Not the best logic, but it does a reasonably good job of bringing up some of the main issues that marketing is concerned with. Might even make a good business case
http://www.techuser.net/lego.html
Monday, November 28, 2005
Thursday, November 10, 2005
1/5 of Science Projects impacted by patent problems
Right to Create: Patents Chilling Science?: "Of the 40% of respondents who reported their work had been affected [by patents], 58% said their work was delayed, 50% reported they had to change the research, and 28% reported abandoning their research project. The most common reason respondents reported having to change or abandon their research project was that the acquisition of the necessary technologies involved overly complex licensing negotiations."
Right to Create: Patents Chilling Science?: "Of the 40% of respondents who reported their work had been affected [by patents], 58% said their work was delayed, 50% reported they had to change the research, and 28% reported abandoning their research project. The most common reason respondents reported having to change or abandon their research project was that the acquisition of the necessary technologies involved overly complex licensing negotiations."
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
How to Prototype a Game in Under 7 Days
Brilliant in it's way - choice pieces include:
"If You Can Get Away With it, Fake it
This is arguably one of the most important lessons of the project. Often the “correct” solution is not the best solution. Strategically faking it will save you time and money; it will make your game faster, and your teeth whiter. Fake it liberally and often! ... This rule is also a fantastic general lesson for life, we have found. Slackers, take note."
"Heavy Theming Will Not Salvage Bad Design (or "You Can't Polish a Turd")"
self-explanitory, I think.
"Build Toward a Well Defined Goal
A well defined goal was embarrassingly easy to forget about. Without a gameplay goal, a prototype is just a toy – not a game. For some reason, people seem to enjoy having the opportunity to fail. A goal can be anything..."
and
"Our objective advisor kindly pointed out, “Rapid prototyping can be a lot like conceiving a child. No one expects a winner every time, but you always walk away having learned something new, and it's usually a lot of fun!”"
Check it out:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051026/gabler_01.shtml
Brilliant in it's way - choice pieces include:
"If You Can Get Away With it, Fake it
This is arguably one of the most important lessons of the project. Often the “correct” solution is not the best solution. Strategically faking it will save you time and money; it will make your game faster, and your teeth whiter. Fake it liberally and often! ... This rule is also a fantastic general lesson for life, we have found. Slackers, take note."
"Heavy Theming Will Not Salvage Bad Design (or "You Can't Polish a Turd")"
self-explanitory, I think.
"Build Toward a Well Defined Goal
A well defined goal was embarrassingly easy to forget about. Without a gameplay goal, a prototype is just a toy – not a game. For some reason, people seem to enjoy having the opportunity to fail. A goal can be anything..."
and
"Our objective advisor kindly pointed out, “Rapid prototyping can be a lot like conceiving a child. No one expects a winner every time, but you always walk away having learned something new, and it's usually a lot of fun!”"
Check it out:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051026/gabler_01.shtml
Thursday, October 13, 2005
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/shopping/chi-0510080015oct08,1,6435167.story?coll=chi-ent_shopping-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
MEDICAL TRAINING
Video game update for playing doctor
The health-care profession increasingly is turning to video games for training.
One, called "Code Orange," helps doctors learn to manage mass casualty incidents by playing a variety of roles, said Lucien Parsons, producer of the game for BreakAway Ltd.
Video games have been found to improve marksmanship among military personnel, said Claudia Johnston, a Texas A&M-Corpus Christi researcher who is heading a Navy-funded project to develop a game to train doctors.
"If you can do that, why can't you learn to start an IV online?" Johnston said.
--Associated Press
MEDICAL TRAINING
Video game update for playing doctor
The health-care profession increasingly is turning to video games for training.
One, called "Code Orange," helps doctors learn to manage mass casualty incidents by playing a variety of roles, said Lucien Parsons, producer of the game for BreakAway Ltd.
Video games have been found to improve marksmanship among military personnel, said Claudia Johnston, a Texas A&M-Corpus Christi researcher who is heading a Navy-funded project to develop a game to train doctors.
"If you can do that, why can't you learn to start an IV online?" Johnston said.
--Associated Press
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Bach: MS Ceasing Xbox Development; Halo 3 Will Ship 'When Ready': "In 2005, the video game industry very suddenly underwent a drastic change from its current homogenized state. Nintendo has more acutely differentiated itself from MS and Sony than ever before, but in the coming generation, the two market leaders have created very broad differentiation of their own. Despite Microsoft's continual refusals, it appears as though the PS3 will outclass the 360 in raw graphical/processing horsepower. It is also probably safe to believe at this point that MS's online/community infrastructure will be superior to its competitor's online plans.
It's very possible to imagine a situation where PS3 games would be too powerful to be ported, Revolution games too interface-dependent, and 360 games too Xbox Live Community-centric—three consoles, potentially with three very different advantages. In such a situation, it's easy to understand why Bach has set his sights incredibly high for next-gen's Live penetration."
It's very possible to imagine a situation where PS3 games would be too powerful to be ported, Revolution games too interface-dependent, and 360 games too Xbox Live Community-centric—three consoles, potentially with three very different advantages. In such a situation, it's easy to understand why Bach has set his sights incredibly high for next-gen's Live penetration."
Interesting stuff today!
NY Times on in-game advertising
http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1043_3-5887880.html
Apple: It's the Stores, the Stores, the Stores! :: AO: "Apple: It's the Stores, the Stores, the Stores!
For Apple, it's not about 'location, location, location' or even the hottest products. It's The Experience that counts."
NY Times on in-game advertising
http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1043_3-5887880.html
Apple: It's the Stores, the Stores, the Stores! :: AO: "Apple: It's the Stores, the Stores, the Stores!
For Apple, it's not about 'location, location, location' or even the hottest products. It's The Experience that counts."
Friday, September 30, 2005
Following on the heels of last week's Games for Health, I thought I'd look at other ideas out there.
Houston Radiation Oncologist Uses Video Game Technology To Zap Cancer
By: The Methodist Hospital on Jul 18 2005 09:28:47
Cancer Treatment
For years, Dr. Brian Butler, radiation oncologist at The Methodist Hospital in Houston, would be the first to tell you that video games are a waste of time.
Shouldn't kids be reading, keeping their grades up and taking part in activities that keep them fit?
Butler now argues we have a lot to learn from those who immerse themselves in a world of video game technology. It is this technology that is revolutionizing radiation therapy for cancer. When an Ivy League college was unable to do it, he turned to a group of Dallas-based video game programmers in their 20s to create a system for him that takes targeted cancer therapy to another level.
Cancer therapy is now a video game, and the make believe shoot 'em up is not make believe at all. The enemy is cancer. The growth patterns of cancer are the "supply lines." And, because the program enables doctors to pinpoint the location of the cancer with the precision of a sniper rifle, it spares surrounding healthy tissue and cells from damage.
"The diagnostic radiologist, radiation oncologist and the computer gamers all came together to make this happen," Butler said. "Each piece of the puzzle was essential. This would have never happened if these three disciplines hadn't communicated. Methodist now has the first system in the world to target radiation in this manner."
Marrying more than 20 years of anatomical data from Houston radiologist Dr. L. Anne Hayman and three-dimensional computer gaming software, the program helps Butler and his team precisely analyze a tumor's location in the body and where they can and cannot deposit radiation.
The computer program is a refinement of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). IMRT, used for the first time anywhere at The Methodist Hospital in March of 1994, forever changed how cancer patients around the world receive radiation. Instead of a single radiation beam that treats the entire area around the tumor, IMRT uses a more precise multi-beam method that better pinpoints cancer cells in the body.
"At first, everyone thought it was absurd, and now everyone is doing it," Butler said. "It really took off."
The evolution of radiation technology has primarily involved the refinement of the weapon used against cancer, from the "shotgun" to the "sniper rifle."
"The other aspect is knowing where the lymphatic systems are, and understanding where nerves run in the body," Butler said. "Also, as a field, radiation oncology has no specific training in CT anatomy. This helps us overcome that problem by having all the information about the human body already in the system."
The computer gamers created an "outside the box" way of not only mapping the entire human body using Hayman's anatomical data, but also a way to bring in an actual CT scan of a sick patient. Once that data merges, a precise radiation treatment that considers the tumor size, location, growth pattern and stage of the disease can be administered.
"Not to minimize a very serious sickness we are fighting, but cancer treatment is now a game," he said. "I have a sniper rifle with a site, target areas, and the gamers created maps because we know the behavior of the enemy; we know how cancer spreads in the body," he said.
The sophisticated computer program works in tandem with Tomotherapy, a machine that conducts a CT scan of the patient and delivers the radiation. Methodist became the second site in the state (and the first in the Texas Medical Center) to obtain the technology. The machine delivers the radiation using as many as 50 small beams, which intermittently shut on and off as they revolve around the patient, like a second hand on a clock. This results in the most effective, precise delivery of radiation presently available.
Don Marrs, a patient who visited Butler for prostate cancer treatment, is happy with his results. "It's no problem. You don't feel anything. The machine does all of the work, and all I do is lay there," he said. He reported no negative side effects following his treatment.
Butler's excitement stems not only from being on the leading edge of this innovative technology, but also from the new perspective he gained on video game players and programmers. "Gaming is helpful because it teaches strategy," he said "This is an evolution of thought... a different way to look at the world. Successful people in the future, in all arenas of life, will be those who know how to strategize... not necessarily only those with the 'book smarts."
"I seriously doubt this will be the last piece of technology that people who have trained themselves to think like this will develop in the field of medicine," he said. "We are at the beginning of a new revolution in the treatment of cancer, and most likely many other diseases as well."
HOUSTON - July. 11, 2005 - http://www.methodisthealth.com
Houston Radiation Oncologist Uses Video Game Technology To Zap Cancer
By: The Methodist Hospital on Jul 18 2005 09:28:47
Cancer Treatment
For years, Dr. Brian Butler, radiation oncologist at The Methodist Hospital in Houston, would be the first to tell you that video games are a waste of time.
Shouldn't kids be reading, keeping their grades up and taking part in activities that keep them fit?
Butler now argues we have a lot to learn from those who immerse themselves in a world of video game technology. It is this technology that is revolutionizing radiation therapy for cancer. When an Ivy League college was unable to do it, he turned to a group of Dallas-based video game programmers in their 20s to create a system for him that takes targeted cancer therapy to another level.
Cancer therapy is now a video game, and the make believe shoot 'em up is not make believe at all. The enemy is cancer. The growth patterns of cancer are the "supply lines." And, because the program enables doctors to pinpoint the location of the cancer with the precision of a sniper rifle, it spares surrounding healthy tissue and cells from damage.
"The diagnostic radiologist, radiation oncologist and the computer gamers all came together to make this happen," Butler said. "Each piece of the puzzle was essential. This would have never happened if these three disciplines hadn't communicated. Methodist now has the first system in the world to target radiation in this manner."
Marrying more than 20 years of anatomical data from Houston radiologist Dr. L. Anne Hayman and three-dimensional computer gaming software, the program helps Butler and his team precisely analyze a tumor's location in the body and where they can and cannot deposit radiation.
The computer program is a refinement of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). IMRT, used for the first time anywhere at The Methodist Hospital in March of 1994, forever changed how cancer patients around the world receive radiation. Instead of a single radiation beam that treats the entire area around the tumor, IMRT uses a more precise multi-beam method that better pinpoints cancer cells in the body.
"At first, everyone thought it was absurd, and now everyone is doing it," Butler said. "It really took off."
The evolution of radiation technology has primarily involved the refinement of the weapon used against cancer, from the "shotgun" to the "sniper rifle."
"The other aspect is knowing where the lymphatic systems are, and understanding where nerves run in the body," Butler said. "Also, as a field, radiation oncology has no specific training in CT anatomy. This helps us overcome that problem by having all the information about the human body already in the system."
The computer gamers created an "outside the box" way of not only mapping the entire human body using Hayman's anatomical data, but also a way to bring in an actual CT scan of a sick patient. Once that data merges, a precise radiation treatment that considers the tumor size, location, growth pattern and stage of the disease can be administered.
"Not to minimize a very serious sickness we are fighting, but cancer treatment is now a game," he said. "I have a sniper rifle with a site, target areas, and the gamers created maps because we know the behavior of the enemy; we know how cancer spreads in the body," he said.
The sophisticated computer program works in tandem with Tomotherapy, a machine that conducts a CT scan of the patient and delivers the radiation. Methodist became the second site in the state (and the first in the Texas Medical Center) to obtain the technology. The machine delivers the radiation using as many as 50 small beams, which intermittently shut on and off as they revolve around the patient, like a second hand on a clock. This results in the most effective, precise delivery of radiation presently available.
Don Marrs, a patient who visited Butler for prostate cancer treatment, is happy with his results. "It's no problem. You don't feel anything. The machine does all of the work, and all I do is lay there," he said. He reported no negative side effects following his treatment.
Butler's excitement stems not only from being on the leading edge of this innovative technology, but also from the new perspective he gained on video game players and programmers. "Gaming is helpful because it teaches strategy," he said "This is an evolution of thought... a different way to look at the world. Successful people in the future, in all arenas of life, will be those who know how to strategize... not necessarily only those with the 'book smarts."
"I seriously doubt this will be the last piece of technology that people who have trained themselves to think like this will develop in the field of medicine," he said. "We are at the beginning of a new revolution in the treatment of cancer, and most likely many other diseases as well."
HOUSTON - July. 11, 2005 - http://www.methodisthealth.com
Friday, September 16, 2005
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Kids and Games
Reprinted by permission of the originator of the material for the following articles, the text is his letter in response to the article author's questions.
The general article is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9042384/
The sidebar article linked from the above is:
Parenting and video games: One dad's tips - Games - MSNBC.com
Full text: by Matthew Ford
My background
I've made games professionally for 12 years, and as an amateur for as long as I can remember.
Skippable details follow: I started off programming shareware computer games, and sold card games I designed on the streets of New Orleans. Starting in 1994, I worked as an arcade game designer and producer at Atari Games. I moved to Accolade to design and produce multiplayer PC game titles. I worked at the Games division at Microsoft for five years, where I was Lead Program Manager for Asheron’s Call 1 and 2 (PC online role-playing games) overseeing their production, design, and community. I also helped scheme Microsoft’s multiplayer strategy and design for both the PC and Xbox. I led the action game design for the Xbox Live title Citizen Zero, and worked briefly on an MMP called Mythica. In 2004 I moved to Australia to work at Auran Games, led a MMP project still in progress, and now leads development of a new online social application.
I have been married for twelve years and have a 10-year-old son.
How I decide what my son should play
From his early childhood, I have made a series of decisions about what my son (now 10) could play. My reasons for keeping him away from a certain game are one of a few categories:
* 1. May confuse him about the desirability and rewards of performing evil instead of good actions.
* 2. May disturb him with images that would haunt him afterwards.
* 3. May normalize for him disrespect for particular classes of people.
* 4. Expresses ideas that I find utterly repellent and of which do not wish to support the propagation with the fruits of my money and effort.
Examples and applications
So under these criteria I let him play Diablo (a PC game in which you are a hero killing demons and undead and evil minions and such) at a young age, skipping the video sequences. Nothing in the game seemed able to disturb him as it was bloody but tiny figures and he did not seem bothered. It was classic heroic good smiting evil. And nobody respects the undead, predatory, and demonic. :)
At the same time I did not let him play Goldeneye (a James Bond game on the Nintendo 64). It had no gore, and less killing than Diablo. But I did not think he was ready for the concept of why it's sometimes okay to sneak up behind a security guard, in his own country, and shoot him in the back of the head, because he was working for an uncontrolled party in possession of a dangerous weapon.
I did not let him play Halo (the future-military shooter on the Xbox) till about age 7 because of reason #2 (it can be intense and scary) and a bit of reason #1-- though it is still a good guy-versus-bad guys moral situation, some of those little grunt guys are fun to kill because they are so hapless and weak, though still dangerous. And your fellow soldiers do delight in a good kill, as fired-up soldiers would. But when I felt he was ready and understood satire well enough to get why it's fun to kill the little hapless guys in the game, even though the real life equivalent may be cruel, I let him play it.
I let him play Dungeon Keeper (a PC game in which you are an evil dungeon master, trying to corrupt a series of villages and repel heroes) eventually, at about 8, because I could tell his grasp of satire and irony was well enough developed, and the "evil" things you did were so obviously over the top, that it would be a good way to introduce him to a game where "evil is good". As a result we had several very good conversations about what defines evil, why doing evil things can be attractive, and why it can be fun to act out in a game, even though to do that in real life would be wrong.
Nowadays, I'd let him play Goldeneye (and Splinter Cell, and Rainbow Six, etc) because he's mature enough, at 10, to understand war and abstract threats.
The biggest step was recently letting him play Fable (a role-playing game on Xbox, where you can choose an either good or evil response to many situations), first as good then as evil, because I thought it was such a good illustration of what defines good and evil acts, and why it's tempting to do each.
As for language, I don't really care about naughty words. My wife and I and our friends sling them around and he knows that it's not good for him to use those words among the kind of company that would be disturbed by them. I do care about what the language teaches-- any game where the admirable hero makes fun of "fags" or the like is not going to be played in my house. I won't even get started on my struggles with how Eminem can fit into our lives.
How I do it now
All this time, at each stage, we had marvelous conversations about what each game made him feel and think about, how the game behavior relates to real life, why he was ready to play that game now but was not ready before, and so on. Through Fable I had very deep conversations about the nature of good and evil that taught me as much as him. I'm certain that I'd not have had these opportunities to hold his attention on these matters and get him really thinking without these games to provide the glue, so for that alone I think games are useful and good when used in this way. Stories, movies, and plays have a similar use in our society and I use them too. Harry Potter for example is another good way to illustrate the nature of right and wrong.
Because it takes such pleasure in immoral behavior and espouses a strong cynicism about society, I still won't let him play GTA, though his friends are starting to. He says he does not want to but I think he is curious. I think it is an excellent game and I look forward to when he's ready for it because I think it gives an amazing insight into the criminal mind, and taps into why being lawless is so attractive and seductive. And it's a lot of fun. I sense he's developing well enough to handle it soon. But he's not quite ready yet and he understands that. There are heaps of other games to play in the meantime.
If he wants to play or watch a game (or a movie) the rule is that if it is rated E or T, he does not have to ask me first. If it is M he does need to get my permission first. If he is at a friend's he needs to call me; he knows my mobile. If he can't reach me, he should not play or watch. Up until a few months ago he had to ask me about T games too.
So let's say he wants to play an M game. I ask him about it. I decide to let him do it not based on the rating but on what I understand of the game. Hopefully I know something about it already, but I can jump onto Google to learn more. I also ask him about what you do in the game, and what he thinks is the "worst" stuff in it. I do some research on it or recall what I know, and I tell him to go ahead or not. So the rating is a useful shorthand which allows him to play certain classes of games without needing to ask my first, but an older rating is not always forbidden.
On the flip side, I may learn after he comes home and we talk about what he played, that he played a Teen game that I find objectionable. I may tell him I don't want him playing it any more. That has not happened yet.
Looking to my son's future
Soon he will be at the age where rebellion kicks in and telling him not to do something is tantamount to compelling him to try it. That is why I am ramping him up and preparing him as quickly as I can do it safely, because my time as the benevolent beloved guide is closing and my time as an insufferable tyrant is at hand. :) Then I'll start letting him consume anything he wants, with some very wide limits (see below), and just track it and talk to him about the choices he is making and what he thinks of them. Game choices and behavior in games will become a kind of window into his mind which I think I will value highly.
Even when my son is 15 and furiously independent, I'd not let him play certain horrid, repellent games in my house using my electricity. If he wants to play Nazi propaganda or gay-bashing games, well for one thing I'll feel like a failure, but further I won't condone or support it. It's not playing in my house. I won't be able to lock him up, but I can make it very clear that if he's going down that path, he's doing it alone, and I'm waiting for him when he decides to come back. Okay, I don't want to think about that scenario any more...
Overall
I think any parent should decide what to let their kids play until they are an age the parent thinks the kid is ready to start deciding everything themselves. And parents should always be curious about what their kids are doing no matter what the age.
I don't tolerate games as a dubious but mostly harmless and, anyway, unavoidable part of the cultural landscape. I actually welcome them in my son's life as a fun activity, a workout for the mind, a spur to meaningful conversation, a cathartic experience, and a window into his thoughts and feelings. I wouldn't wish for a world without these vexing forms of entertainment.
This is just an illustration of my thought process which may be of some interest to some of you. It's personal, and not perfect, but hopefully, like this article, it's a bit of an insight into one parent's decision process.
"Screen time" limits
My son uses a digital kitchen timer to track his "screen time". Every day that he has school, he adds one hour to the timer. If there is no school that day, he adds two hours. Sometimes for doing good stuff I give him some bonus time. He can save up time for as long as he likes, though he usually runs the timer down to zero every day.
While his eyeballs are looking at a screen, whether it is a movie, TV, video game, or computer game, the timer has to be running. If it runs out, he should stop. If he's in the middle of a level or an online group or something, he can add tomorrow's time, run it again, and play for a few extra minutes to get to a stopping place. If I see he's playing without the timer running, I have to be the big meanie and deduct time based on a very pessimistic estimate, so he loses more time than he would have if he'd used the timer.
He does not have to run the timer in certain situations. If he is watching or playing something with me or his mom, that usually counts as fun family time, and we don't run the timer. If he is using the computer in a way that I think is basically educational or social, such as IMing with friends, reading comics, practicing making Flash cartoons, or designing his own computer game level, he asks me, and I usually tell him he can do it off the timer, because I feel he is learning a lot. Still, he can't stare at the screen all day even if he is learning how to program; I'll tell him he has to get outside. And I admit it, there have been times when I want to hop into bed with mom, and we tell him, go play games off the timer. :)
Eventually, maybe when he turns 13, we won't have the timer and I will expect him to make his own judgment to spend the right amount of time on the screen. If he shows himself unable to judge that balance, the timer will come back for a while until he is ready to try that responsibility again.
Friends
If a friend comes over, before he plays a T or M game, I ask the kid if it's okay with his parents that he plays it. I have to take the kid's word for it, but to probe a bit I ask what other games he plays at home. A few times I've learned that the kid is not allowed to play "gun games" at home, so I don't allow those games to be played while the friend is over.
When friends are over, he still needs to spend his "screen time" when he plays video games. I'm happy when they run out of screen time, because then they run around outside and do all that other great kid stuff.
What I recommend for parents
Let your child play games. There has been no proven harm. When you are tempted to ban games "just in case", try to remember when you were a kid and your parents were faced with rock-and-roll, or jazz, or comic books, or Western shootouts, or the like. Play is essential to the development of the mind, and games can make a positive contribution to your child's life.
Be skeptical about what you hear about the harmful or beneficial effects of game playing. Read the methodologies of the actual scientific studies before you believe them. Question the source and consider their motives. Respect the scientific method to discover the real effects, both positive and negative; don't just go on gut instinct or what everyone else is saying.
Set rules on what your kids should and should not play or watch. Assert yourself; it's your responsibility and kids do secretly want firm limits even if they complain. If you feel clueless, use the ESRB ratings and strictly adhere to the age limits in them. If you are able to understand game content and are willing to do a bit of research, use the E rating as a blanket-okay, and judge each T or M game on its own.
Watch your kids play games, and talk about them. You'll learn a lot about your kid by seeing how he or she plays games. You'll find great ways to talk about life, history, morals, and story in ways that your kids can relate to strongly. And your kid will admire you for being cool enough to get games.
Use the timer method as I describe it above, or something like it. Again, be firm and resolute. Games are not harmful, but sitting on the ass all day is harmful. So assert a balance, for their own good.
Do it all now. Get these habits ingrained in your kids before they are teenagers. Once they hit that magical age, it's too late; whether you like it or not their course is set and they will draw on the habits they have formed. If you don't let your kid start to play Teen games as soon as they are a teen, it will become forbidden fruit, they will probably do it anyway somehow, and you'll have lost a chance to influence their approach to games, their personal limits, and their bridge of communication with you.
What I do as a game developer
I stay conscious of the message my game sends. I like to make games which explore themes of good and evil, and help people appreciate both the power and fragility of good deeds. I would make a game with an antihero who engages in evil behavior as a way of illustrating the nature of evil, and provoking thought about same. I would not make a game which I feel would make a racist feel good about being a racist, a murderer feel good about being a murderer, or the like.
I urge developers to treat games as an art form, and to challenge themselves to add artistic merit to what they make, not to focus 100% on mere entertainment value.
I still seek to entertain. Even if I make a game with little to say and full of sex and violence, I am proud to do it because 1) games do not cause bad behavior; 2) games drive technology into the home, where it does much good for society overall; and 3) life is short and fun is good.
I speak out against developers and projects which I think are acting irresponsibly. For example I have been vocal in my condemnation of Rockstar's part of the [Sex] fiasco (see below). I have protested sexist and racist viewpoints in games which I think worsen instead of improve the social landscape.
I always have and will continue to fully support ESRB ratings, giving them all the information they need to make an accurate rating.
I vote for and otherwise support candidates who want to solve the world's problems by applying rationality, science, and fair reasoning. I seek to defeat those who seek to manipulate the public through irrational, unfair arguments.
A few other drips and drabs of questionable interest to you but which I feel compelled to mention
* Games are an art form just as defensible as literature, and just as subject to the First Amendment. Just as most early literature was full of sensational material and had little artistic merit (think pirate stories and romance), it evolved, and there were always gems among the coals. Games do often have messages. They often teach lessons. They can make you think about the world in a new way. And this is nothing compared to what will happen. Keep in mind that Shakespeare made and showed his plays while society regarded plays as immoral, decadent, and a source of social decay. His contemporaries made a lot of salacious trash. But a rose grew among the weeds.
* More and more retailers are enforcing ratings at the point of sale. If you care about it, support those companies and tell them why.
* The ESRB rating system has been praised by experts as the best rating system of any medium. And it is improving.
* Many game developers, myself included, fully support the ESRB's punishment of Rockstar for publishing GTA with the [sex] content and code on the disc. That was a violation of the ESRB standards and they deserve to be spanked, hard.
* The average game player is 30 years old and has been playing games for 9.5 years.
* The average game buyer is 37 years old. In 2005, 95 percent of computer game buyers and 84 percent of console game buyers were over the age of 18.
* Eighty-three percent of all games sold in 2004 were rated "E" for Everyone or "T" for Teen.
* The game industry grosses over $10billion in the USA, with worldwide estimates in the $25billion range. Further, well over a hundred thousand people are employed worldwide, on the development side as well as the business end of games.
* In the USA, violent crime rates among youth have been declining steadily over the past decade. Conversely, the increase in media attention of any one crime leads to the public perception that such violent crimes are pervasive – when in fact they are not. Further, in other countries with high levels of game consumption (e.g., Japan, Canada), youth crime is almost non-existent.
* Pointing to games and other forms of art and entertainment as scapegoats will not solve anything, but rather serve as an ongoing distraction from addressing real, hard-to-deal-with societal issues.
Thomas, I hope this was useful to you, as long as it is, and gives you a wide selection of material to use. I so appreciate being given the chance to say my bit. I deeply thank you for seeking to shed light another side of this important debate. Let me know if there is any way I can possibly help, anytime in the future.
Sincerely,
Matthew Ford
Reprinted by permission of the originator of the material for the following articles, the text is his letter in response to the article author's questions.
The general article is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9042384/
The sidebar article linked from the above is:
Parenting and video games: One dad's tips - Games - MSNBC.com
Full text: by Matthew Ford
My background
I've made games professionally for 12 years, and as an amateur for as long as I can remember.
Skippable details follow: I started off programming shareware computer games, and sold card games I designed on the streets of New Orleans. Starting in 1994, I worked as an arcade game designer and producer at Atari Games. I moved to Accolade to design and produce multiplayer PC game titles. I worked at the Games division at Microsoft for five years, where I was Lead Program Manager for Asheron’s Call 1 and 2 (PC online role-playing games) overseeing their production, design, and community. I also helped scheme Microsoft’s multiplayer strategy and design for both the PC and Xbox. I led the action game design for the Xbox Live title Citizen Zero, and worked briefly on an MMP called Mythica. In 2004 I moved to Australia to work at Auran Games, led a MMP project still in progress, and now leads development of a new online social application.
I have been married for twelve years and have a 10-year-old son.
How I decide what my son should play
From his early childhood, I have made a series of decisions about what my son (now 10) could play. My reasons for keeping him away from a certain game are one of a few categories:
* 1. May confuse him about the desirability and rewards of performing evil instead of good actions.
* 2. May disturb him with images that would haunt him afterwards.
* 3. May normalize for him disrespect for particular classes of people.
* 4. Expresses ideas that I find utterly repellent and of which do not wish to support the propagation with the fruits of my money and effort.
Examples and applications
So under these criteria I let him play Diablo (a PC game in which you are a hero killing demons and undead and evil minions and such) at a young age, skipping the video sequences. Nothing in the game seemed able to disturb him as it was bloody but tiny figures and he did not seem bothered. It was classic heroic good smiting evil. And nobody respects the undead, predatory, and demonic. :)
At the same time I did not let him play Goldeneye (a James Bond game on the Nintendo 64). It had no gore, and less killing than Diablo. But I did not think he was ready for the concept of why it's sometimes okay to sneak up behind a security guard, in his own country, and shoot him in the back of the head, because he was working for an uncontrolled party in possession of a dangerous weapon.
I did not let him play Halo (the future-military shooter on the Xbox) till about age 7 because of reason #2 (it can be intense and scary) and a bit of reason #1-- though it is still a good guy-versus-bad guys moral situation, some of those little grunt guys are fun to kill because they are so hapless and weak, though still dangerous. And your fellow soldiers do delight in a good kill, as fired-up soldiers would. But when I felt he was ready and understood satire well enough to get why it's fun to kill the little hapless guys in the game, even though the real life equivalent may be cruel, I let him play it.
I let him play Dungeon Keeper (a PC game in which you are an evil dungeon master, trying to corrupt a series of villages and repel heroes) eventually, at about 8, because I could tell his grasp of satire and irony was well enough developed, and the "evil" things you did were so obviously over the top, that it would be a good way to introduce him to a game where "evil is good". As a result we had several very good conversations about what defines evil, why doing evil things can be attractive, and why it can be fun to act out in a game, even though to do that in real life would be wrong.
Nowadays, I'd let him play Goldeneye (and Splinter Cell, and Rainbow Six, etc) because he's mature enough, at 10, to understand war and abstract threats.
The biggest step was recently letting him play Fable (a role-playing game on Xbox, where you can choose an either good or evil response to many situations), first as good then as evil, because I thought it was such a good illustration of what defines good and evil acts, and why it's tempting to do each.
As for language, I don't really care about naughty words. My wife and I and our friends sling them around and he knows that it's not good for him to use those words among the kind of company that would be disturbed by them. I do care about what the language teaches-- any game where the admirable hero makes fun of "fags" or the like is not going to be played in my house. I won't even get started on my struggles with how Eminem can fit into our lives.
How I do it now
All this time, at each stage, we had marvelous conversations about what each game made him feel and think about, how the game behavior relates to real life, why he was ready to play that game now but was not ready before, and so on. Through Fable I had very deep conversations about the nature of good and evil that taught me as much as him. I'm certain that I'd not have had these opportunities to hold his attention on these matters and get him really thinking without these games to provide the glue, so for that alone I think games are useful and good when used in this way. Stories, movies, and plays have a similar use in our society and I use them too. Harry Potter for example is another good way to illustrate the nature of right and wrong.
Because it takes such pleasure in immoral behavior and espouses a strong cynicism about society, I still won't let him play GTA, though his friends are starting to. He says he does not want to but I think he is curious. I think it is an excellent game and I look forward to when he's ready for it because I think it gives an amazing insight into the criminal mind, and taps into why being lawless is so attractive and seductive. And it's a lot of fun. I sense he's developing well enough to handle it soon. But he's not quite ready yet and he understands that. There are heaps of other games to play in the meantime.
If he wants to play or watch a game (or a movie) the rule is that if it is rated E or T, he does not have to ask me first. If it is M he does need to get my permission first. If he is at a friend's he needs to call me; he knows my mobile. If he can't reach me, he should not play or watch. Up until a few months ago he had to ask me about T games too.
So let's say he wants to play an M game. I ask him about it. I decide to let him do it not based on the rating but on what I understand of the game. Hopefully I know something about it already, but I can jump onto Google to learn more. I also ask him about what you do in the game, and what he thinks is the "worst" stuff in it. I do some research on it or recall what I know, and I tell him to go ahead or not. So the rating is a useful shorthand which allows him to play certain classes of games without needing to ask my first, but an older rating is not always forbidden.
On the flip side, I may learn after he comes home and we talk about what he played, that he played a Teen game that I find objectionable. I may tell him I don't want him playing it any more. That has not happened yet.
Looking to my son's future
Soon he will be at the age where rebellion kicks in and telling him not to do something is tantamount to compelling him to try it. That is why I am ramping him up and preparing him as quickly as I can do it safely, because my time as the benevolent beloved guide is closing and my time as an insufferable tyrant is at hand. :) Then I'll start letting him consume anything he wants, with some very wide limits (see below), and just track it and talk to him about the choices he is making and what he thinks of them. Game choices and behavior in games will become a kind of window into his mind which I think I will value highly.
Even when my son is 15 and furiously independent, I'd not let him play certain horrid, repellent games in my house using my electricity. If he wants to play Nazi propaganda or gay-bashing games, well for one thing I'll feel like a failure, but further I won't condone or support it. It's not playing in my house. I won't be able to lock him up, but I can make it very clear that if he's going down that path, he's doing it alone, and I'm waiting for him when he decides to come back. Okay, I don't want to think about that scenario any more...
Overall
I think any parent should decide what to let their kids play until they are an age the parent thinks the kid is ready to start deciding everything themselves. And parents should always be curious about what their kids are doing no matter what the age.
I don't tolerate games as a dubious but mostly harmless and, anyway, unavoidable part of the cultural landscape. I actually welcome them in my son's life as a fun activity, a workout for the mind, a spur to meaningful conversation, a cathartic experience, and a window into his thoughts and feelings. I wouldn't wish for a world without these vexing forms of entertainment.
This is just an illustration of my thought process which may be of some interest to some of you. It's personal, and not perfect, but hopefully, like this article, it's a bit of an insight into one parent's decision process.
"Screen time" limits
My son uses a digital kitchen timer to track his "screen time". Every day that he has school, he adds one hour to the timer. If there is no school that day, he adds two hours. Sometimes for doing good stuff I give him some bonus time. He can save up time for as long as he likes, though he usually runs the timer down to zero every day.
While his eyeballs are looking at a screen, whether it is a movie, TV, video game, or computer game, the timer has to be running. If it runs out, he should stop. If he's in the middle of a level or an online group or something, he can add tomorrow's time, run it again, and play for a few extra minutes to get to a stopping place. If I see he's playing without the timer running, I have to be the big meanie and deduct time based on a very pessimistic estimate, so he loses more time than he would have if he'd used the timer.
He does not have to run the timer in certain situations. If he is watching or playing something with me or his mom, that usually counts as fun family time, and we don't run the timer. If he is using the computer in a way that I think is basically educational or social, such as IMing with friends, reading comics, practicing making Flash cartoons, or designing his own computer game level, he asks me, and I usually tell him he can do it off the timer, because I feel he is learning a lot. Still, he can't stare at the screen all day even if he is learning how to program; I'll tell him he has to get outside. And I admit it, there have been times when I want to hop into bed with mom, and we tell him, go play games off the timer. :)
Eventually, maybe when he turns 13, we won't have the timer and I will expect him to make his own judgment to spend the right amount of time on the screen. If he shows himself unable to judge that balance, the timer will come back for a while until he is ready to try that responsibility again.
Friends
If a friend comes over, before he plays a T or M game, I ask the kid if it's okay with his parents that he plays it. I have to take the kid's word for it, but to probe a bit I ask what other games he plays at home. A few times I've learned that the kid is not allowed to play "gun games" at home, so I don't allow those games to be played while the friend is over.
When friends are over, he still needs to spend his "screen time" when he plays video games. I'm happy when they run out of screen time, because then they run around outside and do all that other great kid stuff.
What I recommend for parents
Let your child play games. There has been no proven harm. When you are tempted to ban games "just in case", try to remember when you were a kid and your parents were faced with rock-and-roll, or jazz, or comic books, or Western shootouts, or the like. Play is essential to the development of the mind, and games can make a positive contribution to your child's life.
Be skeptical about what you hear about the harmful or beneficial effects of game playing. Read the methodologies of the actual scientific studies before you believe them. Question the source and consider their motives. Respect the scientific method to discover the real effects, both positive and negative; don't just go on gut instinct or what everyone else is saying.
Set rules on what your kids should and should not play or watch. Assert yourself; it's your responsibility and kids do secretly want firm limits even if they complain. If you feel clueless, use the ESRB ratings and strictly adhere to the age limits in them. If you are able to understand game content and are willing to do a bit of research, use the E rating as a blanket-okay, and judge each T or M game on its own.
Watch your kids play games, and talk about them. You'll learn a lot about your kid by seeing how he or she plays games. You'll find great ways to talk about life, history, morals, and story in ways that your kids can relate to strongly. And your kid will admire you for being cool enough to get games.
Use the timer method as I describe it above, or something like it. Again, be firm and resolute. Games are not harmful, but sitting on the ass all day is harmful. So assert a balance, for their own good.
Do it all now. Get these habits ingrained in your kids before they are teenagers. Once they hit that magical age, it's too late; whether you like it or not their course is set and they will draw on the habits they have formed. If you don't let your kid start to play Teen games as soon as they are a teen, it will become forbidden fruit, they will probably do it anyway somehow, and you'll have lost a chance to influence their approach to games, their personal limits, and their bridge of communication with you.
What I do as a game developer
I stay conscious of the message my game sends. I like to make games which explore themes of good and evil, and help people appreciate both the power and fragility of good deeds. I would make a game with an antihero who engages in evil behavior as a way of illustrating the nature of evil, and provoking thought about same. I would not make a game which I feel would make a racist feel good about being a racist, a murderer feel good about being a murderer, or the like.
I urge developers to treat games as an art form, and to challenge themselves to add artistic merit to what they make, not to focus 100% on mere entertainment value.
I still seek to entertain. Even if I make a game with little to say and full of sex and violence, I am proud to do it because 1) games do not cause bad behavior; 2) games drive technology into the home, where it does much good for society overall; and 3) life is short and fun is good.
I speak out against developers and projects which I think are acting irresponsibly. For example I have been vocal in my condemnation of Rockstar's part of the [Sex] fiasco (see below). I have protested sexist and racist viewpoints in games which I think worsen instead of improve the social landscape.
I always have and will continue to fully support ESRB ratings, giving them all the information they need to make an accurate rating.
I vote for and otherwise support candidates who want to solve the world's problems by applying rationality, science, and fair reasoning. I seek to defeat those who seek to manipulate the public through irrational, unfair arguments.
A few other drips and drabs of questionable interest to you but which I feel compelled to mention
* Games are an art form just as defensible as literature, and just as subject to the First Amendment. Just as most early literature was full of sensational material and had little artistic merit (think pirate stories and romance), it evolved, and there were always gems among the coals. Games do often have messages. They often teach lessons. They can make you think about the world in a new way. And this is nothing compared to what will happen. Keep in mind that Shakespeare made and showed his plays while society regarded plays as immoral, decadent, and a source of social decay. His contemporaries made a lot of salacious trash. But a rose grew among the weeds.
* More and more retailers are enforcing ratings at the point of sale. If you care about it, support those companies and tell them why.
* The ESRB rating system has been praised by experts as the best rating system of any medium. And it is improving.
* Many game developers, myself included, fully support the ESRB's punishment of Rockstar for publishing GTA with the [sex] content and code on the disc. That was a violation of the ESRB standards and they deserve to be spanked, hard.
* The average game player is 30 years old and has been playing games for 9.5 years.
* The average game buyer is 37 years old. In 2005, 95 percent of computer game buyers and 84 percent of console game buyers were over the age of 18.
* Eighty-three percent of all games sold in 2004 were rated "E" for Everyone or "T" for Teen.
* The game industry grosses over $10billion in the USA, with worldwide estimates in the $25billion range. Further, well over a hundred thousand people are employed worldwide, on the development side as well as the business end of games.
* In the USA, violent crime rates among youth have been declining steadily over the past decade. Conversely, the increase in media attention of any one crime leads to the public perception that such violent crimes are pervasive – when in fact they are not. Further, in other countries with high levels of game consumption (e.g., Japan, Canada), youth crime is almost non-existent.
* Pointing to games and other forms of art and entertainment as scapegoats will not solve anything, but rather serve as an ongoing distraction from addressing real, hard-to-deal-with societal issues.
Thomas, I hope this was useful to you, as long as it is, and gives you a wide selection of material to use. I so appreciate being given the chance to say my bit. I deeply thank you for seeking to shed light another side of this important debate. Let me know if there is any way I can possibly help, anytime in the future.
Sincerely,
Matthew Ford
Monday, September 12, 2005
Well done, John Naughton.
The Networker
Why the iPhone won't rock your world
John Naughton
Sunday September 11, 2005
The Observer
The iPhone has arrived. Yawn. It was one of the worst-kept secrets of the technology world - that Apple had teamed up with Motorola to produce a mobile phone with an iPod inside. For months, Photoshopped fantasies of what the new device would look like circulated on the internet, no doubt elevating the blood pressure of Apple's CEO Steve Jobs, who is famously paranoid about the advance leaking of product details. But last week in San Francisco, Mr Jobs came clean, unveiling the Rokr (as in 'rocker', apparently).
In keeping with Motorola's recent design renaissance (see the ultra-slim Razr phone that is currently a prime cause of drooling among UK teenagers), the new device is nicely designed in two-toned silver with slightly rounded keys. Inside is a tiny 512 MB flash memory card configured to act like an iPod Shuffle. But it can hold only 100 songs at most.
Those who have used the Rokr say it's quite a good phone (with a camera, Bluetooth, speaker, voice dialling and reasonable battery life) but nothing special. And the (Motorola-designed) software is as uninspiring as that of the Razr. (Why is it that Nokia is apparently still the only company capable of designing an intuitive user interface for telephony?)
The music-player module works like an iPod - though it lacks the clickwheel that makes its big brothers function so slickly. But overall, the impression is distinctly underwhelming. The word on the streets is that far from being the revolutionary device that will bring about media 'convergence', the Rokr is, well, just the sum of its parts.
And that, it seems to me, is the most interesting thing about it.
Let me explain. The reason people were so intrigued about the idea of an iPhone is that it had the potential to make three hitherto-parallel universes converge. First, there was Apple's iTunes - the first, and still the dominant, legal online music business (which has sold half a billion songs since it opened). Then there was the mobile phone - the one modern device that has become ubiquitous in our lives. And finally, there was the iPod, the iconic gizmo that has become the Walkman de nos jours
Put these three together in a single device and - so the theory went - you had a truly revolutionary technology.
But it hasn't happened. Take, for example, the business of getting purchased tracks on to the Rokr music module. The obvious way would be to buy from iTunes and download via the phone network. But that's not the way it works: instead, you have to connect the phone to your computer (using a slow USB connection) and get songs from your iTunes music library - just as you do with a conventional iPod.
Here's another example. There's no technological reason why the music module in the iPhone couldn't hold 500 or 1,000 songs rather than the current measly 100; but if it did, then sales of existing iPod models might be undermined.
Similarly, there's no obvious reason why tunes stored on the music module couldn't be used as ringtones for the phone module. But that would undermine the mobile operators' lucrative trade in ringtones. (And, boy, is it lucrative: you can buy a Coldplay track from iTunes for 99 cents; but the same track bought at ringtone rates would cost $25.)
And as for the idea of downloading tracks directly to the phone via the mobile network - well, don't even think about it. Apple makes money from selling iPods, network-ready personal computers and online music. Using the phone network would bypass the first two of those cash cows.
I could go on, but you will get the drift. The real significance of the iPhone is the way it illustrates why companies find it hard to innovate. The difficulty stems from a simple, unpalatable fact - namely that radical innovation generally threatens your existing business model. Or, in MBA-speak, it cannibalises your core business.
The iPhone is considerably less than the sum of its parts for one reason: it was designed by a company that has become a prisoner of its previous success at innovation.
Apple's lucrative discovery and exploitation of online music transformed its image and its corporate prospects. But the assets it acquired in the process are now so valuable it would be corporate madness to do anything that might undermine them. And yet that is precisely what radical innovation would achieve. So Apple cannot do it.
It's a sad, but true, fact of technological life.
john.naughton@observer.co.uk">The Observer | Business | John Naughton: Why the iPhone won't rock your world: "The Networker
Why the iPhone won't rock your world
John Naughton
Sunday September 11, 2005
The Observer
The iPhone has arrived. Yawn. It was one of the worst-kept secrets of the technology world - that Apple had teamed up with Motorola to produce a mobile phone with an iPod inside. For months, Photoshopped fantasies of what the new device would look like circulated on the internet, no doubt elevating the blood pressure of Apple's CEO Steve Jobs, who is famously paranoid about the advance leaking of product details. But last week in San Francisco, Mr Jobs came clean, unveiling the Rokr (as in 'rocker', apparently).
In keeping with Motorola's recent design renaissance (see the ultra-slim Razr phone that is currently a prime cause of drooling among UK teenagers), the new device is nicely designed in two-toned silver with slightly rounded keys. Inside is a tiny 512 MB flash memory card configured to act like an iPod Shuffle. But it can hold only 100 songs at most.
Those who have used the Rokr say it's quite a good phone (with a camera, Bluetooth, speaker, voice dialling and reasonable battery life) but nothing special. And the (Motorola-designed) software is as uninspiring as that of the Razr. (Why is it that Nokia is apparently still the only company capable of designing an intuitive user interface for telephony?)
The music-player module works like an iPod - though it lacks the clickwheel that makes its big brothers function so slickly. But overall, the impression is distinctly underwhelming. The word on the streets is that far from being the revolutionary device that will bring about media 'convergence', the Rokr is, well, just the sum of its parts.
And that, it seems to me, is the most interesting thing about it.
Let me explain. The reason people were so intrigued about the idea of an iPhone is that it had the potential to make three hitherto-parallel universes converge. First, there was Apple's iTunes - the first, and still the dominant, legal online music business (which has sold half a billion songs since it opened). Then there was the mobile phone - the one modern device that has become ubiquitous in our lives. And finally, there was the iPod, the iconic gizmo that has become the Walkman de nos jours
Put these three together in a single device and - so the theory went - you had a truly revolutionary technology.
But it hasn't happened. Take, for example, the business of getting purchased tracks on to the Rokr music module. The obvious way would be to buy from iTunes and download via the phone network. But that's not the way it works: instead, you have to connect the phone to your computer (using a slow USB connection) and get songs from your iTunes music library - just as you do with a conventional iPod.
Here's another example. There's no technological reason why the music module in the iPhone couldn't hold 500 or 1,000 songs rather than the current measly 100; but if it did, then sales of existing iPod models might be undermined.
Similarly, there's no obvious reason why tunes stored on the music module couldn't be used as ringtones for the phone module. But that would undermine the mobile operators' lucrative trade in ringtones. (And, boy, is it lucrative: you can buy a Coldplay track from iTunes for 99 cents; but the same track bought at ringtone rates would cost $25.)
And as for the idea of downloading tracks directly to the phone via the mobile network - well, don't even think about it. Apple makes money from selling iPods, network-ready personal computers and online music. Using the phone network would bypass the first two of those cash cows.
I could go on, but you will get the drift. The real significance of the iPhone is the way it illustrates why companies find it hard to innovate. The difficulty stems from a simple, unpalatable fact - namely that radical innovation generally threatens your existing business model. Or, in MBA-speak, it cannibalises your core business.
The iPhone is considerably less than the sum of its parts for one reason: it was designed by a company that has become a prisoner of its previous success at innovation.
Apple's lucrative discovery and exploitation of online music transformed its image and its corporate prospects. But the assets it acquired in the process are now so valuable it would be corporate madness to do anything that might undermine them. And yet that is precisely what radical innovation would achieve. So Apple cannot do it.
It's a sad, but true, fact of technological life.
john.naughton@observer.co.uk
The Networker
Why the iPhone won't rock your world
John Naughton
Sunday September 11, 2005
The Observer
The iPhone has arrived. Yawn. It was one of the worst-kept secrets of the technology world - that Apple had teamed up with Motorola to produce a mobile phone with an iPod inside. For months, Photoshopped fantasies of what the new device would look like circulated on the internet, no doubt elevating the blood pressure of Apple's CEO Steve Jobs, who is famously paranoid about the advance leaking of product details. But last week in San Francisco, Mr Jobs came clean, unveiling the Rokr (as in 'rocker', apparently).
In keeping with Motorola's recent design renaissance (see the ultra-slim Razr phone that is currently a prime cause of drooling among UK teenagers), the new device is nicely designed in two-toned silver with slightly rounded keys. Inside is a tiny 512 MB flash memory card configured to act like an iPod Shuffle. But it can hold only 100 songs at most.
Those who have used the Rokr say it's quite a good phone (with a camera, Bluetooth, speaker, voice dialling and reasonable battery life) but nothing special. And the (Motorola-designed) software is as uninspiring as that of the Razr. (Why is it that Nokia is apparently still the only company capable of designing an intuitive user interface for telephony?)
The music-player module works like an iPod - though it lacks the clickwheel that makes its big brothers function so slickly. But overall, the impression is distinctly underwhelming. The word on the streets is that far from being the revolutionary device that will bring about media 'convergence', the Rokr is, well, just the sum of its parts.
And that, it seems to me, is the most interesting thing about it.
Let me explain. The reason people were so intrigued about the idea of an iPhone is that it had the potential to make three hitherto-parallel universes converge. First, there was Apple's iTunes - the first, and still the dominant, legal online music business (which has sold half a billion songs since it opened). Then there was the mobile phone - the one modern device that has become ubiquitous in our lives. And finally, there was the iPod, the iconic gizmo that has become the Walkman de nos jours
Put these three together in a single device and - so the theory went - you had a truly revolutionary technology.
But it hasn't happened. Take, for example, the business of getting purchased tracks on to the Rokr music module. The obvious way would be to buy from iTunes and download via the phone network. But that's not the way it works: instead, you have to connect the phone to your computer (using a slow USB connection) and get songs from your iTunes music library - just as you do with a conventional iPod.
Here's another example. There's no technological reason why the music module in the iPhone couldn't hold 500 or 1,000 songs rather than the current measly 100; but if it did, then sales of existing iPod models might be undermined.
Similarly, there's no obvious reason why tunes stored on the music module couldn't be used as ringtones for the phone module. But that would undermine the mobile operators' lucrative trade in ringtones. (And, boy, is it lucrative: you can buy a Coldplay track from iTunes for 99 cents; but the same track bought at ringtone rates would cost $25.)
And as for the idea of downloading tracks directly to the phone via the mobile network - well, don't even think about it. Apple makes money from selling iPods, network-ready personal computers and online music. Using the phone network would bypass the first two of those cash cows.
I could go on, but you will get the drift. The real significance of the iPhone is the way it illustrates why companies find it hard to innovate. The difficulty stems from a simple, unpalatable fact - namely that radical innovation generally threatens your existing business model. Or, in MBA-speak, it cannibalises your core business.
The iPhone is considerably less than the sum of its parts for one reason: it was designed by a company that has become a prisoner of its previous success at innovation.
Apple's lucrative discovery and exploitation of online music transformed its image and its corporate prospects. But the assets it acquired in the process are now so valuable it would be corporate madness to do anything that might undermine them. And yet that is precisely what radical innovation would achieve. So Apple cannot do it.
It's a sad, but true, fact of technological life.
john.naughton@observer.co.uk">The Observer | Business | John Naughton: Why the iPhone won't rock your world: "The Networker
Why the iPhone won't rock your world
John Naughton
Sunday September 11, 2005
The Observer
The iPhone has arrived. Yawn. It was one of the worst-kept secrets of the technology world - that Apple had teamed up with Motorola to produce a mobile phone with an iPod inside. For months, Photoshopped fantasies of what the new device would look like circulated on the internet, no doubt elevating the blood pressure of Apple's CEO Steve Jobs, who is famously paranoid about the advance leaking of product details. But last week in San Francisco, Mr Jobs came clean, unveiling the Rokr (as in 'rocker', apparently).
In keeping with Motorola's recent design renaissance (see the ultra-slim Razr phone that is currently a prime cause of drooling among UK teenagers), the new device is nicely designed in two-toned silver with slightly rounded keys. Inside is a tiny 512 MB flash memory card configured to act like an iPod Shuffle. But it can hold only 100 songs at most.
Those who have used the Rokr say it's quite a good phone (with a camera, Bluetooth, speaker, voice dialling and reasonable battery life) but nothing special. And the (Motorola-designed) software is as uninspiring as that of the Razr. (Why is it that Nokia is apparently still the only company capable of designing an intuitive user interface for telephony?)
The music-player module works like an iPod - though it lacks the clickwheel that makes its big brothers function so slickly. But overall, the impression is distinctly underwhelming. The word on the streets is that far from being the revolutionary device that will bring about media 'convergence', the Rokr is, well, just the sum of its parts.
And that, it seems to me, is the most interesting thing about it.
Let me explain. The reason people were so intrigued about the idea of an iPhone is that it had the potential to make three hitherto-parallel universes converge. First, there was Apple's iTunes - the first, and still the dominant, legal online music business (which has sold half a billion songs since it opened). Then there was the mobile phone - the one modern device that has become ubiquitous in our lives. And finally, there was the iPod, the iconic gizmo that has become the Walkman de nos jours
Put these three together in a single device and - so the theory went - you had a truly revolutionary technology.
But it hasn't happened. Take, for example, the business of getting purchased tracks on to the Rokr music module. The obvious way would be to buy from iTunes and download via the phone network. But that's not the way it works: instead, you have to connect the phone to your computer (using a slow USB connection) and get songs from your iTunes music library - just as you do with a conventional iPod.
Here's another example. There's no technological reason why the music module in the iPhone couldn't hold 500 or 1,000 songs rather than the current measly 100; but if it did, then sales of existing iPod models might be undermined.
Similarly, there's no obvious reason why tunes stored on the music module couldn't be used as ringtones for the phone module. But that would undermine the mobile operators' lucrative trade in ringtones. (And, boy, is it lucrative: you can buy a Coldplay track from iTunes for 99 cents; but the same track bought at ringtone rates would cost $25.)
And as for the idea of downloading tracks directly to the phone via the mobile network - well, don't even think about it. Apple makes money from selling iPods, network-ready personal computers and online music. Using the phone network would bypass the first two of those cash cows.
I could go on, but you will get the drift. The real significance of the iPhone is the way it illustrates why companies find it hard to innovate. The difficulty stems from a simple, unpalatable fact - namely that radical innovation generally threatens your existing business model. Or, in MBA-speak, it cannibalises your core business.
The iPhone is considerably less than the sum of its parts for one reason: it was designed by a company that has become a prisoner of its previous success at innovation.
Apple's lucrative discovery and exploitation of online music transformed its image and its corporate prospects. But the assets it acquired in the process are now so valuable it would be corporate madness to do anything that might undermine them. And yet that is precisely what radical innovation would achieve. So Apple cannot do it.
It's a sad, but true, fact of technological life.
john.naughton@observer.co.uk
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
9/11 Widow Reads Karl Rove the Riot Act
By Kristen Breitweiser
The Huffington Post
June 23, 2005.
Mr. Rove, the first thing that I would like to address is Afghanistan - the place that anyone with a true "understanding of 9/11" knows is a nation that actually has a connection to the 9/11 attacks. One month after 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, took down the Taliban, and left without capturing Usama Bin Laden - the alleged perpetrator of the September 11th attacks. In the meantime, Afghanistan has carried out democratic elections, but continues to suffer from extreme violence and unrest. Poppy production (yes, Karl, the drug trade) is at an all time high, thus flooding the world market with heroin. And of course, the oil pipeline (a.k.a. the Caspian Sea pipeline) is better protected by U.S. troops who now have a "legitimate" excuse to be in that part of Afghanistan. Interesting isn't it Karl that the drug "rat line" parallels the oil pipeline. (Yet, with all those troops guarding that same sliver of land, can you please explain how those drugs keep getting through?)
Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the nation's self-styled sensei with regard to 9/11: Is Usama Bin Laden still important? Lately, your coterie of friends seems to be giving out mixed messages. Recall that in the early days, Bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive." Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora, you downgraded his importance. We were told that Bin Laden was a "desperate man on the run," and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about". Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run. He looked tan, rested, and calm. He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner.
Karl, I mention Bin Laden because recently Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, has mentioned that he knows exactly where Bin Laden is located but that he cannot capture him for fear of offending sovereign nations. Which frankly, I find ironic because of Iraq--and let's just leave it at that. But, when you say that "moderation and restraint" don't work in fighting terrorists, maybe you should share those comments with Mr. Goss because he doesn't seem to be on the same page as you. Unless of course, Porter is holding out to announce that Bin Laden is in Iran. (Karl, I want Bin Laden brought to justice, but not if it means starting a war with Iran - a country that possesses nuclear weaponry. The idea of nuclear fallout in any quadrant of the world is just not an acceptable means to any ends, be it capturing Bin Laden, oil or drugs. But, Afghanistan and Bin Laden are old news. Iraq is the story of today. And of course, it appears that Iran will be the story of next month. But, I d
igress.)
More to the point, Karl when you say, "Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war," what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't.
It has always been America's policy that you only place soldiers' lives in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary and the absolute last resort. When you send troops into combat you support those troops by providing them with proper equipment and training. Why didn't you do that with the troops that you sent into Iraq? Why weren't their vehicles armored? Why didn't they have protective vests? Why weren't they properly trained about the rules of interrogation? And Karl, when our troops come home – be it tragically in body bags or with missing limbs – you should honor and acknowledge their service to their country. You shouldn't hide them by bringing them home in the dark of night. Most importantly, you should take care of them for the long haul by giving them substantial veteran's benefits and care. To me, that is being patriotic. To me, that is how you support our troops. To me, that is how you show that you know the value of a human life given for its country.
For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective "understanding of 9/11" seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too. First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD". Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man". And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy."
Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed. America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world. Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq; and most importantly, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed because of your war in Iraq. These facts speak for themselves. (And, they speak very little about effectively winning any war on terror.)
Karl, you say you "understand" 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget? Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling? Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could "understand" what happened on 9/11?
Since the release of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, have you helped bring to fruition any of the commission's recommendations? Have you truly made our homeland safer by hardening/eliminating soft targets? Because, to me rebuilding a tower that is 1,776 feet tall where the World Trade Center once stood seems to be only providing more soft targets for the terrorists to hit. Moreover, your support for the use of nuclear energy seems to be providing even more soft targets. Tell me, while you write your nifty little speeches about nuclear power, do you explain to your audience how our nuclear plants will be protected against terrorist attack or infiltration? What assurances do you give that nuclear waste will not find its way into terrorist's dirty bombs and onto our city streets? And, how do you assure your audience that the shipment of radioactive material will not become a terrorist target as it rolls through their own backyards?
To date, you have done practically nothing to secure our ports, nuclear power plants, and mass transportation systems. Imagine if the billions of dollars you spent in Iraq were spent more wisely on those things here at home. Imagine what sort of alternative energy resources (bio-diesel, wind power, solar power, and hybrid automobiles) could have been researched and funded in the past three years. Talk about regaining the respect and support of the world, that is the one way to do it.
Karl, if you "understand 9/11", then why don't you understand that until we have a more environmentally friendly energy policy, we cannot effectively fight the war on terrorism. By being dependent on foreign oil, we have no choice but to cozy up to nations that sponsor terrorists. Moreover, because of oil, we may end up placing our troops and our nation at greater risk by having to invade certain oil-rich countries. Our invasion of these countries merely serves to inflame would-be terrorists by reinforcing their notion that we are gluttonous and self-centered -- invading sovereign nations solely to steal their oil. Forgive me Karl, but is that how you think you "win hearts and minds"? Does that help in any way to "spread democracy"?
Finally Karl, please "understand" that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us. Those of us with a pure and comprehensive "understanding of 9/11" know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America. That didn't happen. Because after 9/11, the world united with Americans and al Qaeda's recruitment levels never increased.
It was only after your invasion of Iraq, that Bin Laden's goals were met. Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world. In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Which leads me to my final questions for you Karl: What are your motives when it comes to 9/11 and are you really sure that you understand 9/11?
All copyrights retained by creator, I'm just trying to spread this excellent article.
By Kristen Breitweiser
The Huffington Post
June 23, 2005.
Mr. Rove, the first thing that I would like to address is Afghanistan - the place that anyone with a true "understanding of 9/11" knows is a nation that actually has a connection to the 9/11 attacks. One month after 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, took down the Taliban, and left without capturing Usama Bin Laden - the alleged perpetrator of the September 11th attacks. In the meantime, Afghanistan has carried out democratic elections, but continues to suffer from extreme violence and unrest. Poppy production (yes, Karl, the drug trade) is at an all time high, thus flooding the world market with heroin. And of course, the oil pipeline (a.k.a. the Caspian Sea pipeline) is better protected by U.S. troops who now have a "legitimate" excuse to be in that part of Afghanistan. Interesting isn't it Karl that the drug "rat line" parallels the oil pipeline. (Yet, with all those troops guarding that same sliver of land, can you please explain how those drugs keep getting through?)
Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the nation's self-styled sensei with regard to 9/11: Is Usama Bin Laden still important? Lately, your coterie of friends seems to be giving out mixed messages. Recall that in the early days, Bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive." Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora, you downgraded his importance. We were told that Bin Laden was a "desperate man on the run," and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about". Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run. He looked tan, rested, and calm. He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner.
Karl, I mention Bin Laden because recently Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, has mentioned that he knows exactly where Bin Laden is located but that he cannot capture him for fear of offending sovereign nations. Which frankly, I find ironic because of Iraq--and let's just leave it at that. But, when you say that "moderation and restraint" don't work in fighting terrorists, maybe you should share those comments with Mr. Goss because he doesn't seem to be on the same page as you. Unless of course, Porter is holding out to announce that Bin Laden is in Iran. (Karl, I want Bin Laden brought to justice, but not if it means starting a war with Iran - a country that possesses nuclear weaponry. The idea of nuclear fallout in any quadrant of the world is just not an acceptable means to any ends, be it capturing Bin Laden, oil or drugs. But, Afghanistan and Bin Laden are old news. Iraq is the story of today. And of course, it appears that Iran will be the story of next month. But, I d
igress.)
More to the point, Karl when you say, "Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war," what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't.
It has always been America's policy that you only place soldiers' lives in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary and the absolute last resort. When you send troops into combat you support those troops by providing them with proper equipment and training. Why didn't you do that with the troops that you sent into Iraq? Why weren't their vehicles armored? Why didn't they have protective vests? Why weren't they properly trained about the rules of interrogation? And Karl, when our troops come home – be it tragically in body bags or with missing limbs – you should honor and acknowledge their service to their country. You shouldn't hide them by bringing them home in the dark of night. Most importantly, you should take care of them for the long haul by giving them substantial veteran's benefits and care. To me, that is being patriotic. To me, that is how you support our troops. To me, that is how you show that you know the value of a human life given for its country.
For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective "understanding of 9/11" seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too. First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD". Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man". And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy."
Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed. America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world. Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq; and most importantly, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed because of your war in Iraq. These facts speak for themselves. (And, they speak very little about effectively winning any war on terror.)
Karl, you say you "understand" 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget? Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling? Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could "understand" what happened on 9/11?
Since the release of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, have you helped bring to fruition any of the commission's recommendations? Have you truly made our homeland safer by hardening/eliminating soft targets? Because, to me rebuilding a tower that is 1,776 feet tall where the World Trade Center once stood seems to be only providing more soft targets for the terrorists to hit. Moreover, your support for the use of nuclear energy seems to be providing even more soft targets. Tell me, while you write your nifty little speeches about nuclear power, do you explain to your audience how our nuclear plants will be protected against terrorist attack or infiltration? What assurances do you give that nuclear waste will not find its way into terrorist's dirty bombs and onto our city streets? And, how do you assure your audience that the shipment of radioactive material will not become a terrorist target as it rolls through their own backyards?
To date, you have done practically nothing to secure our ports, nuclear power plants, and mass transportation systems. Imagine if the billions of dollars you spent in Iraq were spent more wisely on those things here at home. Imagine what sort of alternative energy resources (bio-diesel, wind power, solar power, and hybrid automobiles) could have been researched and funded in the past three years. Talk about regaining the respect and support of the world, that is the one way to do it.
Karl, if you "understand 9/11", then why don't you understand that until we have a more environmentally friendly energy policy, we cannot effectively fight the war on terrorism. By being dependent on foreign oil, we have no choice but to cozy up to nations that sponsor terrorists. Moreover, because of oil, we may end up placing our troops and our nation at greater risk by having to invade certain oil-rich countries. Our invasion of these countries merely serves to inflame would-be terrorists by reinforcing their notion that we are gluttonous and self-centered -- invading sovereign nations solely to steal their oil. Forgive me Karl, but is that how you think you "win hearts and minds"? Does that help in any way to "spread democracy"?
Finally Karl, please "understand" that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us. Those of us with a pure and comprehensive "understanding of 9/11" know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America. That didn't happen. Because after 9/11, the world united with Americans and al Qaeda's recruitment levels never increased.
It was only after your invasion of Iraq, that Bin Laden's goals were met. Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world. In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Which leads me to my final questions for you Karl: What are your motives when it comes to 9/11 and are you really sure that you understand 9/11?
All copyrights retained by creator, I'm just trying to spread this excellent article.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Interesting change in the biz model. However, you'd have to limit it to certain areas if you are going to price discriminate so severely - $5 to start and $.07 an hour - they will have to make sure they can control who gets that access.
GamesIndustry.biz - World of Warcraft launches in China
GamesIndustry.biz - World of Warcraft launches in China
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Apple with Intel
http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
So, the big question, as raised here, is if we will finally be able to double boot Windoze and OS X on the same machine - hmmm.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000157045779/
Pro:
huge distribution possibilities
Con:
huge compatibility issues potential
no more hardware sales for Apple means no more profit for Apple?
MS might just have to lower it's price for longhorn, though to try to kill it - and they will definitely try to kill it
Honestly, I'm surprised that they didn't make Intel exclude them long ago
Other questions:
What about Transmeta and AMD?
http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
So, the big question, as raised here, is if we will finally be able to double boot Windoze and OS X on the same machine - hmmm.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000157045779/
Pro:
huge distribution possibilities
Con:
huge compatibility issues potential
no more hardware sales for Apple means no more profit for Apple?
MS might just have to lower it's price for longhorn, though to try to kill it - and they will definitely try to kill it
Honestly, I'm surprised that they didn't make Intel exclude them long ago
Other questions:
What about Transmeta and AMD?
Monday, May 30, 2005
Good for NIN. What really amazes me is that the Canadian news seems to deem this more worthy of report than the castrated American Money machine known as the 'press.'
CBC Arts: Nine Inch Nails, MTV part ways over Bush
CBC Arts: Nine Inch Nails, MTV part ways over Bush
Friday, May 27, 2005
Thursday, April 14, 2005
No entries in weeks?!?!? Bad LP.
Trying to decide if it's worth heading out for this. Would make me re-arrange a lot of stuff, though.
E3 2005
Trying to decide if it's worth heading out for this. Would make me re-arrange a lot of stuff, though.
E3 2005
Friday, March 18, 2005
Dammit, this pisses me off - I knew that they manipulated the media (see Fox News) but dilberately creating 'news' goes too far. Welcome to 1984 - 20 years later
The White House Fakes It
Continued violence in Iraq, a struggling economy, an unpopular plan to privatize Social Security, homeland security left underfunded while the rich get giant tax cuts ... what's a White House to do when the news about its policies isn't favorable? Fake it. An explosive, front-page New York Times story this weekend exposes President Bush's vast manipulation of the media and White House attempts to manipulate public opinion. Over the past four years, it turns out at least 20 different federal agencies have been involved in producing hundreds -- yes, hundreds -- of fake TV news segments, many of which were "subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production." In fact, since President Bush took office, the White House has spent at least $254 million on these fake segments and other public relations ploys to spread positive propaganda about his policies. President Bush has paid lip service to the concept of a free press, saying in January 2005, "there needs to be a nice, independent relationship between the White House and the press, the administration and the press." He also claimed "our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." Here's what happens when it can't:
LOSE YOUR IDENTITY: One of the largest concerns about these fake news segments is that they obscure the fact that they are paid for using taxpayer money and contain a one-sided, purely positive take on administration policy. In a now-infamous segment by the Department of Health and Human Services, a PR official named Karen Ryan posed as a reporter interviewing then-Secretary Tommy Thompson. (Her role in the well-rehearsed spot was to give Thompson "better, snappier answers" to her pre-approved questions.) The Government Accountability Office found the agency "designed and executed" her segments "to be indistinguishable from news stories produced by private sector television news organizations."
OFFICE OF B.S.: The Office of Broadcasting Services is a branch of the State Department which traditionally has acted as a clearinghouse for video from news conferences. That all changed three years ago. In 2002, "with close editorial direction from the White House," the unit started producing fake news segments to back up President Bush's rationale for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. As one senior official told Congress, the phony segments were "powerful strategic tools" used to influence public opinion. In all, the office produced nearly 60 segments, which were then distributed around the world for local stations to use as actual news footage. Although the White House has claimed ignorance about the use of fake news, it was well aware this was happening. A White House memo in January 2003 actually said segments the State Department disseminated about the liberation of Afghan women were "a prime example" of how "White-House led efforts could facilitate strategic, proactive communications in the war on terror."
IGNORE THE GAO: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is a nonpartisan branch of Congress that investigates government fraud. The GAO criticized the administration's role in creating phony news three separate times in the past year, saying unless viewers are aware that what they're watching is government produced, it constitutes "covert propaganda." The GAO also forbade federal agencies from creating prepackaged news reports "that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials." The administration's response? The New York Times reports that on Friday, "the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch agencies to ignore the GAO findings."
IGNORE FEDERAL LAW: These fake news spots are produced with taxpayer money by outside public relations firms. Federal law warns federal agencies away from doing exactly that; the U.S. Code states "appropriated funds may not be used to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose." However, the GAO, which monitors the law, has no enforcement power. That responsibility lies with Congress and the White House. U.S. federal law also contains the Smith Mundt Act of 1948, which prohibits the spread of government propaganda in the United States (although it allows groups like Voice of America to broadcast it to foreign audiences.) According to the NY Times, State Department officials claim that provision doesn't apply to them.
Source: Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin with Nico Pitney and
Mipe Okunseinde, American Progress Action Fund, The Progress Report,
March 14, 2005.
******************************************************************************
White House to Agencies: Ignore GAO's Ruling on 'Illegal' TV News Releases
Washington - The White House, intent on continuing to crank out "video news releases" that look like television news stories, has told government agency heads to ignore a Government Accountability Office memo criticizing the practice as illegal propaganda.
In a memo on Friday, Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the lawyers the White House depends on disagree with the GAO's conclusions.
Accompanying Bolten's memo was a letter from Steven Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, who said video news releases "are the television equivalent of the printed press release." advertisement
"They can be a cost-effective means to distribute information through local news outlets, and their use by private and public entities has been widespread since the early 1990s, including by numerous federal agencies," Bradbury said.
Comptroller General David Walker of the GAO said Monday that his agency is "disappointed by the administration's actions" in telling agency heads to ignore the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.
"This is not just a legal issue, it's also an ethical matter," Walker said. "The taxpayers have a right to know when the government is trying to influence them with their own money."
Bradbury's memo said video news releases are legal and legitimate as long as they don't "constitute advocacy for any particular position or view."
The GAO, in a Feb. 17 memo to agency heads, said its review of video news releases distributed to television stations by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy showed violations of federal law barring the use of government money for propaganda. The GAO said, "Television-viewing audiences did not know that stories they watched on television news programs about the government were, in fact, prepared by the government."
Giving no indication that the administration would change its policy, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "It's very clear to the TV stations where they are coming from."
But the GAO, in the Feb. 17 memo from Walker, said that's not enough.
"They are intended to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public by independent television news organizations," Walker wrote. "To help accomplish this goal, these stories include actors or others hired to portray 'reporters' and may be accompanied by suggested scripts that television news anchors can use to introduce the story during the broadcast."
Former White House press secretary Mike McCurry, who held the job in the Clinton administration, said there was a "considerable amount of video news release activity" during those years, but much of it was limited to raw footage."
TruthOut Editor's Comment: This story appears to be gathering steam quickly. In addition to considerable public outrage, the White House's position was further complicated by a ruling from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that the practice described was illegal, violating laws prohibiting the U.S. government from producing covert propaganda. In response to the GAO's ruling, an attorney for the Justice Department issued a statement in opposition to the GAO's position, stating the White House had not broken the law and is within its rights to continue the practice.
While the attorney who drafted the opinion was Steven Bradbury, the final decision on whether or not to take legal action against the White House would have to be made by the head of the Justice Department, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the man who has been George W. Bush's personal attorney for decades. Accordingly, we are reporting that the Justice Department, under the direction of Gonzales, is shielding the White House rather than acting on the recommendation of the GAO. - ma.
Source: Ken Herman, Cox News Service, Tuesday 15 March 2005.
The White House Fakes It
Continued violence in Iraq, a struggling economy, an unpopular plan to privatize Social Security, homeland security left underfunded while the rich get giant tax cuts ... what's a White House to do when the news about its policies isn't favorable? Fake it. An explosive, front-page New York Times story this weekend exposes President Bush's vast manipulation of the media and White House attempts to manipulate public opinion. Over the past four years, it turns out at least 20 different federal agencies have been involved in producing hundreds -- yes, hundreds -- of fake TV news segments, many of which were "subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production." In fact, since President Bush took office, the White House has spent at least $254 million on these fake segments and other public relations ploys to spread positive propaganda about his policies. President Bush has paid lip service to the concept of a free press, saying in January 2005, "there needs to be a nice, independent relationship between the White House and the press, the administration and the press." He also claimed "our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." Here's what happens when it can't:
LOSE YOUR IDENTITY: One of the largest concerns about these fake news segments is that they obscure the fact that they are paid for using taxpayer money and contain a one-sided, purely positive take on administration policy. In a now-infamous segment by the Department of Health and Human Services, a PR official named Karen Ryan posed as a reporter interviewing then-Secretary Tommy Thompson. (Her role in the well-rehearsed spot was to give Thompson "better, snappier answers" to her pre-approved questions.) The Government Accountability Office found the agency "designed and executed" her segments "to be indistinguishable from news stories produced by private sector television news organizations."
OFFICE OF B.S.: The Office of Broadcasting Services is a branch of the State Department which traditionally has acted as a clearinghouse for video from news conferences. That all changed three years ago. In 2002, "with close editorial direction from the White House," the unit started producing fake news segments to back up President Bush's rationale for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. As one senior official told Congress, the phony segments were "powerful strategic tools" used to influence public opinion. In all, the office produced nearly 60 segments, which were then distributed around the world for local stations to use as actual news footage. Although the White House has claimed ignorance about the use of fake news, it was well aware this was happening. A White House memo in January 2003 actually said segments the State Department disseminated about the liberation of Afghan women were "a prime example" of how "White-House led efforts could facilitate strategic, proactive communications in the war on terror."
IGNORE THE GAO: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is a nonpartisan branch of Congress that investigates government fraud. The GAO criticized the administration's role in creating phony news three separate times in the past year, saying unless viewers are aware that what they're watching is government produced, it constitutes "covert propaganda." The GAO also forbade federal agencies from creating prepackaged news reports "that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials." The administration's response? The New York Times reports that on Friday, "the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch agencies to ignore the GAO findings."
IGNORE FEDERAL LAW: These fake news spots are produced with taxpayer money by outside public relations firms. Federal law warns federal agencies away from doing exactly that; the U.S. Code states "appropriated funds may not be used to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose." However, the GAO, which monitors the law, has no enforcement power. That responsibility lies with Congress and the White House. U.S. federal law also contains the Smith Mundt Act of 1948, which prohibits the spread of government propaganda in the United States (although it allows groups like Voice of America to broadcast it to foreign audiences.) According to the NY Times, State Department officials claim that provision doesn't apply to them.
Source: Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin with Nico Pitney and
Mipe Okunseinde, American Progress Action Fund, The Progress Report,
March 14, 2005.
******************************************************************************
White House to Agencies: Ignore GAO's Ruling on 'Illegal' TV News Releases
Washington - The White House, intent on continuing to crank out "video news releases" that look like television news stories, has told government agency heads to ignore a Government Accountability Office memo criticizing the practice as illegal propaganda.
In a memo on Friday, Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the lawyers the White House depends on disagree with the GAO's conclusions.
Accompanying Bolten's memo was a letter from Steven Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, who said video news releases "are the television equivalent of the printed press release." advertisement
"They can be a cost-effective means to distribute information through local news outlets, and their use by private and public entities has been widespread since the early 1990s, including by numerous federal agencies," Bradbury said.
Comptroller General David Walker of the GAO said Monday that his agency is "disappointed by the administration's actions" in telling agency heads to ignore the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.
"This is not just a legal issue, it's also an ethical matter," Walker said. "The taxpayers have a right to know when the government is trying to influence them with their own money."
Bradbury's memo said video news releases are legal and legitimate as long as they don't "constitute advocacy for any particular position or view."
The GAO, in a Feb. 17 memo to agency heads, said its review of video news releases distributed to television stations by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy showed violations of federal law barring the use of government money for propaganda. The GAO said, "Television-viewing audiences did not know that stories they watched on television news programs about the government were, in fact, prepared by the government."
Giving no indication that the administration would change its policy, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "It's very clear to the TV stations where they are coming from."
But the GAO, in the Feb. 17 memo from Walker, said that's not enough.
"They are intended to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public by independent television news organizations," Walker wrote. "To help accomplish this goal, these stories include actors or others hired to portray 'reporters' and may be accompanied by suggested scripts that television news anchors can use to introduce the story during the broadcast."
Former White House press secretary Mike McCurry, who held the job in the Clinton administration, said there was a "considerable amount of video news release activity" during those years, but much of it was limited to raw footage."
TruthOut Editor's Comment: This story appears to be gathering steam quickly. In addition to considerable public outrage, the White House's position was further complicated by a ruling from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that the practice described was illegal, violating laws prohibiting the U.S. government from producing covert propaganda. In response to the GAO's ruling, an attorney for the Justice Department issued a statement in opposition to the GAO's position, stating the White House had not broken the law and is within its rights to continue the practice.
While the attorney who drafted the opinion was Steven Bradbury, the final decision on whether or not to take legal action against the White House would have to be made by the head of the Justice Department, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the man who has been George W. Bush's personal attorney for decades. Accordingly, we are reporting that the Justice Department, under the direction of Gonzales, is shielding the White House rather than acting on the recommendation of the GAO. - ma.
Source: Ken Herman, Cox News Service, Tuesday 15 March 2005.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
I'm sure that some SF author was the first to talk about this, but I'm reminded of the Dilbert cartoon which said that the replacement of physical keyboards with vr glasses and keyboards would do nothing to dispel engineers' social misfit status.
VKB, Inc.
VKB, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)