lot of gamers posting ‘I’m bored’ on forums even when they own games like Call of Duty. Yes, they are boring.
I suggest that by bringing back inventiveness, uniqueness and originality in games, a whole lot more people will become interested in games and we will become, once again, entertained.
Bitcoin: Scam or Currency?
Note, if you’re not really into philosophical discussions about economics, money and technology, this is probably not the post you’re looking for. Also, if you’re looking for technical details on exactly how Bitcoin is implemented, I suggest you seek your research elsewhere.
[Update for 3/1/2014] — Mt. Gox files for Bankruptcy
Mt. Gox, a bitcoin exchange located in Japan, has filed for bankruptcy stating the loss of around 744,000 bitcoins from its exchange wallet. More info in this Reuters article. How this loss occurred is up for speculation. Mt. Gox claims its loss stems from a known flaw in the Bitcoin protocol. Bitcoin protocol advocates claim the wallet that Mt. Gox used was designed so that it exacerbated the known but usually rarely occurring flaw, which ultimately led to the massive loss of the Bitcoin from Mt. Gox exchange. Because of the massive amount of debt incurred as a result of its loss (among other debts), the exchange has ceased operations and anyone who had Bitcoin (or any other currency) deposited there may be out of luck.
What this says is that is several things. The Achilles heel of Bitcoin is its decentralization and the lack of properly protected wallet systems. The fact that there is no authority to advocate for depositors when companies like Mt. Gox go bankrupt leaves Bitcoin in a majorly problematic state. This situation also advocates for using personal wallets stored locally over using third party companies where situations like Mt. Gox can arise.
Because of the decentralized currency, there is no one to turn to when your Bitcoin goes missing from a large privately run exchange. Situations like Mt. Gox are exactly the type of setbacks that prevent Bitcoin from really becoming a solid workable useful currency.
If you had Bitcoin deposited in Mt. Gox, I’d like to hear your experience. Please leave a comment below describing your experiences with Mt. Gox or any other exchanges.
Disclaimer
This article is written with the sole intent to discuss whether Bitcoin can succeed as a currency at all or whether it’s a scam. This article is not here to discuss the technical merits of Bitcoin, how a Bitcoin is specifically implemented technically or whether those technical details are a valid. Once again, this article is here to discuss if a Bitcoin has any value in the marketplace or is merely a scam.
If you really want to know how Bitcoin is implemented, there are many many technical white papers that discuss this in great detail and that are available from the below mentioned Wikipedia article and through Google searching. This article’s author leaves it up to the reader to do the technical research on the Bitcoin implementation details if you are interested. If you’re looking for that level of detail, you’re not going to find it here.
What is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin alleges itself to be a, more or less, a digital / electronic currency that uses decentralized electronic ‘banking’ techniques involving digital signatures to validate each coin and approve transactions (to validate authenticity of said coin). As Wikipedia states about Bitcoin,
Bitcoin (abbrv: BTC) is a decentralized digital currency based on the open source protocol created by a pseudonymous developer named Satoshi Nakamoto.[1] It is subdivided into 100-million smaller units called satoshis.
This technical implementation was designed to solve the problem of exact digital copies when in the digital form. Therefore, the way each Bitcoin is created means that it is unique, individual and can’t be double spent by the same person. So, when you own a Bitcoin, only you owns that unique coin and no one else (until you spend it).
Want more details? Follow the Wikipedia link on Bitcoin or search Google.
What is a currency?
Bear with me as some of this may seem very simplistic, but we need to start simple and at the beginning to understand the issues involving Bitcoin. Currency is, simply, any object or thing that takes on a given value. More specifically, it becomes a currency when many of these objects are mass produced that all look and feel identical. For most currencies, we equate the value with these tangible objects by ‘size’ or ‘denomination’ of the object. Most of the currencies in play today work with two types of duplicated objects: paper ‘bills’ and flat metal cylinders called ‘coins’. These are tangible physical duplicated but unique objects. The denomination is then a specifier of that specific duplicated object. In the US, the currency is named ‘dollar’. But, it could be just as easily named ‘fred’ or ‘mxyzptlk’ (except that that word is probably trademarked by DC comics). So, as in the US Dollar, it’s a piece of paper marked with the number 1 and the words ‘one dollar’ or a coin struck and marked with the words ‘one dollar’. These unique objects are then the basis of a piece of currency or ‘money’. So, while these are the fundamentals to begin a currency, it doesn’t establish it as valid currency until other criteria have been met.
Simply striking out objects labeled with this information doesn’t make it become currency. For example, you can mint any coin you like, but the simple act of minting a coin doesn’t make it worth money. After all, you can go buy child’s play money or grab some of Hasbro’s Monopoly game ‘money’, but these are mere pieces of paper with ink and hold no value in a currency market. For casinos, they have chips and metal coins, but again these hold no value until exchanged within the casino back to US Dollars (or whatever currency that that casino provides). For example, while a casino will accept their own tokens and coins to play their games, these tokens and coins hold no value outside of the casino (except in the case as a collectible or because of they contain rare earth metals as discussed below).
So, what makes a currency become legitimate legal tender?
Basically, it requires an ‘authority’ to decree that the currency exists, issue the currency and usually a government to back the currency. By ‘backing’, I don’t mean that there’s something tangible backing up the currency (like gold or land), I mean that the government has a gun-wielding military force at its disposal. Having such force at someone’s disposal gives that someone power. With power comes the ability to enforce rules. And then, rules establish policy, policy establishes currency, currency establishes an economy along with such things as capitalism and that establishes the ability to buy and sell things. Keep in mind that buying and selling will happen with or without currency. It’s just that currency makes it easier and more standardized. So, instead of having to hand over a bushel of apples in trade for a bail of hay for your horse (i.e., random bartering), you can hand over 25 dollars instead. And because many people have all handed over around 25 dollars for a bail of hay, that establishes that a bail of hay is ‘worth’ around 25 dollars. That also establishes at once, the value of 25 dollars and the value of a bail of hay. It doesn’t necessarily establish the value of a bushel of apples until the apples are ‘sold’ multiple times at or close to a certain price.
That means people have to ‘buy into’ that that piece of currency paper (or coin) has a ‘value’ and that that ‘value’ is established by the words printed on it, along with the issuing body’s ability to enforce that this piece of paper is now considered ‘legal tender’. That value is then further established by how much it can buy. Remember that policy establishes what is ‘legal’ and the power to enforce that policy is what puts the power behind that piece of paper which is then considered ‘legal tender’. The government and the issuing body (not necessarily the same thing) lend legitimacy to the currency by power, policy and the ability to enforce policy. Note that tangible currency created by decree and enforced by power is called ‘fiat currency’.
Of course, ‘the people’ have to allow that government to wield the power. The reason the people give the government power is in exchange for protections. So, in exchange for allowing the government to remain in power, the government will provide protections for the people in the form of such things as a police force, a fire department, a military and some types of health services. Of course, these protections aren’t without costs (i.e., read taxes or payments using, of course, the decreed currency). But, the protections are established by the government.
One additional thing is that not only does the government and the issuing body have to recognize the currency as valid, but so do other worldly governmental bodies. So, a currency must be recognized as valid by other governments to be useful in those other locales. It’s not an absolute requirement, but unless other governmental bodies recognize the currency as valid, it cannot be used in exchange for other currencies. Without being recognized by other countries, this then makes it hard to, for example, buy things from other countries with our currency. Once recognized, however, the currency can then be exchanged to other forms of currency around the world and purchases can be made. And with that, foreign currency exchange is born, which is a much more lengthy discussion than is required here.
The bottom line is that ‘the people’ give their trust to the government to both decree and ‘back’ the currency as valid. So then we all have to agree that the ‘dollar’ has value, what that value is and how much it will ‘buy’.
Digital vs Real World currency
Bitcoin does not have a governmental power behind it. It does not have a governmental sanctioned entity issuing the currency. It is not recognized by any governmental force as a legitimate or legal currency. It was developed by a technical engineer with an open standard protocol and is backed by nothing other than a relatively strong encryption algorithm and a set of established exchanges (where to buy Bitcoin). So, as long as the encryption algorithm cannot be cracked, each issued Bitcoin is a unique and individual entity. If it ever is cracked, the whole Bitcoin system falls apart.
Let’s compare the difference between a tangible ‘dollar’ and a Bitcoin. A tangible dollar is a physical unique piece of fiat currency. That is, it’s a tangible thing you can put in your pocket, it has a unique serial number (at least the bills have these) and are so stamped by the issuing authority. Ignoring for the moment that these tangible ‘dollars’ can be reproduced (read counterfeit) by unauthorized entities, each ‘dollar’ is its own unique entity. Counterfeit bills are usually identifiable because the ‘original’ issuer uses anti-counterfeit techniques that establish parts of the bill which cannot be duplicate easily. However, counterfeiting is a problem with any currency. Or, at least, in real world currency. That’s why bills and coins are redesigned periodically.
So, when you have ten tangible dollars, they are real physical bills. In a digital world, these rules can’t apply. In a digital world, it’s all 1’s and 0’s. These can be duplicated infinitely and freely without knowing that that digital file was ever duplicated. So, for example, attaching and emailing a photo of your dog to your friend makes a copy of that photo. And that photo is the exact same as the photo on your computer and the exact same as the one you posted on Flickr.
With a digital currency, this is a problem. Enter Bitcoin.
Why Bitcoin?
Bitcoin creates each coin uniquely through a computer algorithm that generates guaranteed unique coin entities and to prevent counterfeiting. So, each Bitcoin represents one unique digital coin that stands on its own. Each coin was created by an issuing authority using that algorithm and each coin is then registered in a decentralized database of outstanding coins. So, whenever you spend that unique Bitcoin, the decentralized database will log that coin’s ‘transaction’. However, like any currency, the transaction does not need to be recorded. In reality, to verify the legitimacy of any digital Bitcoin(s) when spent, it should be cleared with one of the transaction databases. Otherwise, you risk that it may be counterfeit or double spent. Because the coin was created using a basically un-crackable bitsize combined with each being unique and because each coin is officially registered with the decentralized transaction registry, that coin in theory can only be spent once per transaction. So, even if you manage to copy the coin and attempt to give it away to someone else, it’s still only one coin no matter who owns or spends it. In other words, duplicating the coin file into multiple files still only yields one coin to spend. So, duplicating the coin’s file does not duplicate the number of coins that it is. It’s still only one coin and is valued at whatever one coin is worth. If you give away a copy of the coin to someone else, you’ve effectively just given them one Bitcoin and you’ve lost it. Or, you will have lost it if they spend it first. Again, if you want exacting details on how all of this is implemented technically, please read the Bitcoin Whitepaper.
Suffice it to say that the coins are allegedly unique and the transaction service prevents double spending. So, it effectively makes it useable currency in the sense that each coin is unique like paper money. Which, of course, is the sole goal of the whole technical implementation.. to mimick real world money in a digital way.
Before I get into the spending of Bitcoins, let’s step back and ask, “What legitimizes this currency?” The answer is, not much. The ‘currency’ is not yet recognized by any governments that I know of. Therefore, it is not listed on exchanges with the dollar. In other words, to exchange any other currency, such as the dollar for Bitcoin, you have to go to a Bitcoin exchange. Bitcoins are not openly exchanged at regular exchanges. So, you’re handing over dollars (or other legal tender) to a Bitcoin controlled exchange in trade for Bitcoins.
Think of this like going to a casino. To get a chip to use in the casino, you have to go to that casino’s cashier and exchange your dollars for casino chips. Therefore, you’re at the mercy of that casino to 1) remain in business while you play and 2) to retain the value of the chips while you’re playing. So, if the casino goes out of business and kicks you out of the casino with chips in hand, those chips are worthless. If the casino refuses to exchange the chips back to dollars, again, they are worthless. If the casino decides that a ‘one dollar’ chip is now worth ‘one cent’, again, you’re at the mercy of the casino. This is effectively Bitcoin.
Scam? You decide!
So, this is the place where some people see Bitcoins as a scam. If you don’t personally recognize the currency as legitimate yourself, then you will only ever see it as a scam. The fact that you have to go to a Bitcoin controlled exchange (regardless of being ‘decentralized’, read peer-to-peer) to change dollars (or any other currency) to Bitcoins is suspect. Let’s get to the heart of the matter. Exchanging real money for Bitcoin may simply make the originators of Bitcoin rich with ‘legal tender’ at the expense of people buying into the ‘Bitcoin’ idea as currency, but in reality is destined to fail and become worthless digital files. Where do those dollars go when handed over to that exchange? How is the exchange rate determined? These are all questions not easily answered. Oh, I’m sure the people running the Bitcoin exchange will come up with some colorful answers, but the reality is that who really knows? Unless Bitcoins become traded at a national exchange level and through exchanges not controlled by Bitcoin exclusive exchanges, then we really don’t fully know where the dollars or euros or whatever went after becoming Bitcoins. Of course, the flip side of this is that you effectively ‘bought’ Bitcoins with your ‘real’ currency. By purchasing a Bitcoin, that comes to another issue regarding collectibility, but that’s discussed below.
So, on the one hand you have legal tender which is established, recognized and sanctioned that you can really spend for real world items. You are taking that money and exchanging it for Bitcoin which has extremely limited uses cases, limited spend venues, questionable exchange rates, limited denominations coupled with low supply, no governmental backing, not being recognized by governments and other authorities and the high probability that it will be used for less than legitimate purposes, and this is presently what Bitcoin is. Looking at all of this coupled with giving some random entity real money in exchange for ‘Bitcoin’ can be easily seen as a highly speculative scam. It has a high probability to be or become a scam and, at the same time, make someone (or a few someones) very rich with real legal tender in the process… possibly your supplied legal tender funding violence or other unsavory uses.
On the other hand, you have a possible new digital currency that could succeed if it gains enough traction in various marketplaces. However, the risk vs reward for Bitcoin is clearly too high for real currency use. So, that leaves speculation and collectability almost the entire reason to buy into the idea of Bitcoin, if that’s a reason at all.
Ignoring the fact that each coin is unique and can’t be easily counterfeit, you have to consider what things you can currently buy with Bitcoins. Since it’s not recognized as legal tender or even valid currency other than in very limited uses and by limited ‘businesses’, this currency is ripe for scam artists. That means, legitimate businesses (especially banking) shy away from things that are not considered ‘legal’ or that reside in the fringe of ‘legality’. Any such legitimate businesses will opt for ‘legal tender’, such as the US Dollar. So, adoption by legitimate business is a huge hurdle for Bitcoin. Especially in the banking sector.
In addition, because Bitcoins are now being considered as the standard for online gambling uses (to thwart restrictions on the US dollar in online gambling), this further reduces the legitimacy of this ‘currency’. That is, you can’t run to your local supermarket and buy a loaf of bread with a Bitcoin, but you can place an online poker bet with it. You can’t run to your local car dealership and buy a new car with Bitcoin, but you likely can buy some drugs with it. You can’t buy school supplies with your Bitcoin, but you probably can buy a handgun with it in an underground market. This doesn’t spell good things for Bitcoin’s success or legitimacy as a currency. Because online gambling is one of the biggest scams out there right now, this use case doesn’t make Bitcoin look better. Considering that most of the online casinos reside outside the US, US laws don’t apply to wagers made at those casinos. So, even if you win big, there’s no protection from simply losing all of your Bitcoin when they choose not to give you your winnings (the most likely outcome) or the exchange rate has changed so much as to have lost any gains you may have won. When you invest in Bitcoin to use at a casino, you’re effectively gambling twice: Once at the casino with your wager and again when you go to exchange your Bitcoin back to legal tender.
The fact that you were using Bitcoin, which have few protections anyway and which is then used to place a bet at an online casino leaves you ripe for losing everything you’ve given to the casino. Meaning, you’ve lost your dollars to the exchange and you’ve lost your Bitcoins to the scam casino who’s just bilked you. If you do manage to get anything out of the casino, you have to try your luck at the exchange and hope you can get legal tender back out at any kind of a decent rate.
Is Bitcoin Legitimate Currency?
None of these uses cases, no matter how technically well designed that this currency is, validates or legitimizes Bitcoin as a useful or legal currency. Sure, it might be able to protect you from counterfeiting, but it will never protect you from being scammed. And, if you are scammed, there is no one you can turn to to get your Bitcoin back, let alone get your US dollars back. With the US Dollar, you can turn to your bank or your police both. If you know who the other party is, you can sue. With Bitcoin, all that is likely off the table. In the digital wild west, there’s no Sheriff in town here. So, you lose your Bitcoins and they’re gone. Neither the cops, nor the feds nor the banks will help as Bitcoin is not recognized as legal tender. And, this is one of many hurdles involving the use of Bitcoin.
Of course, you might be able to sue the exchange where you gave your dollars for Bitcoin, but if there is a transaction record that can be produced that proves you were handed Bitcoin, then any lawsuits will be fruitless. If you exchange money for any other good or service (digital or otherwise) and delivery can be proven through a transaction record, there is really nothing that can be done there legally. That you gambled with your Bitcoin and lost is your problem.
Worse, what of the exchanges? How are they managed or audited? Who runs them? Are they even audited? In this case, who watches the watcher? I’ve read a rather disturbing blog article at Nerdr.com about how at least one of the Bitcoin exchanges is manually altering the Bitcoin price to their own whim. So, what does that say of the other exchanges?
Collectible Commodity vs Currency
Bitcoin faces another serious adoption problem: supply. Built into the algorithm at the decentralized exchange is managing how much Bitcoin is in circulation at any one time. So, if you want to obtain Bitcoins, you probably can’t get them from an Exchange until they are issuing new Bitcoin. And since new Bitcoin isn’t issue often, that leaves you to find someone with Bitcoin willing to sell it to you outside of the exchange and likely at collectible prices (which brings up collectibility of Bitcoin). If you do manage to get it, you’re likely to pay the ‘collectible’ price for the Bitcoin. Basically, as of this writing, $10-15 might get you one Bitcoin assuming you can even find someone willing to sell you coin. And, that’s the problem, supply.
For a currency to succeed, it has to remain liquid. That is, there has to be enough currency in circulation all of the time that people can get it when they need it. If it cannot be obtained, it cannot be used as a currency. Which then comes to the difference between Bitcoin being a collectible commodity and being currency. Clearly, even the US Dollar has numismatists (or currency collectors). And, here’s the problem. Collectible value markets operate outside of the currency market. So, for example, the face value of a one dollar bill is one dollar. But, to a collector looking for specific markers, that ‘one dollar’ bill might be worth 1000 dollars as a collectible. As collectors pull money out of circulation marked as a collectible commodity, it removes that liquid currency from the market and, thus, it cannot be spent as its face value. This means that the issuing body has to make up for the currency pulled out of circulation as a collectible and replace that currency with new liquid currency.
Bitcoin faces this exact problem. Speculation collectors are holding onto their Bitcoin as a collectible, not as currency. They are speculating that the collectible value of the currency will rise and they will be able to sell it to another collector at a much higher value than the monetary face value of the Bitcoin. Worse, because Bitcoin doesn’t have stamped monetary denominations, it makes it all the worse at determining the face value of a single Bitcoin, let alone the collectible value of it.
Basically, the speculative collectors are hording the Bitcoin as a commodity and preventing it from becoming and remaining liquid currency. So, each time an exchange releases more Bitcoin into the wild, it’s immediately snapped up by collectors rather than going into liquid motion to be spent. Speculative collectors are the biggest problem that Bitcoin faces today. As there’s so little currency in motion, it really cannot be used as a currency. So, it’s really become a collectible item for people to hold onto and not spend. In fact, there’s so much more incentive to hold onto Bitcoin than spend it, it’s basically paralyzed as a currency.
Bitcoin’s future
The Bitcoin designer was so focused on making sure that Bitcoin was secure and, at the same time, scarce that he/she probably didn’t realize it would become paralyzed by speculative collectors. The reality of low supply of anything only breeds one thing, collectors. Collectors do not spend or trade. They collect and hold with the intention of selling at a much much higher price much later. The only way out of this paralysis is to release so much more Bitcoin into the wild that the collectors have no incentive to hold it any longer. And this is exactly what Bitcoin must do to succeed as a currency. This is also exactly what the US Treasury does to avoid the same paralysis of money movement with the dollar. Note that the release of new Bitcoin has to be so much that it’s impossible for any one collector to afford to horde. While it may ruin the market for collectibility of Bitcoin (and also kill any paper profits that collectors may perceive they have) and also lower the value of Bitcoin, it will force Bitcoin to become liquid again. Until this happens, Bitcoin will never become a liquid currency that can be used for anything more than speculation and the occasional wager, assuming you can even find Bitcoin to buy or spend.
Personally, I wouldn’t invest in Bitcoin other than as a collectible at this point and even that is questionable due to the volatility of that market. Bitcoin has no real uses as a currency, other than perhaps at offshore casinos and other mostly unsavory purposes. Even then, it may not protect you from the IRS or US authorities (if in the US) when you win at a casino. Right now, it’s more or less a novelty investment and even then there are better investment vehicles that offer safer and higher returns.
Demise of the Bitcoin?
There is one other thing that could potentially destroy Bitcoin. If the US Government (or any government) were to take the idea of Bitcoin and implement something similar (and easier) as a national digital currency sanctioned and issued by the Treasury department, this would likely destroy Bitcoin’s main objective, to become the defacto digital currency. The one thing that a US digital coin cannot destroy in Bitcoin, however, is the anonymous nature of the currency, that Bitcoin is not issued by a government (it is outside of government control) and the peer-to-peer decentralized nature of it. In the end, those pieces probably don’t really matter. That the new digital currency works, that it is usable, that it can buy milk and eggs and pay rent, that’s what’s important. Were the US to legitimize its own digital currency, businesses would adopt this en-masse and people and businesses wouldn’t look twice at Bitcoin thereafter. A US digital coin would become the defacto standard for digital currency, at least in the US. Bitcoin would then, as it is now, be relegated to a digital underground currency used for purchases where government sanctioned money cannot be used without penalties.
It’s just a matter of time before the US Treasury department wakes up. As the saying goes, “Fight fire with fire”. Creating a national digital currency solves a lot of problems. It reduces the amount of paper and metal that it must mint saving money buying the supplies for the production of tangible money, it ushers in an even more solid digital economy and it gets rid of Bitcoin all at the same time.
Revert back to iTunes 10 from iTunes 11 (Windows Edition)
[UPDATE 2015-01-17] New Article: How to make iTunes 12 look and act more like iTunes 10
If you’re looking for the Mac OS X downgrade steps, please check out this Randosity article. After giving iTunes 11 a fair shake, I have come to the conclusion that this version is so hopelessly broken that I just can’t deal with it any longer. So, I’ve decided to roll back to iTunes 10.
The iTunes 11 botch
It is very obvious that Tim Cook (and crew) are systematically undoing every ideal that Jobs held for Apple. iTunes 11 is no exception. With its missing menus, unnecessary drop down menus, haphazard interface, missing Radio link (well, not missing, but moved to a hard-to-find area), huge graphical album listings and no easy way to set art on music any more, the whole iTunes 11 release is one big botch. Well, the last straw came today when I tried importing a CD. It imported fine until I stopped it because I realized the import settings were wrong. When I attempted to restart the import, iTunes 11 would only begin at the next track and refused to replace the existing, something that iTunes 10 does quite nicely. When I put a second CD into my second drive, the whole app locked up. Then, I killed it with task manager. On startup, it proceeded to lock up Windows and prevent me from working with the desktop. I’ve never had this issue with iTunes 10. Worse, playlist metadata is now stupidly globally linked. Meaning, if you uncheck a song in one playlist and it exists in other playlists, it unchecks the song there too. So, now checkboxes are global settings across the whole of iTunes. That’s just some of the underwhelming, but major changes in iTunes 11. I’ve had it with iTunes 11 and all of its stupid new quirks.
Rewriting that much of an app is really a gamble and this is one gamble didn’t pay off. I’ve heard some people seem to like some of the changes. I’m not one of them. Seriously, what was the benefit to changing the interface that radically for no end-user payoff? I mean, at least give us users some kind of a bone to endure that kind of radical change. There just isn’t any reward for dealing with this massive of a change. All we get is whole lot of learning curve, fighting through bugs, dealing with stupidity in UI design all without any substantial ease of use improvements.
Restoring iTunes 10
Well, I finally made the decision to revert back to iTunes 10. The first problem was locating the most recent version of iTunes 10. Thankfully, Apple Support keeps older iTunes versions online (or at least, they’re there now). So, if you are thinking of reverting back to iTunes 10, you might want to grab your copy now before they take it down. But, keep in mind that once you’ve upgraded to iTunes 11, your ‘iTunes Library.itl’ (What are the iTunes library files?) file will be updated to the latest format which is incompatible with iTunes 10. So, you will have to restore back to an older version of library.itl or possibly face rebuilding your entire media library from files on disk.
Steps to revert on Windows:
- Download iTunes 10 from the above link
- Start->Control Panel->Programs and Features
- Make note of the iTunes 11 ‘Installed On’ date.
- Uninstall iTunes 11
- Install iTunes 10
- Don’t start iTunes 10 at this point or you will receive an error stating that library.itl was created by a newer version. Continue on with the steps below.
- Go to C:\Users\<your user>\Music\iTunes
- Rename ‘iTunes Library.itl’ to ‘iTunes library.iTunes11.itl’ (in case you want to revert back using this file)
- Note the space in the name
- Copy the most recent backup of ‘iTunes Library.itl’ or of a date just before you installed iTunes 11
- Copy C:\Users\<your user>\Music\iTunes\Previous iTunes Libraries\library.<date>.itl to
- C:\Users\<your user>\Music\iTunes\library.itl
- If you don’t have a backup copy, you can simply delete ‘iTunes Library.itl’, but you’ll probably have to rebuild your media library from scratch. Deleting this file doesn’t delete your music, it will just remove iTunes’ reference to it.
- If you have a ‘iTunes Music Library.xml’, you may be able to import that to rebuild your library more easily.
- You should regularly export your library as ‘iTunes Music Library.xml’ anyway in case iTunes ever gets corrupted.
- Once you have iTunes 10 installed and ‘iTunes Library.itl’ recovered, you can start up iTunes 10. Assuming the ‘iTunes Library.itl’ was a backup created by iTunes 10, it should start just fine. If it doesn’t, keep recovering older ‘iTunes Library.<date>.itl’ backup files until you find one that works.
Now you’ll want to review your library to ensure that any new music you’ve bought or added is there. If not, you’ll have to add the folders of that music to this library.
Note, if you have changed where your library.itl resides, you will have to rename it there instead. If you haven’t modified iTunes in this way, library.itl will be in the above location (or whichever drive is your Windows boot drive letter). Simply deleting the file, iTunes may be smart enough to pull its most recent backup copy, but I haven’t tested this. So, I’d rather choose my library.itl from the backups.
Additional note, you can’t tell which version of iTunes generated the library.itl file. So, you will need to review your backup library.<date>.itl files and locate a dated file that’s before you installed iTunes 11. If you don’t remember the date you installed iTunes, you may be able to find the install date in Control Panel->Programs and Features.
Mac Note: that with the exception of the paths, the basics of these instructions may apply to MacOS X. I’ve just not reverted iTunes on MacOS X as yet. However, you’re in luck, Danny has produced a rollback article for Mac OS X here on Randosity for Mac OS X users.
Apple’s progressive slide
There are some technology changes that Apple makes that work. There are some that don’t. Part of the problem is a quality control issue. Steve Jobs was a stickler for high quality control to the point of perfectionism. This is a good thing in that Apple’s quality was always near perfect when Jobs was on duty. Unfortunately, since Tim Cook has taken over, that quality level has dramatically slid down. The iPad 3 was the first example, then OS X Lion, then iOS 6, Mountain Lion and now iTunes 11. I won’t even get into that thing they’re calling an iPod nano. I still shutter to think that someone at Apple thought the new taller iPod nano would actually have a real world use case over the ‘watch’ version? I should just avoid the obvious discussion about the whole taller nano debacle.
I’m not sure what the Apple engineers are thinking at this point, but one thing is crystal clear. There is no one at Apple driving quality control either at a software or hardware level. I doubt that Steve Jobs would have ever let iTunes 11 see the light of day the way it is now. The changes were far too drastic requiring a huge learning curve without any real benefit to the user. I mean seriously, what did Apple hope to accomplish by making this drastic of a software change?
For example, if Apple were planning on introducing a Netflix-like streaming service and iTunes needed the software to support this, I can full well understand implementing a needed software change to support this. If they were planning on allowing some new advanced technological approach to playlists, like Facebook style sharing of them, then maybe a change might be required. But, making a change just to make change isn’t useful or wanted. Complicating the interface and moving things to unnecessary new areas is not wanted. Users don’t want to have to relearn an interface just because someone decides to haphazardly move things around with no rhyme or reason.
Analysts amazingly silent?
I’ve yet to see any analysts making any calls on this or any other Apple quality issues. Yet, it’s crystal clear. Apple is not the Apple it once was. I’m sure the analysts are just biding their time to allow their clients to get their money out of Apple before making word of the problems that are just beginning to face Apple. In fact, it’s the same problem that now faces Sony. Sony used to be a top notch, high quality and innovative technology company who could basically do no wrong. Then, something happened at Sony and they’ve not been able to produce anything innovative in years. Apple is clearly on its way to becoming the next Sony. It’s also inevitable that without hiring someone (or several people) of the caliber of Steve Jobs that has both the technological vision combined with high levels of quality control, Apple doesn’t have a future.
As a software developer, you can’t just throw out any change to the wind and hope it succeeds. No, you have to bring in test groups to review the changes and find out how the average user responds to the changes. Apple shouldn’t have any trouble putting testing groups together. But, it appears that iTunes 11 did not get user tested at all. It’s a shame, too. iTunes 11 has some cool features, but those are just completely eclipsed by the poor quality of the software and the stupid design decisions.
Can Apple recover?
Yes, but it’s going to take someone (or several people) to bring quality control back to Apple and someone who is willing to say, ‘No, that sucks. Try again’.. just someone should have to said about iTunes 11 before it was ever released.
iPad mini: Smaller? Yes. Worth it? No.
With all the hype over Apple’s new brainchild, the iPad mini, I’m just not so hopeful about this tablet model at all. Apple has definitely taken a step backwards in this one, which is quite an unusual step for Apple. Typically, Apple always retains previous technology standards it has already set in new products. Usually, it even improves upon those standards. Not so with the iPad mini.
What exactly is the iPad mini?
This tablet is effectively a smaller version of the iPad 2 with a better camera. That pretty much describes it. Many people even go so far as to call it the iPad touch. Actually, the degrades the iPod touch. The iPod touch at least has a market in small handheld touch devices. The iPod touch has a form factor that’s actually useful when you don’t want the expensive 3G data cost tether, that and having access to the rich set of applications available in IOS. So, you can buy into pretty much what an iPhone is without that monthly data tether. Unless you’re on the go 90% of the time or you travel 100% of the time, having a data plan on a phone is pretty much a waste when you are also buying internet at home.
Yet, Apple hasn’t yet to introduce the 3G version of the iPad mini, but it is apparently on the way. That said, what is it about the iPad mini that makes it a compelling device? Well, frankly not much. For me, Apple botched it. Shrinking an iPad 2 into a smaller form factor while adding a better camera just isn’t enough. This is not what Apple is known for, but it is what the NEW Tim Cook Apple will become known for. That is, rehashing old devices into new form factors. The Steve Jobs’s Apple was never about rehashing old technology in new ways. Steve Jobs was always about pushing the envelope to make technology better, easier and faster for the users.
So, the question is, how does the iPad mini fit into that Steve Jobs’ vision? It doesn’t. This is the reason Steve was against releasing a smaller form factor tablet. The iPad mini is everything Steve Jobs didn’t want in a tablet and it is the reason it has not existed until now. It took Steve Jobs departing this earth to undo that vision. That’s why Steve could make Apple better with each and every device and why Tim Cook will begin struggling to keep Apple alive.
Is there a market?
Probably, for people who simply don’t want to carry around multiple devices (i.e., Kindle, iPod touch, iPad and camera), the size of it the iPad mini might work. For me, the 1024×768 screen is just too much of a step backwards. The iPad 3 is a compelling device with its retina display. Why did Apple skimp in this department on the iPad mini? I don’t get it. They’re not known for taking step backwards in technology. This is something I’d expect from Samsung, Asus, Dell or pretty much any other PC maker. I would never expect this level of technological concession from Apple. On the other hand, if Apple had made a phone out of the iPad mini, that might be worth considering. In fact, turning the iPad 3 into a phone, I’d be all over that. I’m rather tired of carrying around a phone and the iPad. Just let me carry one device and let that device be an iPad. With wired and Bluetooth headsets, you don’t need to hold a phone to your face any longer. So, let’s consolidate the devices. That change would definitely make the iPad mini much more attractive as a device.
Weight and Size vs Price
Yes, it’s smaller and lighter, but at what a technology cost? You get a smaller technologically inferior device from what Apple has previously produced in the Retina iPad 3, but at a substantially higher price than is expected for such an inferior device. At $329, you’re effectively buying what exactly? An expensive 1024×768 tablet. Granted, it runs IOS that has previously been known for its stability. Unfortunately, that has changed with IOS 6. What has originally been considered base stability is now gone with IOS 6. Apps like Mail, Safari and even iTunes are unstable. You’ll get a notice for an email in a banner, click on it and the Mail app crashes. Definitely not stable. I’ve also had regular crashes with Safari and iTunes.
So, what Apple had going for itself in stability of IOS is pretty much gone. IOS has now lost its standing as the ultimate goto tablet OS. It’s just a matter of time before the quality of Apple’s products degrades to the point where it’s not even worth discussing. Note, we’re already on the downward side of the Apple quality bell curve. So, unless Tim Cook can manage to crack the whip and right this ship, Apple’s ship is already listing. It’s just a matter of time before it capsizes.
Apple’s Botched Rollout Plan
The whole roll out plan for the iPad mini was just convoluted with its staggered late announcement a month or so after its fall release announcement and then the staggered roll out of the device itself with the WiFi version releasing first. Definitely not something Jobs would have ever allowed. The parts also leaked on the Internet early, so many people already knew the form factor before ever hearing the announcement. Apple needs to lock down its supply chain much more tightly than it has. Again, this is something Jobs would have gone on a tirade as well. Secrecy was critically important to Steve Jobs.
Worth it?
Depends on what you want to do with an iPad mini? While I can definitely see a use and the usefulness for the iPad 3 with its multi-core processor and Retina display, taking this much of a step back for the iPad mini is not the answer. If you really must have this form factor, then perhaps. As a gift, if you really want to spend that level of cash on someone, perhaps. But, even as a gift, it could be seen as ‘cheaping out’. That is, giving them a Toyota when they wanted the Ferrari (iPad 3). Be careful with this one as a gift. For people who won’t use the pixels on the screen, it might be ok.
So, is it worth the price? No. This device would only be compelling if it were about $100 cheaper at each model price point or if it contained a phone. At $329, it’s too costly for such a huge step backwards technologically. The size does not make up for that. At $229, it would definitely be getting much closer to the right price. At $199 for a 16GB WiFi model, the iPad mini would be truly at the right price for that level of 2 year old technology. Asking people to pay $130 more for a 2 year old device is just price gouging, or as some people call it, the Apple tax. In this case, the Apple tax is most definitely not worth it.
Restore a Mac formatted 6th Gen iPod nano in Windows 7
I recently picked up a sixth generation iPod nano refurbished from Gamestop. When I got home and plugged it into iTunes for Windows 7, iTunes recognized it as a Macintosh formatted iPod and said that it needed to be restored. Here’s where the fun begins.. not. Several things happened after I plugged it in. First, Windows recognized it as drive O: and opened a requester wanting to format the iPod. This format panel stays open until cancelled. Second, when I tried to restore the iPod, iTunes kept showing me error 1436, which is a rather non-descript error that takes you to a mostly generic Apple help page that is only moderately helpful. I take that back, this help page wasn’t helpful at all.
Note, Macintosh formatted iPods cannot be used with Windows. However, Windows formatted iPods can be used on both Windows and Macs. So, this is simply a problem that exists because this iPod was originally formatted on a Mac. Such stupid issues that cause such time wasting problems.
How did the first restore go?
It didn’t. I realized the above mentioned Windows disk format panel had the iPod open and the 1436 error was due to this. However, that was just the beginning of the problems. When I cancelled that panel and I tried the restore again, I got a different issue. Basically, iTunes opens a progress bar that keeps moving without any progress. I wasn’t sure if this progress panel was normal or abnormal. Although, I suspected abnormal after 3 minutes without any changes. So, I began searching for how long an iPod restore should take. I found that restore should complete in only a few minutes (less actually). So, I knew something was wrong when it wasn’t making any progress.
Disk Mode
It was clear that iTunes wasn’t going to restore this iPod through its normal means. I began searching on the net for how to recover this iPod and ran into a site that led me to Apple’s How to put an iPod in Disk Mode help page. This page is actually very useful and where the 1436 error page should have led me but didn’t.
What is Disk Mode? Disk Mode puts the iPod into a state that allows it to be formatted as a disk. Well, you don’t really want to format it. Instead, in Disk Mode, it gets rid of all that pesky Macintosh formatting garbage and actually lets you restore it properly. For the sixth gen iPod nano, to put it in Disk Mode, press and hold the power and volume down buttons until the screen turns black and the Apple logo appears. When you see the Apple logo, press and hold both volume up and down buttons until the iPod shows a white screen. This is the Disk Mode screen.
Recovering
At this point, I plugged the iPod back in with iTunes running and iTunes saw that the iPod was ‘corrupted’ and asked to restore it. Well, the restoration this time went like a champ. No issues at all. However, after I restored it, I did have to close out of iTunes and restart iTunes. Until I did that, iTunes kept telling me that the iPod was in ‘Recovery Mode’ even though I knew that it wasn’t based on the screen of the iPod. After restarting iTunes, that stopped and it finally recognized the iPod as new and let me put music on it. Yay!
So, there you have it. Although, it should have been as simple as plug-in and restore. But, Apple had to make this a chore because of the PC vs Mac formatting thing. Seriously, is that even necessary?
Design
Let me take a moment to commend Apple on this design of this iPod nano. When the first long skinny nano was first released, I thought it was kind of cool, but not worth it. Then the smaller squatty nano arrived and I liked that design so much that I bought one. I got my use out of that and eventually bought an iPod touch. However, the iPod touch isn’t useful in all circumstances and I wanted something smaller and lighter. When this nano was released, I always thought it was a great idea and well executed save for the fact that it has no application support. So, here’s where Apple dropped the ball on this one.
The size and weight is awesome. The look is great, especially if you get a watch band. It just needed a refresh to add a few more features like Bluetooth, video (although, not really necessary in my book) and apps support. I loved the square display because this is the exact image ratio of CD covers. So, it was the perfect marriage between a music player and a user interface. Some people complained that the touch display was overkill. Perhaps, but I always liked it, but I have never needed one of these. I still don’t really need one. The reason I bought one is because Apple has discontinued this model in lieu of it’s bigger screen cousin.
The new nano, however is neither nano in size nor is it really that small. This nano was the perfect size and perfect shape. It truly deserved the name nano. However, the new nano is really not deserving of that name. The screen is too big and it’s really just a dumbed down iPod touch. Yes, the new nano has video capabilities, but so what? I don’t plan on ever loading video on it. Without WiFi or streaming mechanisms, there’s no point. I realize Apple wants to enrich their ecosystem (read, sell more videos to people), but this isn’t the device to do it. In fact. this latest nano design to ship late 2012 is really not that great looking. I feel that it’s stepping too far into the same territory as the iPod touch. So, why do this? It’s also bigger, bulkier and likely heavier. The battery life is probably shorter even. It’s no longer a small portable player.
The 6th generation iPod nano (this one I just bought) is truly small and light. It can go just about anywhere and has a built-in clip even! It lacks some features, yes, but for a music player I certainly don’t miss them. If you’re thinking of buying a 6th generation iPod nano, you should do it now while the Apple outlet still has them in stock. Yes, they are refurbished, but they’re still quite spectacular little music players. However, don’t go into the purchase expecting the feature-set of an iPhone or an iPod touch. It’s not here. If you go into the purchase thinking it’s an iPod shuffle with a display, then you won’t be disappointed with the purchase.
Apple’s ever changing product line
What I don’t get about Apple is removing a product from its product lineup that clearly has no competition in the marketplace at all, let alone having no competition even within its own product lineup. Yet, here we are. Apple is dropping the 6th generation design in lieu of the 7th generation design that’s bigger and bulkier (and likely heavier). In fact, it looks a lot like a smaller dumbed-down iPod touch.
In reality, the 7th gen nano is so close to becoming a tiny iPod touch clone that it clearly competes with the Touch. This is bad. The 6th generation nano (pictured above) in no way competes with the iPod touch, other than it has a tiny touch screen. The 6th generation nano design clearly still has a place in Apple’s lineup. I just don’t get why they dump products from their lineup and replace them with designs that aren’t likely to sell better (0ther than to those people who complained you couldn’t play video on the 6th gen nano). The 6th gen nano is great for the gym or while running. However, after this newest nano is introduced, if you want a square sized small music player, you have to get a shuffle with no display. The bigger bulkier 7th gen design just won’t work for most activity use cases. Apple, your design team needs to better understand how these devices are actually being used before you put pen to paper on new designs, let alone release them for public consumption. Why is it always just one device? Why can’t you have both in the product lineup?
Of course, if they had retained an updated 6th gen model along with adding the 7th gen model, then that would make a lot more sense. Removing the older model in lieu of this one, this is not a replacement design. You can’t wear this one like a watch. So, that whole functionality is gone. What I would like to have seen is two models. A 6th gen revamped to add more features like Bluetooth and perhaps a camera and, at the same time, introducing this new video capable model. The updated 6th gen doesn’t need to playback movies, the screen is too tiny for that. In fact, the screen on this new 7th gen model is too tiny for that. Even the iPod touch is too tiny for watching movies, in practicality. It’s not until you get to the iPad does watching a movie even become practical. In a pinch, yes you could watch a video or movie, but you’d be seriously straining your eyes. I’d rather do that (or rather, not strain my eyes) with a much bigger screen. No, an updated square-format touch screen iPod is still very much necessary in the lineup. I understand Apple’s need for change here, but not for the use case that’s now lost with this 7th generation iPod. Sometimes, Apple just doesn’t seem to get it. This is just one of a new series of cracks in the armor that is the new Jobs-less era Apple. Welcome to the new Apple folks.
↩︎
Windows 8 PC: No Linux?
According to the rumor mill, Windows 8 PC systems will come shipped with a new BIOS replacement using UEFI (the extension of the EFI standard). This new replacement boot system apparently comes shipped with a secured booting system that, some say, will be locked to Windows 8 alone. On the other hand, the Linux distributions are not entirely sure how the secure boot systems will be implemented. Are Linux distributions being prematurely alarmist? Let’s explore.
What does this mean?
For Windows 8 users, probably not much. Purchasing a new PC will be business as usual. For Microsoft, and assuming UEFI secure boot cannot be disabled or reset, it means you can’t load another operating system on the hardware. Think of locked and closed phones and you’ll get the idea. For Linux, that would mean the end of Linux on PCs (at least, not unless Linux distributions jump thorough some secure booting hoops). Ok, so that’s the grim view of this. However, for Linux users, there will likely be other options. That is, buying a PC that isn’t locked. Or, alternatively, resetting the PC back to its factory default state of being unlocked (which the UEFI should support).
On the other hand, dual booting may no longer be an option with secure boot enabled. That means, it may not be possible to install both Windows and Linux onto the system and choose to boot one or the other at boot time. On other other hand, we do not know if Windows 8 requires UEFI secure boot to boot or whether it can be disabled. So far it appears to be required, but if you buy a boxed retail edition of Windows 8 (which is not yet available), it may be possible to disable secure boot. It may be that some of the released to manufacturing (OEM) editions require secure boot. Some editions may not.
PC Manufacturers and Windows 8
The real question here, though, is what’s driving UEFI secure booting? Is it Windows? Is it the PC manufacturers? Is it a consortium? I’m not exactly sure. Whatever the impetus is to move in this direction may lead Microsoft back down the antitrust path once again. Excluding all other operating systems from PC hardware is a dangerous precedent as this has not been attempted on this hardware before. Yes, with phones, iPads and other ‘closed’ devices, we accept this. On PC hardware, we have not accepted this ‘closed’ nature because it has never been closed. So, this is a dangerous game Microsoft is playing, once again.
Microsoft anti-trust suit renewed?
Microsoft should tread on this ground carefully. Asking PC manufacturers to lock PCs to exclusively Windows 8 use is a lawsuit waiting to happen. It’s just a matter of time before yet another class action lawsuit begins and, ultimately, turns into a DOJ antitrust suit. You would think that Microsoft would have learned its lesson by its previous behaviors in the PC marketplace. There is no reason that Windows needs to lock down the hardware in this way.
If every PC manufacturer begins producing PCs that preclude the loading of Linux or other UNIX distributions, this treads entirely too close to antitrust territory for Microsoft yet again. If Linux is excluded from running on the majority of PCs, this is definitely not wanted behavior. This rolls us back to the time when Microsoft used to lock down loading of Windows on the hardware over every other operating system on the market. Except that last time, nothing stopped you from wiping the PC and loading Linux. You just had to pay the Microsoft tax to do it. At that time, you couldn’t even buy a PC without Windows. This time, according to reports, you cannot even load Linux with secure booting locked to Windows 8. In fact, you can’t even load Windows 7 or Windows XP, either. Using UEFI secure boot on Windows 8 PCs treads within millimeters of this same collusionary behavior that Microsoft was called on many years back, and ultimately went to court over and lost much money on.
Microsoft needs to listen and tread carefully
Tread carefully, Microsoft. Locking PCs to running only Windows 8 is as close as you can get to the antitrust suits you thought you were done with. Unless PC manufacturers give ways of resetting and turning off the UEFI secure boot system to allow non-secure operating systems, Microsoft will once again be seen in collusion with PC manufacturers to exclude all other operating systems from UEFI secure boot PCs. That is about as antitrust as you can get.
I’d fully expect to see Microsoft (and possibly some PC makers) in DOJ court over antitrust issues. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. I predict by early 2014 another antitrust suit will have materialized, assuming the way that UEFI works comes true. On the other hand, this issue is easily mitigated by UEFI PC makers allowing users to disable the UEFI secure boot to allow a BIOS boot and Linux to be loaded. So, the antitrust suits will entirely hinge on how flexible the PC manufacturers set up the UEFI secure booting. If both Microsoft and the PC makers have been smart about this change, UEFI booting can be disabled. If not, we know the legal outcome.
Virtualization
For Windows 8, it’s likely that we’ll see more people moving to use Linux as their base OS with Windows 8 virtualized (except for gamers where direct hardware is required). If Windows 8 is this locked down, then it’s better to lock down VirtualBox than the physical hardware.
Death Knell for Windows?
Note that should the UEFI secure boot system be as closed as predicted, this may be the final death knell for Windows and, ultimately, Microsoft. The danger is in the UEFI secure boot system itself. UEFI is new and untested in the mass market. This means that not only is Windows 8 new (and we know how that goes bugwise), now we have an entirely new untested boot system in secure boot UEFI. This means that if anything goes wrong in this secure booting system that Windows 8 simply won’t boot. And believe me, I predict there will be many failures in the secure booting system itself. The reason, we are still relying on mechanical hard drives that are highly prone to partial failures. Even while solid state drives are better, they can also go bad. So, whatever data the secure boot system relies on (i.e. decryption keys) will likely be stored somewhere on the hard drive. If this sector of the hard drive fails, no more boot. Worse, if this secure booting system requires an encrypted hard drive, that means no access to the data on the hard drive after failure ever.
I’d predict there will be many failures related to this new UEFI secure boot that will lead to dead PCs. But, not only dead PCs, but PCs that offer no access to the data on the hard drives. So people will lose everything on their computer.
As people realize this aspect of this local storage system on an extremely closed system, they will move toward cloud service devices to prevent data loss. Once they realize the benefits of cloud storage, the appeal of storing things on local hard drives and most of the reasons to use Windows 8 will be lost. Gamers may be able to keep the Windows market alive a bit longer, otherwise. On the other hand, this why a gaming company like Valve software is hedging its bets and releasing Linux versions of their games. For non-gamers, desktop and notebook PCs running Windows will be less and less needed and used. In fact, I contend this is already happening. Tablets and other cloud storage devices are already becoming the norm. Perhaps not so much in the corporate world as yet, but once cloud based Office suites get better, all bets are off. So, combining the already trending move towards limited storage cloud devices, closing down PC systems in this way is, at best, one more nail in Windows’ coffin. At worst, Redmond is playing Taps for Windows.
Closing down the PC market in this way is not the answer. Microsoft has stated it wants to be more innovative as Steve Balmer recently proclaimed. Yet, I see moves like this and this proves that Microsoft has clearly not changed and has no innovation left. Innovation doesn’t have to and shouldn’t lead to closed PC systems and antitrust lawsuits.
iPad: disgusting and cool at the same time
While I initially thought the iPad wouldn’t be that useful, I have since found it does have a place in the world of computing. Definitely not as a replacement computer, but for quick notes, as an entertainment device, light gaming or web surfing, it works quite well. For other things, not so much. I am even typing this article on an iPad (that I was given as a gift). So, I’ve come to like the device for its limited uses.
On the other hand, the device can be completely disgusting in other people’s hands. I’ve seen some people’s iPads just overrun by dirty greasy disgusting fingerprints and muck. This is the part of this device that is completely disgusting. I just don’t understand how people can even see the screen, let alone use their iPad with that much grimy muck all over their screen. And, that’s the downside of the iPad. A really big downside if you ask me. Touching the screen, while seeming to be great idea, isn’t so great after it’s become an unslightly greasy disgusting mess.
So while I like the idea of the iPad, the screen’s tendency to become a filthy disgusting mess is just a horrid design principle. I’d rather just use a keyboard to type with a mouse I can periodically clean and/or throw away and replace. Most people’s mice are equally disgusting, now that grime has been transferred to the viewing surface which is all the more problematic. I’d rather have the mess on the peripheral and not the screen.
Voice ads during your cell phone calls?
Just when you thought that advertisers couldn’t get any more annoying, along comes yet another technology that, on the surface, seems quite intrusive and may even become a privacy issue. This time, it’s on your cell phone.
Paying to hear ads?
It’s not as if cell phone plans and cell plan minutes are cheap. The average cost per minute is around 10 cents. Some postpaid plans may be able to get the cost down to around 7-8 cents per minute, but that’s only for high dollar high volume plans. The average small to mid-sized plan is usually around 10 cents per minute after taxes, fees and other charges have been tallied. With prepaid, the cost is 10 cents per minute. I’ve yet to find one carrier that has less than 10 cents per minute prepaid plans.
That said, because you’re paying for your service, you are also implicitly paying to not have advertising on your phone during your conversations with other people. Advertisers need to learn that when consumers are paying for something, advertising on that space is off-limits. If the advertisers want to help subsidize our costs for something, then we will be willing to tolerate external advertising. It’s a give and take process here. So, advertisers (and those enabling this new technology) need to understand this part of the equation.
What exactly is this technology?
Good question. It doesn’t have a cleverly coined name yet, so let’s call it ‘jam’ (as in they’re jamming up the airwaves with advertising in your cell phone call.. and it also rhymes with spam :). This new technology plans to use the carriers to interject audio advertising into the cell phone’s audio stream during a call. Specifically, during hold music and other ‘dead air’ times.
There’s really only one place in the call flow where such advertising can be injected with new audio and that’s on the carrier’s equipment. It’s also possible that it could happen right on the handset through an actively running app. Either way, ‘jam’ isn’t what people want.
Advertising during dead air? Why would we want that?
Well, the answer is as consumers, we don’t. So, why enable this technology? Because someone can. That and that someone thinks they can make money from this service as well. Good luck with that business model. Anyway, the idea is relatively simple, but definitely not pleasant. Worse, though, is that the advertiser may even have your personal buying habits and interject ‘relevant’ advertising into your call. Not that relevant advertising is bad, but it’s rather creepy when it’s injected into audio conversations of a cell phone. So, you’re on hold waiting for someone to fix your computer and then injected audio steps in and advertises for that vacation to Hawaii you searched on the web just an hour before you called. Ugh, creepy.
Worse, though, is what happens if their dead air recognizing routine fails and it begins injecting advertising in the middle of your conversation? Ewww… now not only will you hear the ad, but likely so will your caller. If you happen to be on a business call… well, all I can say is ewww.. messy and embarrassing.
Opt-out
For such a technology to have any hope of working to even any degree, there must be an opt-out mechanism. If there isn’t such an opt-out system, users will be calling their carriers to complain, that’s a guarantee… especially if such an advertisement interrupts a business call.
Jam on businesses
The primary target for this advertising system is during hold time. I admit that hold music is often boring and repetitive. But, does that give the right to an unrelated third party to inject jam into your phone for their benefit? And, what of the business on the other end providing hold music? They may have advertising that they are counting on to up-sell their newest products. Yet, if jam interrupts and begins selling ‘relevant’ advertising in the form of a competitor, how is fair to the company you’re calling? This system has now injected competitive advertisements without that company’s consent. I see this as a lawsuit just waiting to happen.
Carrier and phone level access
Frankly, I’m surprised that the wireless carriers would even allow this level of access into their network. Unless, of course, these companies can figure out a way of doing it directly into the handset. Either way, it will require very low level access to either the handset or the carrier network to inject this level of audio into a conversation. The trouble, of course, is what happens when their system goes haywire and injects audio at inappropriate times? And, you know this will happen. This isn’t going to make either caller very happy, especially if this happens during a business call or a conference call. I just see failure written all over this.
Film Review: The Warning – PBS / Frontline Documentary
Rated: 4/5 stars.
PBS’ The Warning Documentary
The Warning is a PBS documentary discussing a warning from Brooksley Born, an attorney and a former Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) chairperson. She explained that derivatives were extremely risky insurance vehicles and sent a warning that these vehicles needed regulation during her tenure as CFTC chairperson, but her warnings went unheeded. She resigned in 1999 from the CFTC position after legislation was passed preventing her agency from regulating derivatives.
Vision of this Documentary
While I would like to rate The Warning higher, its take is pretty much tunnel vision on the derivatives markets. While the derivatives markets did melt down and did, to a large degree, spur the meltdown onward, the meltdown was not started because of derivatives. The derivative meltdown was a casualty of and was exacerbated by the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. Had the mortgage industry bubble not burst, the derivatives market might have gone unchecked for many more years. The warning was and should have been about placing regulations onto mortgage lending practices. The mortgage lending industry is the industry that failed and sent the economy into a tailspin, let’s make that perfectly clear. The derivatives (insurance) market, which speculated on the mortgage industry, single-handedly sent Wall Street into a tailspin (along with several large insurance companies like AIG).
Derivatives and the Mortgage Meltdown
Anyone with half a brain in their head could see that using questionable lending vehicles like interest only loans for the first two years or adjustable rate mortgages were ticking time bombs. When the actual monthly payments came due years later after rates went up to where they should have been, people couldn’t afford pay. This was especially true when lenders were handing these loans to people who could barely afford the ‘introductory period’ payments. So, loans came due, people defaulted and the rest is history. The derivatives (insurance policies) that were issued also came due because of the en masse foreclosures. Insurance companies that issued derivative policies speculating people wouldn’t default en masse began to fail because their speculation was wrong. So then, these insurance companies couldn’t pay off on the insurance claims. So, when consumers defaulted, so did the insurance companies offering derivatives.
It wasn’t as if warnings weren’t being issued regarding the inevitable mortgage meltdown, it’s just that Brooksley Born (the focus of this film) was not one of the people issuing the mortgage warning. Her warning was strictly about the highly risky derivatives. More specifically, the black box non-transparent nature of them. The danger, of course, is that derivatives can be placed on any speculative and risky investment as insurance. The reason derivatives need to be regulated is to prevent companies the size of AIG from making stupid decisions about such risky vehicles. However, from a consumer perspective, banks should never have gotten into the position of issuing such risky mortgages like water to people who couldn’t afford them. This was the single mistake that led to where we are today and that mistake has nothing to do with derivatives and everything to do with Government and the Federal Reserve making stupid decisions.
Overall, the movie is worth watching, but also understand its information’s place in the larger meltdown that was at work in our economy.
Is Obama hostile towards big business?
To answer this question, we need to delve a little deeper. Note, I am neither condoning nor praising Obama’s handling of his regulatory efforts. However, I would like to point out certain corrections that do need to be made.
“The truth is that not even the Franklin Roosevelt administration was as hostile to and ignorant about free enterprise as this [Obama’s] administration is.”
–Steve Forbes.
But, is Obama really hostile towards business? Or, is he making needed corrections? There is a fine line here. This issue also points out a serious problem in politics today. That problem is, you guessed it, money. Without money, the world doesn’t work. Without money, candidates don’t get elected. Without money, businesses don’t sell things and make money. Back up the train.. Businesses make plenty of money without governmental help. The trouble is that businesses want to be able to make laws that enable their businesses to make more money and then have the government be lenient with them when issues arise.
The reality, though, is that like the separation of church and state, the government now needs separation of business and state. The two are oil and water, they don’t mix. Government needs to be able to make law without interference from any party. But, businesses have deep pockets and hefty lawyers. These two elements help elect officials and help sway these same officials into making good on promises they made towards these businesses during the election.
Obama’s corrections
While I don’t agree with every single thing Obama has done, I do agree that change is necessary. The change that he is making is intended to correct the issues that led to the economic downturn. The trouble comes with statements from people like Steve Forbes. Mr. Forbes believes that he is the end-all-be-all-know-it-all when it comes to all-things-business. The trouble is, he doesn’t. Yes, he runs a successful magazine, but that doesn’t make him an authority. That makes him a successful business owner.
Obama is walking that fine line. A fine line that shouldn’t even be necessary. But, there it is. The line that’s there to help Obama help the economy, help spur business and growth and reduce the chances of a repeated failure. At the same time, the line is there to show that government values business, but isn’t there to socialize it. The trouble is, this economic downturn was of our own making. By our, I mean Wall Street. The housing bubble was just that, a bubble. Bubbles eventually burst and this bubble was no exception. It’s not as if analysts and intelligent minded people couldn’t see the handwriting on the wall. When the mortgage interest rates got down to 1% and all of those ARM and specialty loans were being issued like water flowing down the Mississippi, trouble was inevitable. We just didn’t know that banks and insurance companies were tying their financial soundness to these extremely risky loans using credit default swaps.
Until the bubble burst, no one really knew just how deep the rabbit hole went. Then, everything came crashing down and all of the nasty subprime mortgage and credit default swap issues came into view in their all fugly detailed glory. The first evidence of that was Bear Stearns followed by AIG (and the subsequent governmental bailout). I still think they should have let AIG fold, I digress.
Government and Business
It’s high time that government distanced itself from corporate businesses. It’s high time congress made laws to separate government from business (including political support). It’s high time that government stopped being a pawn for corporate businesses. Forbes clearly seems to think that Free Enterprise requires socialism to function. Free Enterprise is not part of and does not need socialism. Free Enterprise means that businesses can do whatever they need to do (within the limits of the laws) to make their business succeed. Clearly, there have not been laws enabled that have dramatically impacted Free Enterprise. The laws that have been enacted have been placed there to prevent corporations from producing risky investment vehicles with a high likelyhood of crashing down again. If businesses are now floundering, it’s not because of laws. It’s because corporations have lost their way and are still expecting handouts. Well, you can keep your hand out, but don’t expect the government to be dropping any coin in it.
Corporations have relied, no… depended on the US Government for handouts. That time needs to end. Subsidies for business need to go away. Businesses need to fend for themselves just like Free Enterprise mandates. If a business can’t make it on its own, then let it fail. I’ll repeat, LET IT FAIL. Failure is also part of Free Enterprise. Businesses that will succeed, will succeed because they produce a good product or service. Businesses that fail, will fail because they don’t produce good products or services.
Lost our way
America, and specifically corporate enterprises, have lost their way. For far too long have big corporations depended on favorable governmental conditions (sounds like a weather report) to help them stay in business. Well, that train has left (and must leave). It should be solely up to you and your business practices alone to make or break your company. It is the quality of your products, services and support that makes people want to buy your products or invest in your company. Nothing has changed about this aspect of Free Enterprise.
We need to go back to a time when quality was the key. When providing a superior product was the answer to getting people to buy things. If that also means deflation, then so be it. Businesses need to find their way by learning how to do more with less. How to manage their staff better and stop over-hiring. At the same time, many of them need to stop under-hiring and also value the employees that they have right now.
The key to keeping your business flowing is by keeping your employees active, productive and happy. Morale is a big problem in companies during any downturn. Once fear sets in over the next reduction in force (RIF), then morale falls to all-time-lows. No, taking the employees on an outing doesn’t boost morale. The way to boost morale is to stop RIFing the staff out the door. Yes, I know it gives a temporary boost to the stock price and makes the shareholders happy, but that’s a temporary fix with limited effects. Once the dust settles, the employees who are left become disgruntled, unhappy and produce less. This is completely backwards thinking. Which is why business has lost its way.
Shareholder value vs quality products
I know, someone’s going to say that it is all about ‘shareholder value’. That may be the way things seem now, but it is wrong. Currently accepted actions that lead to improved shareholder value tend to undercut production, stifle innovation, reduce profit margins and lower productivity. Why would you intentionally do this to your business? So, while these measures may seem to help the stock price, it does nothing to help the company improve its quality of products and services. In fact, in the long run, these actions almost always negatively impact the bottom line. So, the fundamental question is, are you in business to make the shareholders happy or are you in business to sell quality products and services? This fundamental question must be answered.
The true answer to this question also shows that Free Enterprise priorities today are all wrong. It used to be that the customer is #1. Now, shareholders are #1 and customers are #2. This is both wrong and stupid. Until businesses go back to the idea that the customer is #1, corporations will continue to fail and need governmental subsidies. While shareholders are considered #1, there is really no such thing as Free Enterprise when it comes to multi-million dollar corporations… which is why they always need a handout from the government.
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
1 comment