The State of Gaming
I’ve been an ardent gamer since the Atari 2600 broke onto the scene. Before that, I was an avid pinball and arcade attendee. Suffice it to say, I’m a gamer. So, let’s explore what’s changed about gaming.
Early Days
In the earliest stages of gaming, experimentation was commonplace. This is not as much true in early pinball games as the physics were pretty much set, but in video games the bounds are endless. Though, the pinball technologists would definitely surprise me over what they could do with a table and with digital displays. I digress. In the beginning, games like Pong (1972) set the stage as to what could be done. A simple table tennis game seemed a good first step. It was a game everyone already recognized, but now it’s on a screen with no need to carry around real rackets. Now you just moved your finger and the paddle moved. No more physical exertion. What was born was couch entertainment.
However, you couldn’t take the arcade home with you. At least, not for a while yet. We wouldn’t see video games become true couch entertainment until after the Atari 2600 is born in 1977, five years after Pong’s release into the arcades .
Arcades
I loved visiting the arcades during the early 70s. The ambience, the music and the machines (oh so many to choose) all beckoned for that quarter. One quarter, the fuel that drove your gaming satisfaction. Of course, at the time, I was too young to have a job, so I was at the mercy of my parents to give me some money. When we visited the mall, my mother would always give us (my brother and I) a couple of bucks and off to the arcade we’d run. For her the cost was a shopping experience without a couple annoying kids constantly making trouble. For us, we got to explore the latest video games in the arcade like Atari’s Pong or US Billiard’s Shark (where you play as the shark eating the swimmer) or some of those old-style pinball games with the wheels for numbers. No digital numbers on these pinball games. Digital displays would come later.
This particular arcade (my first) was always fun and had unique games. It sat right across from a five and dime store. Some of the games even had some quirky behaviors born from carpet static. One of the pinball games would add a free game just by rubbing your feet on the carpet and zapping the coin slot. Unfortunately, living in humid Texas meant you could only do this at certain times of the year. The way-too-humid rest of the time you had to pay. That is, until the arcade owners figured out the trick.
Throughout the 70s and early 80s, I’ve visited many different arcades in malls, strip malls, at bowling alleys, at batting cages, amusement parks, convenience marts, standalone arcades, at mini-golf and at Malibu racing tracks. They all had their own ambiance and games that made each experience unique and left a lasting impression on each visit. I never tire of visiting a new arcade.
One of the arcades I would occasionally visit had a mammoth pinball machine that used what looked like a white cue ball as the pinball. This pinball game was ginormous. Though it was big, it really wasn’t one of the most exciting pinball games. Its uniqueness was in its size, not in its game board mechanics. I always thought that it played like everything was in slow motion. I always preferred the smaller pinball games. This particular arcade had a cave-like quality that made it seem like you were the only one in there.
Video Game Experimentation
During the early years of video games, many different companies experimented with video game ideas. There were even hybrid pinball and video games combined, though none of these really successfully married the two technologies.
The earliest games were flat single color games. The earliest video games also used black and white CRT screens. When color was needed, flat gel color panels were applied to top of the black and white screen. It wouldn’t been until later that color CRTs would be added to video games.
This was a great time to watch as video games progressed from being simple flat shapes on black and white screens to more complex pixel drawn characters in later games like Mortal Kombat and Gauntlet.
Arcade Video Games
As we moved into the era of video gaming, games became increasingly more complex graphically and sonically, but the games themselves remained relatively simple. Games like Pong, Space Invaders, Asteroids and Shark moved into games like Donkey Kong, Centipede, Venture, Burgertime, Dig-Dug, Mr. Do and Galaxian. All of these games had a simple level based premise. Do something to ‘win’ the level and move onto the next level. The win-the-level premise really had its roots back to pinball and simply carried over into video games. However with pinball, it was less about winning the level and more about keeping the ball in play as long as possible. With pinball, you were typically given 5 turns or balls to play. Once you used up all 5 turns, the game was over.
With video games, the premise changed from ‘playing as long as possible’ to ‘playing as short as possible’ so that arcades could maximize their profits. You really didn’t want the same kid playing the game on the same quarter for hours on end. This could easily happen with certain pinball games, but with video games that was not a goal. As we moved into video gaming, it became less about skill and more about defeating the ‘enemies’ (whatever they happened to be). Video game creators quickly learned that ‘enemies’ were the motivator for play. At the same time, the enemies got more and more complex, ingenious and harder to beat. In centipede, it happened to be a big segmented centipede squirming its way down the screen towards your ‘gun’. If you managed to destroy all of its parts of the centipede, the level was over.
Many games adopted the ‘Centipede’ approach to levels and began building more and more complex ‘waves’ of enemies, such as Galaga. So, from where did Galaga descend? From Galaxian, of course. And, Galaxian descended from Space Invaders. Space Invaders was an early somewhat higher res game depicting ‘ufo invaders’ at the top of the screen that you had to shoot until you destroyed them all. From this game alone descended a bunch of other games, some direct clones like Galaxian, Galaga and Gorf, some indirect clones like Defender (a side scroller). From Defender came some sonically similar games like Joust. Note, there are plenty of games I could reminisce over games from this time period, but I’ll move on to get to my point.
Game Innovation
As we progressed, game designers continued to push the boundaries with newer and more interesting ideas with higher res and more compelling gameplay like Paperboy, Marble Madness and Pole Position. There were also a number of vector based games like Battlezone, Tempest and Star Wars which also pushed the boundaries using vector graphics which would ultimately die as a technology. At the time, though, vector games were some of the first games to depict objects in 3D space (even though they were just wireframe drawings). The vector technology did offer, at least for me, more compelling gameplay due to the pseudo-3D experience. Unfortunately, the vector drawing method would only become a stop-gap technology to getting us to the 3D shooters of today. Though, the games that utilized vector technology were definitely one-of-a-kind and would also see produced a home arcade cartridge driven version named Vectrex in 1982. I always wanted one of these.
In among all of the flat 2D sprite based games, I applaud Atari for pushing the vector boundaries at that time. Without these innovative arcade games to keep us interested in plopping more quarters into the machines, we wouldn’t have kept playing.
Moving on, innovation continued with games like Gauntlet which took the arcades by storm. The Tron games didn’t do so bad either. Even Journey (the rock band) got in on the gaming action with the mostly horrible Journey arcade game set to Journey music from the Frontiers album. An earlier Atari 2600 console game was also released based on the Escape album. We would even see video game innovation in the form of laserdisc based games such as Don Bluth’s animated Dragon’s Lair and Space Ace titles. I have no idea how many quarters I plopped into these machines. There were even controversial video games based on movies, like Exidy’s Deathrace 2000 (1976) where you ran people over which turned into a grave.
All during this period, game designers were pushing the envelope on game ideas without much thought to the idea of game genres. That would come later. So while there were fighting games like Mortal Kombat and Street fighter and racing games like Manaco GP and Pole Position, these games would become a staple at most arcades. There would also be a few sports titles like Punch-Out! and these would introduce the idea of sports games, but the Maddens and FIFAs of the world would have to wait until consoles improved. Specifically, the later linked racing games where 4-8 players were linked and could race in unison in sit-down driving arcade cabinets. Other than racing, no other arcade games braved linking their cabinets for multiuser play. That wouldn’t happen until the dawn of home networking and later Xbox Live.
Arcade Gaming End
So, while arcade gaming has never really ended specifically, it is greatly diminished as a result of the introduction of the Atari 2600 and later the Nintendo NES and the Sega Genesis. It’s funny, Atari, Nintendo and Sega were all huge builders of arcade games. Yet they all introduced home gaming consoles that would ultimately more-or-less kill the arcade as the place to game. I guess you might say that it was inevitable looking back now, but it is interesting to consider this fact.
Keep in mind that all during the later home console period (mid 90s), home gaming on the PC would become stronger and stronger with games like Doom, Quake and Wolfenstein. Thanks to iD software, Doom would actually usher in the era of first and third person shooters and, thus, bring this genre front and center. It would be a bit later that consoles would steal the PC thunder and introduce games like Halo.
Anyway, as home gaming consoles improved from the Atari 2600 through the to Atari 5200 and then later from the Sega Genesis to the Sega Dreamcast, from the Nintendo NES to the Nintendo Gamecube and to Sony Playstation 1, this ensured that home gaming would continue to prosper and that arcades would lose ground. However, even up until the Sega Dreamcast, we continued to see innovative titles arriving at home from games like Blue Stinger to Yu Suzuki’s Shenmue series. With Shenmue being one of the first open-world free roaming games that allowed you to interact with much of the world including real-time season changes.
The Era of Home Gaming
With the introduction of the Xbox and PS2, the whole course of gaming changed. Once these consoles were introduced, the gaming landscape began to be shaped primarily by Microsoft and Sony. At this point, we began losing a lot of innovative titles. Sure, we might see one every now and then like Rez, but these were an anomaly and not the norm. Still, with the Xbox and PS2, the genres were solidified into basically a handful of names like ‘shooter’ or ‘racing’ or ‘fighting’ or ‘multiplayer’ or you get the picture. With these new branded titles, it was easy for developers to create and drop games into the slots and people would understand exactly what they meant.
Still, while the genres were pretty much set by the Xbox and PS2, there were still a few developers willing to go outside of these and produce something new and different, but rarely.
As we move forward to the introduction of the Xbox 360 and the PS3, we see undefinable genre titles diminish further and the standard genre become defined. Basically, if your game didn’t fall inside a genre, it likely wouldn’t be released. Or, it would be released as a low priced digital download game. The only real exception to this was Valve who seemed to be able to get a games like Portal released onto consoles. Still, Portal could be considered a first person shooter even though that wasn’t the primary objective of the game.
With games like Halo 3 and Gears of War on the Xbox 360 and God of War on the PS3, this era saw primarily genre based titles released. Few developers ventured outside of these tried-and-true genres, but the rule was that they could if the developer chose to and these still might happen occasionally. In fact, by the Xbox 360 and PS3, there were effectively no titles that fell outside of the genre labels.
Era of the Home Console
With the 2013 introduction of the PS4 and the Xbox One, the era of home gaming is likely coming to an end. With what I consider to be an incremental update to these consoles (Moore’s law no longer applies), these hardware updates are only minimal updates to their predecessors. There was a much bigger leap in quality from the Xbox to the Xbox 360 (moving from 480p 4:3 aspect and component video to 16:9 1080p HDMI output). Changing the video standard between the Xbox and Xbox 360 and between the PS2 ad PS3 was a huge leap. Not to mention, the cell multiprocessor system that Sony put into the PS3. At this point, the 2013 consoles are at the point of diminishing returns.
Both the PS4 and the Xbox One are simply mid-priced PCs with standard Intel processors and standard ATI graphics cards. They’re effectively mid-grade PCs running proprietary operating systems. In fact, I’d actually say the Xbox One is likely running a modified form of Windows 8 with greatly reduced features from the Xbox 360. The PS4, however, is running Sony’s own proprietary operating system similar in looks to was on the PS3, but also with greatly reduced features. Though, the Ustream/Twitch live streaming features of the PS4 are a much welcomed improvement.
Yet for the cost factor of the units, the games haven’t dramatically improved. Let’s observe the problems. With the new consoles, the genres are pretty well set in stone. At this point, no developer would be willing to stray outside of the standard defined genres: shooter, fighting, sports, real-time RPG (which is slowly being combined with shooter), turn-based RPG, puzzle, simulation, strategy, party (encapsulates dance and other party games) and creative. While there may be some sub-genres such as ‘horror’ or ‘mystery’ or ‘period’ which can apply to each of the genres, these are the top genres that are used. Sports encapsulates all forms of sports including baseball, football, racing, skiing, skateboarding, etc.
In fact, most games fall into one of the following: shooter, fighting, sports or RPG. The rest of the genres are lesser used.
The End of the Console?
As the PS4 and the Xbox One are now available, it’s becoming more and more clear. It’s expensive to create a game title on these consoles. To create a game that looks like Ryse, you need to outlay a hefty sum of cash to license the Crytek game engine. And that’s just to get the engine you need to drive the hardware. Still, once you’ve spent your wad obtaining a CryEngine license, you still need to hire a slew of programmers, artists and writers to develop a compelling story and then work to make that into some kind of a compelling play.
From concept to completion, you’re likely talking at least 3-5 years depending on the size of your staff. Of course, the more people you throw at the problem, the faster you can get it done. But, speed isn’t your only enemy here. For the example I mentioned earlier, Ryse, this game is absolutely gorgeous. The environments are amazing, the characters and armor are outstanding. So then what’s the problem?
The gameplay in Ryse is absolute trash. They could have taken the game mechanics straight from a 1990s Mortal Kombat game and plopped into to Ryse for all I know. The characters move in unrealistic ways, the game forces pauses at the most inopportune times and the gameplay is just overall bad. So, this issue is firmly the enemy of the PS4 and the Xbox One. A developer spends years and loads of cash creating a title only to produce something that plays like Ryse. In fact, Ryse is a firm example of what NOT to do on a next generation console. It is the low bar by which to make sure your game is above. Sure, it’s pretty, but that’s where Ryse all ends.
Limited Games, Longer Create Cycle
This will be the continual battle of the PS4 and the Xbox One throughout their console lifespan. Consider that the Xbox 360 and the PS3 have both been on the market for at least 8 years now. That’s 8 years of back catalog of games. Now, go look at these titles. Many of these games took less than 2 years to produce. And, of course, some of them show it (i.e., Two Worlds).
With these new console generations, the bar has now been raised again. Specifically for the graphics. To produce the graphics needed to look great at 1080p, this is not just a small amount of work. Not only does it require high res textures, it requires high res models. Producing such models and textures is not a quick process. Where the textures may have been half the size on the Xbox 360, they are now twice the size on the Xbox One. That simply takes longer time to produce.
This means that instead of the 2 year time it took for the Xbox 360, it might take 3-4 years to produce a title on the PS4 and the Xbox One. So, that means in 8 years, we’re likely to have half the number of big name titles we have on the Xbox 360. That also means it will take perhaps twice as long to produce titles for the Xbox One and the PS4. Further, this means there will also be a lot of engine reuse with new graphics dropped under the hood. In fact, I expect a lot of texture reuse across many games.
For the game studios that can afford the time it takes, these will continue. For those that can’t afford the time it takes to produce that level of a title, they will likely fold, stop producing or move to a different market.
The State of Games
Unfortunately, today we are seeing a convergence of genres. No longer do we see the new innovative titles, other than in digital downloads as small diversions. Occasionally a Japanese developer will produce a title geared toward the Asian market that will cross-over to the US market. But, that’s rare. Most titles produced today fall into one of the predetermined genres. It’s just too risky for game studios to gamble on an experiment. Game studios want to know their title is a guaranteed success. The only way that can happen is by making sure they stay within the trappings of the genres.
When games were like Pong or Shark might take a few people a several months up to a year to produce the game, it now takes many years to produce something like Halo 4. It’s too risky and expensive to gamble on experimentation. Game studios, therefore, won’t risk this. This is why we are firmly seeing more and more repetitive, trite and cliche games. Basically, we are effectively seeing games that you’ve already played at least twice already. Game studios believes having that level of familiarity with the subject matter will make it more likely to succeed. If it’s similar to a game you’ve already played, they assume, that familiarity will keep the gamers happy.
Unfortunately, the only thing this does is make the game crappy and annoying. Game studios don’t want to see or know this, but it is most definitely true. If you make your game feel like some other game or a game that you’ve played before, then it is that other game. It’s then not new or innovative and becomes an exercise in futility.
Predictions and Mobile Devices
I expect we will continue to see the smaller game studios close or be bought out. The larger game studios may continue to weather the longer cycle, but not forever. They have to see a return on their investment or they will also stop producing.
Overall, I expect that we will see less and less studios producing games for consoles. I also see this as the likely end of the ‘epic’ game. Game developers will begin go move back into smaller more easily built titles like ‘Farmville’ and move away from the epic titles like ‘Call of Duty’ and ‘Halo’. The only game studios producing such titles will be those that are subsidized by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.
Those game studios not being subsidized to produce such ambitious titles will move away from the consoles and begin developing titles for mobile devices. Since mobile computing is pretty much taking over, there’s really no need to own a living room console. It’s easier to play games on devices you are already carrying. Eventually, game studios will realize that it’s far more lucrative to produce games to play on what’s in your pocket than what’s in your living room. Especially considering how many devices are sitting in people’s pockets untapped.
Just a few compelling titles on iOS or Android, like Angry Birds, and you’re pretty well set. Angry Birds has already paved the way, it’s just a matter of time before studios wake up and realize what they are missing.
Zazzle: An exercise in stupidity
I love the idea that Zazzle represents. Quick custom printed promotional items. The theory is that you open a store, upload an image, place it onto an item and order. You can even let other people order it. Unfortunately, that’s pretty much where the idea ends.. at least with this company. Let’s explore.
What is Zazzle?
As I said, it’s basically one big short run promotional item tool. You upload your images, plop them into a garment, mug, stein, iPad case or whatever and order. The theory is that they’ll ship you the item(s) you ordered. What is reality is far different. The reason it’s far different is because this company is completely mismanaged. In fact, it appears there’s no real management driving this listing ship at all. Certainly on the surface, there appears to be the Beaver family who started up the thing that formerly was Zazzle. Now, it’s just a topsy-turvy disaster of a company that can barely even accomplish their core business offerings.
Content Management
Let’s start with the absolute most mismanaged piece of this company. The content management team. This team sits around reviewing what’s been uploaded for ‘violations’ and ‘copyright infringement’. Unfortunately, the management team doesn’t ‘get’ copyright infringement at all. In fact, the law is fairly clear on the point of copyright infringement. It’s not actually infringement until a court of law deems it so. Remember, innocent until proven guilty? To the Zazzle team, however, that a company makes a claim that something is infringing is enough to prove guilt. To prove actual infringement requires a court of law, not Zazzle. Worse, this company is policing alleged infringement on behalf of companies like Electronic Arts. It’s not Zazzle’s responsibility to police any other party’s content. Each party who owns copyrighted material can very well police and ask for removal. Zazzle doesn’t need to intervene here.
However, because companies (especially Silicon Valley companies) are running so scared that they’ll even get the slightest hint of a lawsuit, they have begun acting on behalf of companies like Electronic Arts and taking down imagery that even has the tiniest tinge of violating copyrights. Unfortunately, this company’s team must be bunch of hired monkeys. They simply see the word ‘Crysis’ and they automatically assume infringement and take the work offline. They don’t read, ask questions or bother to even review the actual image itself (which is what is actually in question). No, it’s all run by a bunch of monkeys trained to click delete. See word, click delete.
Forget about disputing any monkey deletes. There’s no reasoning or rational thought behind this team. If you create a ticket to try and dispute, you’ll get a canned response that won’t even tell you why it was deleted. They’ll just point you to the terms and conditions and let you be on your merry way. In short, they don’t want to talk to you, a store owner. Consider for a moment just how stupid that is because store owners are what’s keeping Zazzle in business.
Just The Tip
The Content Management team is merely the tip of this iceberg. I’ve seen so many complaints regarding this company that they are even listed on Ripoff Report 20 times (so far). Worse, no one from the company even reviews Ripoff Report to post rebuttals or head off any of these disputes. As I said, this company is squarely mismanaged.
If you are in business, you would want to take that business seriously. By ‘seriously’, that means treating all consumer complaints as valid and doing something about. You don’t let complaints stew and fester unless you actually want your company to appear to be a ripoff.
Stores
Part of the way this company works is by allowing registered users to put up their own Zazzle store where they can market and sell custom items from within Zazzle’s inventory. This is, in fact, where Zazzle makes its money. Store owners put up content, Zazzle takes a cut on each item sold. Unfortunately, that’s pretty much where this story ends. Even if you do manage to get your imagery through the Content Management team’s monkey review, that doesn’t mean your item will really ship if you place an order. According to some complainants, the items never arrive. Basically, when you pay, you are taking your chances that the item will actually arrive.
Even worse, though, is that you spend your time, effort and good faith into placing your items in the Zazzle store. Yet there’s no promotional system or anything you can leverage to try and get people into your store to buy. You’re squarely left to fend for yourself to get people into your store. You would think Zazzle would offer at least some kind of promotional vehicle to feature stores with certain types of items. But, no. There is no advertising system available. Again, you are left to fend for yourself. It’s up to you to post on Facebook, Twitter and buy advertising space to get people into your Zazzle store.
Worse, even if you do manage to get people into your store to buy, those people could then have problems just getting their paid items.
No ‘About The Company’ page?
For me, this is a huge problem with any company trying to be respectable in its industry. If you aren’t willing to put up information regarding your management team, where that team is located, investor information, address information, etc.. it certainly looks like you’re not really serious about being in business. If you visit Zazzle’s corporate information page, you will find nothing there about the management team, investor information or anything pertinent to this company.
If anything, this lack of information says they are a ripoff fly-by-night. I know, they’ve been in business for several years now, but who knows how that’s happened as mismanaged as this thing is. However, even former employees have choice things to say on Glassdoor. The primary complaints seem to be high turnover, low pay and lack of upward movement. That doesn’t surprise me. Seems to me this is the McDonald’s of Silicon Valley startups.
Recommendation
If you’re a company thinking of opening a Zazzle store, you should reconsider. Attaching your company’s name to Zazzle could taint your business reputation in the long term. This is especially true if you’re trying to grow an existing business. The last thing you need is dealing with complaints from people who’ve tried to purchase from your Zazzle store only to be ripped off.
Instead, if you really do want to buy custom printed items, you will want to get them from somewhere else. There are thousands of reputable promotional item companies who create and sell printed promotional items. In fact, you can do much better in pricing on those items when you buy them in bulk. Zazzle is really to be used for extremely short runs (1-10 pieces). With short runs, you will pay a high premium price, which is quite evident in the pricing model Zazzle offers.
Instead, I highly recommend you shop around for companies whose sole business it is to sell custom printed promotional items. Promotional item companies don’t offer store fronts to people, don’t deal with content management, don’t do short runs, don’t deal with individual consumer returns, etc. No, they are solely focused on getting you your promotional items exactly as you want and shipping them directly to you. Yes, you’ll end up paying more up front for the bulk quantity, but if you’re giving the items away at a conference or event, the cost per item is much much lower. Better, you can pick the exact quality of the item you want. With Zazzle, the quality is what it is. There’s little choice. If you don’t like the t-shirt brands they are using, tough luck. If you want to buy a specific brand of polo-style shirts to give away, you’ll need to choose another company to produce your item.
Lady Gaga: Pop culture turns sour
When Lady Gaga hit the scene, like most other early Shock Artists, she pinned herself to the genre of pop music. With songs like Just Dance and Poker Face, she set the tone (or at least we thought) of what she would continue to bring to the table. Let’s explore.
Early Gaga
In the early days of Lady Gaga, we saw an artist who, not unlike many past pop artists, turned to shock art antics on the stage. Artists who fit into this same mold include David Bowie, The Tubes, Alice Cooper, Madonna, Prince (for his sexcapades on stage), Rob Zombie, Marilyn Manson and Tool. All of these bands had at least one pop hit.
Gaga has taken this same approach with The Fame. She cleverly uses straightforward pop music to rope in her fans. She then treats them to outrageous shock art antics both on stage and off, such as a raw meat dress and matching purse and hat. Or, her bubble outfit. She’s very good at both revealing parts of her body and covering them at the same time in a shocking way.
Her label hired a top-notch pop producer to produce The Fame as a classic pop album. In fact, the songs were very danceable with straightforward lyrics that most anyone can understand. Songs like Just Dance, Poker Face, Paparazzi and Love Game. She followed this album almost immediately with The Fame Monster and continued along these same lines changing the pop formula and song tone slightly, but retaining the straightforward pop lyrics with Telephone, Bad Romance and Monster. Although, by The Fame Monster, you could see hints of things to come, but it was still fun mostly pop music.
Later Gaga
With Born This Way, Lady Gaga took a decidedly different turn. This album saw a drastic change in compositions and lyrics. The music is less straightforward pop delving off into less pop formula at times. She’s now trying to push the envelope of the pop genre both musically and lyrically. Unfortunately, pop music has a very narrow range of formula and the boundaries cannot be pushed, not even by Lady Gaga. If you diverge from this narrow range in the pop genre, you are firmly outside of the genre. Meaning, Born This Way really wasn’t straightforward pop music. At best, it would be considered experimental pop. Born This Way (the album) just didn’t work as pop music as well as The Fame and The Fame Monster (and her charting of tracks from this release proved that).
By this time, though, Gaga had gained a large fanbase because of her two prior releases. Releases that were exceptionally produced and that had mass appeal. With Born This Way, she had to hope her existing fans would accept it. Thankfully, for her, they did. Unfortunately, Born This Way did little to rope in new fans as the appeal of the tracks on Born This Way would be limited.
Tracks such as Judas, Fashion of His Love and Marry The Night took a much more serious and darker tone, something which pop is generally not known for. The lyrics could be interpreted in ways that could be considered problematic by many. Unfortunately, this also means that Gaga has unpinned her roots to pop music with this release. Of course, Born This Way is her ‘second’ official album because The Fame Monster was an extension to The Fame. The fact that this album wasn’t as good follows with most artist’s sophomore releases.
Shock Art
For musical artists to utilize Shock Art properly, it requires grounding one piece of the persona to accepted social norms. For musicians, this means pinning the music and lyrics firmly to a common and popular music genre. Not only does this appear to ground the artist to some semblance of sanity, the shock art can be forgiven because of the quality music behind the shock. The pop genre also, when the music gets airplay, guarantees enough fans to continue to drive the artist forward.
Unfortunately, once Lady Gaga unpinned her music from the straightforward pop genre, she now risks losing everything she’s worked so hard to build. If people don’t listen to the music, the shock art has no place. People don’t go to the shows to see what’s on stage or watch the shock, they go to hear the music. The visuals simply come along as the frame around the music.
When you buy a painting, for example, you find a frame that suits the painting. You don’t buy some random gaudy frame that detracts from the art. You buy a frame that complements it. You buy a frame that guides your eyes into the picture and not to the frame itself. Without good music to back the shows, the only thing left to watch are the meat dresses and gooey concoctions she drapes herself in.
ARTPOP
Lady Gaga is releasing her new album ARTPOP on November 11th, 2013. One track has been ‘leaked’ called Burqa. Listening to this track, it’s clear that Gaga is pushing herself even farther away from the pop genre now more than ever. Some claim that it’s ‘club music’, but I don’t hear it. Club music is danceable. Club music has a beat that continues throughout the song. It is a 120-140 beats per minute track that gets people out of their seats and onto the dance floor. With Burqa, much of the song is devoid of beats. The sections that have beats still aren’t danceable.
The songwriting on the track is not pop formula. Most pop formula has a driving beat throughout with occasional breaks to heighten the track. Pop formula is usually ABAB or AABAABB or ABABBB similar. Where A is the straight sung parts of the song and B is the chorus or hook. Listening to Burqa, it’s difficult to find the formula because there’s not a driving beat and the chorus that’s there is not enough to get it stuck in your head. It’s structured, but not in the way that most pop songs are.
The point is that Gaga is now further pulling her music away from the pop genre and placing it into some kind of no-man’s land where it doesn’t fit rock, pop, dance or club. These types of tracks fit in the experimental category. Believe me, there are not many people out there who listen to experimental music. This genre is reserved for eclectic listeners. This is also not the demographic that tends to pay to attend concerts regularly. This is Lady Gaga’s primary mistake.
Gaga is washing herself out at a time when she could be firmly on top. Her label and her producers are not helping her either. They should be guiding her and keeping her on the pop track, but someone is giving her wrong advice (or no advice).
Ms. Germanotta, if you’re reading this, you need to head back to the studio and make sure your music remains firmly as ‘girl dumps guy’, ‘bad girl attitude’ lyrics wrapped in catchy pop tunes. This is the only way to ensure you can continue your rule at the top of pop no matter what you do on stage. The shock art may keep you in the tabloids, but the pop music keeps you on the charts and fans attending your concerts. Without The Pop, you won’t continue to have The Fame.
How not to run a business (Part 6): Coding Edition
So… you decide to open a business to write and sell software. Your business can choose from several different software development methodologies and strategies to help you get that software off the ground. You can choose the waterfall approach or use an agile approach. There are many approaches that can work, but all approaches have both benefits and drawbacks. Depending on the type of business your company is in, you need to think through how each type of coding method can affect your customer. Note that the goal behind most methods of development is to drive the process to completion, not so much to provide quality. With either Agile or Waterfall, both approaches can let you down if you’re not actively driving quality all along the way. Let’s explore.
Don’t choose a software development strategy just because you think it will allow you to complete the software on time. Any strategy you employ must make sure quality is number one or you face customer problems. Simply getting the software done and on time is not enough. Quality has to remain at the top for any software your team writes.
Don’t let your customers become guinea pigs. Software development is for your customers’ benefit. Thoroughly testing code is important. Don’t let this fall through the cracks or your customers will suffer the consequences and end up as beta testers.
Don’t employ only happy path programming efforts when writing code. Coding solely for the happy path leaves your customers vulnerable to the unhappy paths. Coding for happy path is equivalent to intentionally skipping big pieces of testing. Your customer will pay the price when they fall into an unhappy path trap. Your staff then has to respond by spending time doing data fixups, writing patches to fix holes missed and your sales/support teams will be on the phone to customers giving false reassurances.
Don’t miss crucial QA steps just because you ran out of time. If time is the most important thing when coding, then the code quality will suffer and and so will your customer. Again, do not use your customers as guinea pigs unless you like them walking away from your business.
Let’s understand more why the above is important!
The Happy Path is not happy for your customers. Utilizing Happy Path coding is solely for the convenience and benefit of your programmers in getting work done rapidly. Getting things done rapidly, but poorly is not good for your business or your customer. Happy Path software development simply doesn’t work.
As an example, imagine walking down a block in downtown NYC. You walk the block from corner to corner without any diversions or problems arising. Let’s call this the Happy Path. Now, let’s say you walk that walk again, but this time you stumble over a manhole and fall. You were so focused on the destination, you didn’t pay attention to the manhole cover that wasn’t fully closed. This is an unhappy path. Let’s say that the next time you walk this path, you know the manhole over isn’t fully closed and you avoid it. Except this time you were so focused on avoiding the manhole cover, you walk into a tree. Yet another unhappy path.
Now, imagine this is your customer. Each time they try to navigate down your Happy Path, they fall into one trap after another because your software doesn’t handle these pitfalls. Writing code solely for the Happy Path is definitely not your business friend. Your customers will become frustrated and eventually find another company with a more stable product. It doesn’t matter how good the features are, it matters that the software is stable. A customer places trust in your software, but that trust is broken when the software breaks often.
Coding for your customer
Your customer is the most important thing you have in your business. They drive your revenue and keep you in business. You should never play games with them and you should never use them as paid beta testers. But, writing code that only utilizes the Happy Path intentionally leads your customers and your company into unhappy pitfalls. Wouldn’t you rather have your team find these pitfalls before your customer does? When your customer finds the bug before you do, it makes your team and company look inept. This is never a good position to be in, especially when you are trying to establish yourself as high quality software company.
The Happy Path may only provide between 20-50% tested code paths. The other 50-80% is left to be tested by your customer while they pay for and use your product? The Happy Path only leads to unhappy customers. Instead, if your software developers test a Robust Path all along the way, your software should catch at least 80-90% of the bugs leaving very small percentage of edge case bugs for your customers to find. So, instead of having your team working on constant bug fixes and/or constantly fixing or restoring customer data, your team can focus on the next product release features. Unfortunately, customer fixups and customer phone calls over these issues are big time wasters. Wasted time that can be completely avoided by writing the code correctly the first time.
The reality is when writing software, your team can either spend their time on crash proofing code up front or spend even more time crash proofing the code after it’s already in production and making the customer unhappy. Either way, the problems will get fixed. It’s just that you, as a company owner, need to decide whether it’s more important to have happy satisfied customers or a fast development cycle. You can’t really have both. Customers become especially disenchanted when they’re paying a hefty fee to you for your service and end up beta testers. Customers are always expecting solid robust code. They don’t pay to be beta testers.
Customer Churn
Keeping the customer happy should always be your number one priority. Unfortunately, you can’t do that if the code that’s being written is crashing and generally providing a less than stellar experience to your customers. You have to decide if you want your team to spend their time bug-proofing the code or have even more of your staff spend their time after the release smoothing out customer dissatisfaction issues in combination with bug fixes. So, not only is your sales team’s and customer care team’s time spent making the customer happy again, your engineering team’s time is being incorrectly spent having to rewrite code a second, third or fourth time to fix bugs. Depending on your SLAs, you might even be violating these by having certain bugs.
This can mean at least three times more work created for your staff than simply having your developers write robust code from the beginning. Sure, it might require a month longer development cycle, a bigger QA test cycle, but that extra time will pay for itself in having happy satisfied paying customers and fewer customer incidents. Customer satisfaction keeps your development team focused on the next feature set, keeps your sales team focused on new sales and keeps your customer support team educating users about how to use your product. Quality is the key, not speed.
Bug Fixing after a Release
I’m not saying there won’t be bugs to fix or unhappy customers. Bugs will be found even if your team appears to write the most perfect code. However, writing high quality code from the beginning will drastically reduce the cycle of bug fixing and patches. This means making sure your development staff are all trained and knowledgeable about the languages they are required to use. Introducing new programming languages without proper training is a recipe for problems. Learning a new language on the go is the best way to write bad code. Properly trained engineers will usually provide much higher quality code. Don’t ignore the Quality Assurance team’s role in making sure they have a full and complete test suite and solid full test cases. Unit testing works okay for developers, but once the code is all assembled, it needs a full QA test suite.
Also, if your feature set doesn’t cover your customer’s needs properly, satisfaction can also drop. This can happen if your business is fighting bad code rather than listening to what your customers want. Of course, this is a somewhat separate issue which I will discuss in another installment.
Java
I want to take a moment to discuss using Java for applications. Using Java is, again, a convenience to support speed coding efforts. More and more companies want it done ‘fast’.
With more and more compressed timelines, too many people seem to think that writing software in Java is easy, quick and simple. This is a fallacy. It isn’t. While writing the code may appear simple at first glance, the whole JVM adds a huge level of operating complexity that engineers and management fail to understand or simply overlook. In theory, you should be able to deploy your .jar file and be done with it. It’s not that simple. The JVM has heap space sizing issues and garbage collection that can easily turn what seems reasonable code into a nightmare for your operations team to support and a nightmare your customers. Basically, the JVM is an unpredictable beast.
Let’s understand this better. The JVM tries to make coding simple and easy because it’s interpreted. That thinking is a trap. From a coding perspective, it does make coding a whole lot easier as there are lots of frameworks that can be used and code examples to be had. Unfortunately, nothing ever comes for free. There are always strings attached. Java does a whole lot of internal housekeeping so the coder doesn’t have to. This ease of writing the code is completely negated by the JVM itself. To help the coder to not deal with extra coding of freeing up variables and objects, the JVM takes care of all of that. But, the price paid is the Garbage Collector. So, instead, of coder doing this work in code, the Garbage Collector (GC) allegedly does this for you. We won’t even get into just how ugly and horrible the JVM logging is when you’re trying to determine what went wrong.
In reality, the GC can end up spending so much time doing all of this extraneous cleanup work that no actual code work gets done. The reasons behind this issue can range from bad java code (e.g., object leaks, memory leaks, file descriptor leaks, etc) to huge swings in memory usage (creating GB sized objects and freeing them up often). As Big Data is becoming more common place, the JVM really was not designed to properly handle Big Data objects strictly because of the overhead of the GC. That means you need to have someone who’s extremely knowledgeable about tweaking the JVM’s heap sizes, GC frequency and other tweakable parameters inside the JVM so that it doesn’t get into this condition. It also means much more precise monitoring to determine when it is in this condition.
In some Java use cases with big data, using Java may not even work. If you really need to move big data around fast, you should really consider a compiled language first.
In essence, the engineering team has now pushed the normal robust coding and cleanup work off onto the operations team to manage via the JVM container. Now the operations team have to become experts in JVM management through managing and tweaking Java to keep it properly tuned and working. Worse, they now have to understand the code to even begin to diagnose a root cause of failure. In other words, it requires your operations staff have a much higher level of knowledge about java, java coding and JVMs than when using languages that don’t require Java.
Using C, C++ or other compiled languages
Even though compiled languages can require a much longer development cycle and more explicit handling of objects, they do two things for your company: 1) Forces your development team to write better code and 2) Gets rid of interpreted languages (and containers). Even above the tremendous speed gain your application will see from being compiled, the operations overhead to manage the application is drastically reduced. Writing a UNIX daemon to handle an operational task might require a simple configuration file and a ‘service’ script to restart it. No knowledge of a JVM container, of GC or of heap sizes is required.
Memory usage is always a concern, but not in the same way as Java works. In fact, it’s far far simpler to both troubleshoot and manage compiled applications than it is to troubleshoot and manage JVM container apps. If a compiled app goes off the rails, you know for certain that it was the app that did it. If a JVM contained app goes off the rails, you don’t know if it was the app itself or the JVM container that spiraled out of control.
When a JVM contained app fails, you’re left trying to determine if it was a bug in your company’s code running in the container, if it was a bug in Oracle’s Java version itself or if it was a third party component problem. This leaves too many variables to try and diagnose at once. With compiled languages, this troubleshooting is almost always far less ambiguous and is usually as simple as ‘strace’, ‘top’ or reviewing a core dump.
Business Choices
Whatever approach your team chooses, quality must remain number one. When quality is sacrificed for the sake of development speed, your customers will suffer and, in turn, so will the bottom line. Some customers may be willing to deal with a bug occasionally. But, if bugs are continual and constant after every release, eventually they will go find another service. Stability and reliability are the key to making sure your company continues to succeed no matter whether your company provides an iPad app or if your company intends to become the next Google. Innovation keeps your customers coming back from more, but you can’t innovate if your team is constantly fighting bad code.
← Part 5 | Chapter Index | Part 7 →
Yahoo: When recycling is not a good idea
After Marissa Mayer’s team recently decimated Flickr with its new gaudy and garish interface and completely alienated professional photographers in the process, her team is now aiming its sights on a new, but unnecessary, problem: recycling of long expired user IDs. Yahoo had been collecting user IDs for years. That is, people sign up and use the account for a while, then let the account lapse without use for longer than 30 days. Yahoo marks the ID as ‘abandoned’ (or similar) and then locks it out forever, until now. Some employee at Yahoo offered up the incredibly bad idea to recycle IDs. Unfortunately, this decision to recycle IDs may actually become the demise of Yahoo. Let’s explore.
Recyclables
I’m guessing that Yahoo has decided to make it look like it’s doing something good by recycling something, anything. That is, Yahoo is now letting people Wishlist long-closed user IDs that had been previously locked. Hurry, though, you only have until Aug 7, 2013 to wishlist that long forgotten ID. The trouble is, these old abandoned IDs are clearly second-hand goods. Let’s understand what exactly that means and why you really don’t want one (unless, of course, it was previously yours).
1) Obviously… Spam
Clearly, you aren’t asking for this old ID so you can jump onto that horrendous new Flickr interface or because you intend to read Yahoo News or OMG. The most obvious reason to want that ‘primo’ ID is for the email address. Unfortunately, you have no idea how that account was formerly used or what baggage might be associated with it! So, unfortunately, you will have no idea what exactly you’re getting into by re-using someone’s old ID. The person might have signed up for it just to divert tons of spam into it. Yes, this happens. That means, you could open the account and find it filled with spam in only 5-10 minutes, literally. Who’s to say someone wasn’t using it for illegal purposes and it was shut down for that purpose?
Yeah yeah.. Yahoo claims they will ‘unsubscribe’ the old ID from newsletters and so forth and these will have been ‘idle’ for at least 12 months (the first batch), but they’ve outlined no way in which they plan to accomplish this unsubscribe piece. Are they really going to hire a bunch of people to sit around clicking unsubscribe links and filling out unsubscribe forms? I think not. It’s all song and dance with no substance. Not to mention unsubscribing legitimate email subscriptions only accounts for about half (or less) of the total email volume that ends up in an inbox. So, don’t expect any miracles from Yahoo. If they can stop email, the best they can stop is about 40-50% at most. All of the rest will still show up merely by you having signed into your ‘new’ account.
A new email header?
Oh yeah, Yahoo is also trying to rush through the IETF RFC process a new header called require-recipient-valid-since that takes a date as an argument. This header basically requires marketers to know the exact acquisition date of every email address in their lists. Assuming email marketers know this date, which is a huge and incorrect assumption for Yahoo to make, when the email marketers send email containing this date, the email will supposedly end up in the correct account (or not) depending on the date. Because of this date header, that could lead real email to go missing or spam to show up. Unfortunately, as I said, this is an incorrect assumption. Most email marketers barely know the source of their leads, let alone when they acquired it. No, this date thing simply won’t work. And even then, this header will only work with email marketers willing to follow the rules. Spammers that don’t care won’t bother.
Worse, Yahoo is planning on handing out these newly freed old accounts in mid-August. Like every email marketing firm will simply drop whatever business plans they currently have to retool their applications to support this rushed and nearly useless header. Is Yahoo really that asleep at the switch?
2) Fraud, Account and/or Identity Theft
If you happened to have owned one of these long abandoned accounts or you otherwise lost your Yahoo account long ago, you’ll want to be very careful here. You can be guaranteed that there are already people scouting for popular long dead accounts to resurrect and phish for accounts, theft and identities. These thieves know that banks and other legacy institutions keep email addresses on file until you explicitly change them. Even then, they can have issues even updating this information in their systems even when you do request the change. So, someone who obtains a long dead account and then browses to Wells Fargo or Bank of America’s web site to request a password reset, they could abscond with your account credentials and your money assuming you still have (or ever had) any old Yahoo accounts hooked up to any financial accounts.
Yahoo claims to have ‘security’ mechanisms planned, but good luck with relying on that. I can’t even see that working. Granted, if banks fill in ‘require-recipient-valid-since’ with the appropriate acquisition date in every email they send, the banks can help prevent this issue (assuming the header works as expected). But, that also assumes the bank has an email address acquisition date to fill in this header. That also assumes that the bank can even roll out this header change in the time allotted before Yahoo starts doling these old IDs out. The clock is ticking and Yahoo hasn’t even gotten the RFC completed.
Fraud and identity theft is a very likely outcome of recycling old Yahoo accounts. If you’re reading this article and you have ever used a now-long-closed Yahoo ID for email, I urge you to go through all of your important accounts and make sure you have deleted all references to your old Yahoo email address immediately! Otherwise, some random person could come to own your old ID and can then cycle through sites requesting password resets just to find what sites your old ID may have used. This is the number one security threat that Yahoo can’t easily get around or easily address. Note, that a hacker who obtains an old ID only needs to get access to one of your accounts that will email your real plaintext password back to them and then they’ll work their way up to your bigger accounts. This is one of the biggest reasons this is an incredibly bad idea from Yahoo.
I’d also suggest that for any accounts you do have (i.e., Facebook, Gmail, etc), make sure to add alternative email addresses other than your Yahoo address for password resets and other security related emails. If you can, remove all your Yahoo addresses outright even if they are live. Use Gmail or Windows Live Mail instead (at least until they decide to go down this stupid ID recycling road).
3) Yahoo Mistakes
Ooops.. we didn’t actually intend to give away your live account. Sorry, ’bout that.
And then you’re stuck without an account. Yahoo is not publishing what accounts are under consideration specifically. They only say that these ‘dead accounts’ have been idle longer than 12 months in the first batch. Thereafter, any account that has been not accessed for 30 days is up for reissue consideration. There is nothing to say that Yahoo won’t make a mistake and re-issue a live and active account to some random person wbo signed up on the Wishlist. I can easily see this becoming one of the biggest blunders that Yahoo makes in this process. Unless the Yahoo staff is incredibly careful with this process, it would be super easy to accidentally give some random schmo access to an active live Yahoo account by mistake. For this reason alone, I’d consider closing out all of my Yahoo accounts except for one thing. They would recycle my account string name in 12 months (0r 30 days) and I’d be right back here in this situation again worrying about what of my other accounts were tied to this email address.
Basically, I can’t close my Yahoo account because it’s too great of a security risk. If I leave it open, I risk Yahoo accidentally giving it away in this stupid ‘wishlist’ process. It’s really a no-win situation. After Flickr, I have less and less trust in Yahoo and this is now leaving every Yahoo user in the lurch. This basically means you can NEVER EVER close your active Yahoo account if you want to keep your other accounts secure.
4) Missing Email
Even if you do manage to get your hands on one of these ‘prized’ IDs, Yahoo claims to be putting technical measures into place to prevent security issues. That could very well mean that for recycled accounts your mail delivery will be spotty, if it even works. Meaning, Yahoo may so heavily scrutinize emails heading to these recycled IDs that legitimate mail may simply never show up that’s been marked as ‘a security risk’. So, for emails like password resets to accounts, you may find that these emails simply never show up at all. Basically, anything that Yahoo’s email system construes as a security risk could simply just go missing. This is the most likely outcome of this recycling. Note that this problem could end up extending to every Yahoo account which could make Yahoo Mail a very problematic place for any email purposes.
Excess Baggage?
If after reading the above, you are still considering an ‘old used account’, I really can’t understand why. Taking on someone else’s old email and Yahoo baggage isn’t something I’d want to deal with (are they going to be sure to clear off all old comments and Yahoo answers for this old ID?). So, someone pops up from years past not knowing that Yahoo ID has been reissued and then you get some old boyfriend email, or someone who hated the previous owner of that ID. Then what? So, then you’ll be left with a mess to clean up. Why would you want to deal with this excess baggage when you can get a new account that’s never been issued and not have to deal with this problem at all? However, knowing that any account you create at Yahoo would be recycled later, how could you rely on it for any kind of security? You can’t. So, I might suggest Gmail or Windows Live Mail (or any other free email service not recycling IDs) instead of Yahoo.
Alternatives?
Unfortunately, I don’t see any other alternatives with Yahoo at this point. This is an incredibly stupid decision from Yahoo. I have no idea what the folks at Yahoo are even thinking. It’s not like a telephone number. You give that up and no one thinks twice that someone could use that old phone number nefariously. Unfortunately, nearly every site now uses email addresses to know if you ‘own’ your accounts. So, password resets, pin codes, and all manner of secure information traverses through email addresses.
One thing that Yahoo may inadvertently cause from this change is for Banks and other financial institutions to rethink how they validate a user’s identity. Clearly with this change, email addresses can no longer be trusted as secure or even know that it’s owned by only one person. This throws security surrounding email addresses into complete turmoil for any site that uses email addresses as validation.
Based on the previous paragraph, sites may start preventing use of @yahoo.com email addresses for their services. Knowing that you could lose your Yahoo account and then have it turned over to someone else 30 days later could easily lead to site compromises. To simply avoid this situation entirely, sites that rely on security may simply stop letting @yahoo.com email addresses sign up for service. So, one of the biggest benefits of using Yahoo Mail will end. I’d expect a mass exodus to Gmail or Windows Live Mail after the dust settles here. In fact, this decision may kill Yahoo Mail as any kind of a real email service. Does Marissa have any idea what the hell she’s doing? If I were on the Yahoo board, I’d be seriously considering right about now of ousting this one.
If I were in a position at Yahoo to make this decision, I would have killed this idea before I’d ever left the conference room. That Yahoo is even contemplating making this move at this time is completely questionable. Let’s just hope that when someone’s account is compromised and/or has identity theft as a direct result of this bad Yahoo decision, that someone will sue the pants off of Yahoo. That will at least teach other ISPs that this is not, in any way, an acceptable practice.
Risky Business
This decision has disaster written all over it. This is also a huge liability risk for Yahoo. Yes, Yahoo may have written in their Terms and Conditions that they have the right to reissue account names. But, since they hadn’t been doing this from the beginning and they’re now choosing to do this without proper preparations, this is a huge legal risk. It only takes a handful of users who’s accounts get compromised or who’s identities get stolen as a result of Yahoo’s new policy that this will end in courtroom dates. I can’t even fathom what benefit Yahoo derives from reissuing old IDs, but I can definitely see huge legal liabilities and black clouds looming over this now floundering company. In fact, the liabilities so outweigh the potential benefits to Yahoo, I have to completely question the purpose of this decision. Let’s hope Yahoo is all lawyered up as I can see the court dates piling up from this very very bad decision.
Flickr flustr: When design doesn’t meet function
It’s not often I write multiple articles involving the same topic, but in this case I’m making an exception. I think it’s important to explore and understand the reasons why I believe this new Flickr interface change is such a failure. As a visual artist, I look at the new Flickr interface and wonder what the designers were thinking? See the image to the left. It’s clear the designers were not aware of the many ways that users use Flickr. Let’s explore.
Original Flickr Interface
The original Flickr design was compelling (if not dated) for many reasons and was also useful for many different purposes. The reason the original interface held up so well and for so long is because the original designer’s vision still held true even today, dated as it may seem. “Why has it held up?”, you ask. Let’s examine.
The images were spaced just far enough apart that the images, colors and shapes didn’t clash with one another. Image thumbnails were generally of the same size whether portrait or landscape. The page was centered leaving white borders on the sides giving well enough space for the eye to rest. There were limited numbers of photos per page keeping down the clutter. There was just enough information below each image to give the necessary details about the image (like a placard in a Gallery). From a management perspective, there was also just enough information to show how popular an image is and whether or not it has comments.
Basically, this original interface, while somewhat antiquated and dated, was still very functional on many levels. Both amateur and professionals alike could use and reference this interface for their own purposes. Amateurs could use it to store their snaps. Professionals could direct paying clients to their portfolio without image clashing or the interface being too busy. It was well designed from the beginning for many purposes and uses.
With this original interface, Flickr even began offering limited customization of the page layout such as images alone or images with sets on the left or other similar layouts. Yes, it was always limited customization and I had always hoped for more customization features to come.
New Flickr Interface
The new ’tile’ interface (which incidentally looks too much like Windows 8 Metro) removes nearly every pixel of white space and fills the entire page (edge to edge) with images. It unfairly penalizes portrait image thumbnail sizes over much larger thumbnails for landscape aspect images. So, you have huge landscape sized thumbnails immediately beside tiny sized portrait thumbnails. More than that, because it removes all white space from the page and fills the entire screen with images, there is no place for the eye to rest. It becomes one big jumbled mess of a screen that’s hard to view and even harder to concentrate on a single image. While the original interface design kept the images spaced far enough apart to let you focus on a single image, the new interface doesn’t. Instead, it forces your eye to constantly jump around to find something else to view. This makes the page too busy and way too cluttered.
Worse, when your eyes get tired of focusing on the images, they begin to focus on the white borders between the images. Because the white borders are of odd shapes and sizes, it begins to take on the motif of a badly copied Mondrian painting. In other words, the entire interface is one big cluttered busy mess. It’s not pleasant to view for any period of time. So, instead of taking time to visit a Flickr site in a relaxing way, many people will likely get eye fatigue fast and browse away from the entire Flickr site. The new site makes you want to look at something less tiring and less stressful. Art should be about the images, not the layout making you queasy.
Worse, in no way does this new interface say ‘professional’.
Polar Opposite Reactions
I hear a lot of people say they like the interface. My first initial reaction was also positive. But, that only lasted for a few moments until I realized the problems. I initially liked it because it was something new and a change, but I quickly realized that it wasn’t ‘better’. I hear many people saying that it’s the worst thing they’ve ever seen. That it’s horrible. So, why does this interface generate such polar opposite reactions from so many people? It’s because Flickr went from a general purpose interface appealing to a wide array of people to an interface that appeals to only a small subset of those people.
For a casual photographer who takes photos of their dog or baby or kids, it gives a really great at-a-glance image set to know what you have. This especially works well when the images are mostly the same or a series of similar shots. Also, for those people who like coffee table books of images, this is the next best thing to that. You can bring it up at home on your screen and show people your photo album at a glance. It’s much easier to see all your images at once with this interface. For casual use, these are the people I’d expect to like the new interface. It makes seeing the images easy and they’re accessible. In other words, it’s a little like Facebook’s gallery style. But, that doesn’t make it any less cluttered, busy or stressful to view.
For the professional photographer, the exact opposite is true. You do not want your images crammed up on the same page together like this. It’s busy, cramped, the images don’t flow properly, your eye can’t focus and doesn’t allow your clients to focus on each single image easily. It pits too many images against each other vying for attention. This is bad for a professional. Again, it’s just too busy and cluttered. You would never intentionally build a portfolio that looks this way. Why would you ever expect this from a site like Flickr? So, for professionals, this is the absolute worst interface that could have been built to show off professional photographs in a professional way.
The same above for professional photographers also holds true for visual artists. If Flickr were a gallery, it would now be one wall cluttered with hundreds of images. If I were hanging my art in a gallery, I would want them spaced far enough apart that they don’t clash or create the wrong message. I also would be allowed to place my art in the order of my choosing. Yet, at Flickr, the photostream is still limited to the order in which it was uploaded. This is something that should have been fixed long before rolling out this new interface.
The Interface Mistake
Flickr developers have completely lost touch with why the original interface worked for pretty much every use case. It worked because it offered something for every level of photographer, casual through professional including visual artists. It was by no means a perfect interface. After all, it needed a lot of improvements. But, it worked and it worked well. It was also on its way to becoming something better especially with the latest round of customization features added.
Because the Flickr developers just didn’t clearly understand the full amount of use cases, they developed this new interface that entices primarily just one use case, casual users. The people who snap their baby, their dog, their house or whatever else they can find around the house. These are those people who want an at-a-glance style interface that’s big, bold, cluttered and in-your-face. A virtual coffee table book, if you will. Or, in other words, the Facebookers.
Professionals and visual artists don’t want this. They don’t need this. It’s not professional. It’s not the way you want your photos represented to a potential client. It’s reminiscent of video game or a mobile device or Facebook. It’s not representative of a gallery exhibit or of a portfolio. This is where the Flickr developers have lost touch.
Flickr is a Gallery
The designers need to firmly understand that Flickr is a gallery. We are creative people supplying creative images to this gallery. It’s not a video game. It’s not a mobile device. It’s not Facebook. It is an image gallery. We want to showcase our images, not show them off like some kind of video game or toy or social network. Treat the images with respect, not as toys.
Because it is a gallery, customization is in order. The tile interface is fine as one theme among many display themes, but not as the sole theme for Flickr. Flickr needs to take a page from the WordPress book and offer multiple themes and styles. Let us choose how our images are showcased to our visitors. Yes, customization could easily become haphazard and random, but that’s the nature of customization. It has to. I don’t necessarily recommend allowing CSS level editing, but I do recommend that gallery themes become available. The time has long come for this Flickr feature. This feature is what Flickr developers should have been working on. The tiles theme, again, should have been one in among many different themes available to choose.
Don’t lock me into one single theme that doesn’t allow for customization. If I don’t like it, there’s nothing I can do except move my images elsewhere. Offer me choice. Let me choose my theme and my presentation to visitors. Flickr could have chosen this theme as the default theme, but then let us go into a theme selector and choose among 10-20 different gallery themes. Choice is the answer, not busy unprofessional Facebooky tiles.
Separate Management Interface
Because I’m the manager over my images, I don’t necessarily want to see the same interface that my visitors do when managing my images. I want a separate management interface that allows me to see and manage my images at a glance. I want easy, fast access to my comments, sets, collections, view stats and everything surrounding my images. I don’t need to fumble through the visitor experience only to expend extra time attempting to manage my images through a cluttered and busy interface. I want a clean concise management interface that users don’t see. It doesn’t really matter how pretty the management interface is as long as it’s functional for image management. Functionality is the key to image management.
The Fiasco
There were a number of mistakes made here. The developers did not do enough homework to understand why the original interface worked so well for so many use cases before rolling out the new interface. They refused to see just how narrow of a use case is the new interface. It really only appeals to one of many use cases. Additionally, Yahoo offered no preview. In other words, there was no beta test for users to give feedback before rolling it out site wide. Offering a preview window would have saved Flickr a lot of grief and is probably the single biggest mistake Flickr made in this whole update.
Developmentally, the mistakes they made included not offering customization. Users have been clamoring for such features as rearranging the image order of their stream. I agree, I would love to have this feature and have been waiting for it for a very long time. I would like to see other features regarding things like frames and virtual lighting. I’d like to have seen more Ajax features (easy drag and arrange). Users want more customization, not less. Instead, they locked every single user into a single interface experience that not only alienates most professional use cases, it also offers no customization to change things about the interface. In other words, Flickr has take a huge step backwards. The interface may appear more slick, but the lack of customization takes us back to a time well before Yahoo ever bought Flickr.
Then it comes to bugs. Instead of actually correcting existing bugs and misfeatures, they worked on changing the style of the main page leaving all of the existing bugs and misfeatures out there. Seriously, the most important thing is to make the landing page ‘pretty’? What about all of the features that were not complete or the bugs that were not fixed, or the features that were never added?
The final mistake, the treatment of Pro account holders. With the increase to 1TB of space and upload limits well increased, the need to purchase Pro is really no longer necessary. Those who recently purchased a Pro account this year feel cheated out of their money. And, rightly so. Yahoo didn’t live up to their side of the deal with the money given to Flickr for Pro accounts. Instead, Yahoo basically thumbed its collective noses at the Pro account users not only from the monetary perspective, but also from interface perspective. Basically, Yahoo just completely tromped all over the Professional photographers who bought into the interface for that use, but also those who paid into the Pro accounts that gave bigger limits needed to be a Professional user. Yahoo hasn’t even addressed this issue at all.
Yahoo has a lot of work to do to repair Flickr Pro user relationships. Unfortunately, it’s probably too late. Many Professional photographers are already migrating their imagery away from Flickr to alternative services that are, hopefully, more reliable and offer more professional interfaces and support.
Lacking Support
Through this whole ordeal, Flickr support has remained amazingly silent. They asked for comments and have said nothing about it. They did state they were ‘listening’ for whatever that’s worth. But, we all know that listening and doing are two entirely separate things. There should have been a lot more help and support coming from the Flickr staff after such an amazingly huge change. Yet, it appears that the Flickr team has rolled the interface out in a fire-and-forget approach. Basically, with a ‘this is it’ attitude given off by those who have been able to get hold of a support person.
Clearly, if this is the level of support that Yahoo / Flickr is providing to users for this type of service, it’s probably worth moving on to a service where your money will get you real support when you need it. Where the support people actually do care about making a difference and keeping the customer happy.
By the time Flickr realizes the problem and manages to correct it, it will probably be too late. It’s probably already too late.
Revert back to iTunes 10 from iTunes 11 (Mac Edition)
[UPDATE 2015-01-17] New Article: How to make iTunes 12 look and act more like iTunes 10
Thanks to Danny Rolnick for this very detailed and helpful explanation and for his permission to post it here on Randosity. His steps came in as a comment. However, because my previous Randosity article on this topic was clearly geared toward Windows, I thought this one deserved its own topic, especially as thoughtful and well written as his comment was. So, without further adieu, here is Danny’s very detailed explanation on how to rock and roll back to iTunes 10 from iTunes 11, if you’re using Mac OS X.
To go back to iTunes 10, I am happy to show you the way — By Danny Rolnick
I happily regard myself an expert now on how to downgrade iTunes 11 back to 10 on a Mac. Having found a straightforward and logical way of doing so, I thought it my duty to share with others. I can’t express what a relief it is to have version 10 back again. See the method at the bottom. Feel free to jump down there if you want to get started. Let me know how you got on in the comments below.
My view on the experience I have had of using iTunes 11
I have been a mac obsessed devoted fan all my life (I’m 46), never used a PC and got my first mac back in 1988. Until just the past few months I wouldn’t hear anyone say anything derogatory about anything Apple. However, a few things are rocking my ‘religious like’ devotion. Most of all, I have been dumbfounded about issues of the recent iTunes evolution in version 11.
I am also obsessed with music, movies and music videos. It’s not just a hobby – I am a DJ and Video DJ by profession. iTunes, since the very first release, has been the backbone of the way I organize and store all my digital media. I never had any need to seek an alternative and have also enjoyed the integration it provides with my iPhone and other iDevices etc etc.
My library is huge. I don’t mean to brag but aside from my digital music collection of 40,000 + tracks, either purchased from the iTunes store or imported from my CD collection, my music video collection is over 10,000. I am a proficient iTunes user and I often have reason to need to re-tag my files within iTunes or sometimes I use MetaX.
Until now, I have never resisted installing any available Apple updates and even feel some excitement in anticipation of the improved features. etc. iTunes version 11 has changed all that now. iTunes 11 is, without question, an inferior version to 10. Anyone who feels otherwise is probably only using iTunes in a basic way, and for this reason I have always thought there was a market for a pro version of iTunes for people like me.
iTunes 11 simply doesn’t work
I click to play a track, click again because it hasn’t started and click another time. Only then do I hear the track play. It takes ages to build links to external files, just as long as it takes to actually import them to the media folder. Tagging takes ridiculously long to the point you would need to leave the tagging to be done overnight. I could go on, but you are probably reading this because you have already experienced your own issues concerning version 11.
Before following the method below, I tried to seek alternatives to iTunes all together. I briefly tried Double Twist and Song Bird among many other software packages, but the truth is that iTunes is better for my personal purposes.
The most disappointing thing about version 11 is the silence from Apple about the obvious problems. It is this specific fact that has aggravated me so much. Maybe I am romanticizing, but I can’t help imagine that Steve Jobs would have ever let version 11 go as far as actually being released.
Steps to revert to iTunes 10 from iTunes 11
Here are the Stages and Steps for Mac OS X only. Thank you to Bogoss on MacForums for help with this article.
Stage 1 — Uninstall iTune11, Reinstall iTunes 10
Note: Any changes you have made to your music files since you used last used version 10 will be lost but any purchasses you have made in the time since can be downloaded again if you can’t find those purchasses in your media folder. If recently made playlists are of particular importance you could export the lists to somewhere for later.
- Back up your iTunes Folder(s) just in case.
- Download these apps
- AppZapper: http://appzapper.com (the free version will do).
- Pacifist: http://www.charlessoft.com.
- Download iTunes 10.7 (last version before 11). Check your download folder, it might still be there. You can also get it from the 10.7 Apple Support Web Site (Click the big download button)
- Using AppZapper, simply uninstall iTunes 11. Before you drag the iTunes icon from the Application folder to the window you will need to open the preferences of AppZapper and deselect the box next to “Keep Apple applications safe”
- Open the 10.7 dmg file, you will see the pkg file (usually you would double click it to install), but now, this time drag it out somewhere (e.g. Desktop).
- Open Pacifist
- Drag the pkg iTunes 10.7 file to Pacifist and then click install from the menu bar
- During installation, click replace every time a window pops up.
- Installation finished, iTunes 10.7 is back!
- Don’t open it yet!!!!
Stage 2 — Recover your Library
See this video that explains the process to recover your library here:
- In FINDER – go to your iTunes Music Folder located in (Your User Account)=>Music=>iTunes
- Within it, open the folder called Previous iTunes Libraries.
- Identify the most recent backup. It has the date at the end.
- Duplicate it. Move it to the desktop.
- Rename it as ‘iTunes Library.itl’. Basically remove the date from the file name.
- Go back to your iTunes Folder and rename the file there which is already named ‘iTunes Library.itl’ to ‘iTunes Library.itl.old’.
- Now move the ‘iTunes Library.itl’ file from your desktop to this location.
- Now open iTunes 10.7. If it can’t find your iTunes library, select choose library and navigate the application to the new ‘iTunes Library.itl’ file you created.
- Breathe a sigh of relief, you’re done!
- Copy this and post it to help others. Only come back to me to say Thanks, not for more support.
Danny
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.
Patent Wars: When IP protection becomes anti-competitive
So, who wins when companies like Apple and Samsung battle over intellectual property? No one. Here’s why.
Apple doesn’t win
Apple thinks they will win because they think this action will block a rival product based on the fact that they claim they invented it first. In fact, it’s not that they ‘invented’ it first, it’s because they patented it first. Whomever gets to the patent office gets exclusivity. That’s how patent law works. However, Apple won’t win because of the negative publicity backlash that it is now unfolding onto the Apple brand. The backlash against Apple is already beginning and it may end up becoming Apple’s downfall.
Seriously, are we to believe that there is any possibility of confusion between a Samsung device running Android and an Apple device running IOS? The operating systems aren’t even remotely similar. The sole and only reason to prevent another company from putting something on the market is to avoid brand or product confusion. I hardly think that anyone would confuse a Samsung Galaxy device clearly labeled with the Samsung brand with an Apple device clearly labeled with the Apple brand. Heck, the Galaxy devices don’t even resemble the iPhone now.
Clerk: Why are you returning this device today?
Consumer: Oh, I’m bringing this Samsung back because I thought it was an iPhone.
I don’t think so. This is not a likely scenario at all. I can’t imagine any consumer could walk into a Samsung retailer and confuse a Galaxy S with an iPhone. So, why is Apple so adamant that this device is a threat to their survival? In fact, if anything is a threat to Apple’s survival, it’s Apple. Playing these legal games is the best way to actually make consumers become aware and interested in the exact devices they hope to prevent being placed onto store shelves. If Apple had left well enough alone, these devices would have fallen into obscurity on their own and the iPhone would still reign supreme. Calling undue attention to another device, in just the way Apple is doing, is just ripe to backfire on Apple. And, backfire it appears to be doing. Way to go Apple.
Samsung doesn’t win
I’m not going to cheer for Samsung here. Are they a victim? Not really. They’re a large corporation that’s out to make a buck on a design that’s far too similar to one that someone else created. I won’t say that Apple is in the right here, but Samsung is also not in the right by doing what they did. I personally don’t like Samsung devices. They’re too unreliable and don’t last. I’ve bought many Samsung devices and they just don’t hold up long enough. The quality is too low for the price they charge. Making quality products is a whole separate issue from producing a product that cashes in on a look from a competitor. Samsung, at least have the decency to hire designers that produce original looking devices designs. It’s really not that hard. There are plenty of good industrial designers who could produce a high quality unique case design that could easily rival Apple’s designs without looking remotely like an Apple product. More than that, though, why not make products that actually last?
Consumers don’t win
By getting injunctions to prevent products from hitting the store shelves, this is tantamount to legalized anti-competitive practices. Legalized because the courts agree with and, further, set up injunctions to prevent these devices from hitting the shelves or be sold within the US. This hurts the consumer because now there is less choice. Apple’s thinking is that with less choice comes more likelihood that the consumer will choose Apple instead. Unfortunately, Apple didn’t take into account the PR nightmare that’s unfolding here. Apple, don’t underestimate the consumer’s intelligence. Consumers understand that Apple is taking legalized anti-competitive measures to try to win the consumer choice war. It is, however, the consumer’s choice as to what phone to buy and use. It is not Apple’s choice. Companies, when they get to a certain size and arrogance, tend to forget or choose to ignore consumer choice. This is capitalism and consumers have freedom of choice.
Consumers will vote with their wallets in the end and that will likely be to Apple’s detriment in the long haul. Instead, Apple needs to drop this lawsuit now and let these devices onto the market from Samsung. Let the devices hold their own or fail on their own merits. The consumers will decide what they want to use. Since there is not a real possibility that consumers could mistake a Galaxy S Android phone for an IOS based iPhone, there is really no damage done here. It’s only perceived damage.
The real damage being done today, that Apple is doing to itself, is the public relations debacle they face with consumer sentiment. Consumer sentiment is real and it is tangible and it can make or break a company. The longer these IP issues drag on and the more devices they try to block, the more people will pull away from Apple and leave the company, once again, high and dry.
Apple’s future uncertain
Apple needs to stop, look and listen. They need to make better, faster and more useful devices instead of pulling out the legal team to fight a losing battle. Keep the innovation going. Forget the old wars and move on. Heck, the whole thing started because Samsung made a phone that resembled the iPhone 3 case style. They don’t even sell the iPhone 3 case style anymore. The Galaxy Tab looks nothing remotely like an iPad either. So, the whole ‘it looks like an IOS device’ issue is now moot. It’s just being dragged on because of Job’s complete hated of Android.
Unfortunately for Apple, Android is here to stay and it’s not going away anytime soon. Locking out Samsung does not in any way lock out LG or HTC or any other device that runs Android. Instead, Apple needs to focus on innovation with IOS and its new devices and drop this PR nightmare that’s now unfolding in the consumer space. If Apple wants to drive a wedge between the consumer and the company, Apple’s current legal strategy is perfect. If Apple wants to produce high quality easy-t0-use devices, that goal has nothing to do with blocking the sale of similar devices via legal channels.
Apple is now officially full of sour grapes.
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
leave a comment