Yup, it is all about the Mass Effect, in the one, the two and the three. I just finished the first game and have started the second one. In the first I hit a few glitches, optionally a few bugs, yet am I angry? No, I am delighted. The game still holds up, even upgraded the game is still every bit as capturing as the original was and to play this game again 15 years later seeing that it holds up to all the latest games is proof of its excellence. Yes, I think a few things could have been done different, it is merely detail work, it does not deprive us of anything either way. The game left me with a lovely feeling of great gaming, just like it did when I played it on the Xbox 360.
These treasures are to admire, to really enjoy gaming and I know that the best game is still ahead of me, so I am as happy as can be. Yet the feeling remains, this game is already ahead of Andromeda, thy failed to largely and we should wonder why that is. You see, even as I am still designing a new RPG, the setting of failure is always with me as it is with any person with creative settings. A movie, a game, a TV series, they all rely on the headspace to deliver. Creativity is weird that way, it is in equal measure delighted to create as it is eager to doubt whatever you delivered. It might not make sense, but ask any creative mind, they will concur. It is easier to replay what I had conquered before? Nope, well perhaps it is , but I still enjoyed every minute of the game and after the first stretch of three, I will try it once more, now completing the achievements I left behind in the first run. I reckon I am not the only one on that path and I am not the only one enjoying every minute of what we loved doing 15 years ago. Mass effect, especially the second game is as close as we tend to get to gaming perfection and the others (read: Ubisoft) still has not caught on. We see their marketing machine giving us (via IGN) ‘Ubisoft Says It Will Focus Less on AAA Games, But What Does That Actually Mean?’ I personally believe that they lost the plot, listening to people whose life evolved behind spreadsheets, like they knew what they were doing, but art is not that confined and they blundered again and again. One of their greatest achievements (Assassins Creed) torn down by stupidity, by shortsightedness and Mass Effect show that clearly, Bioware shows what excellence in gaming gets you. It gets you millions loving and returning the exactly the same game. Even sources like SVG are making a 180 degree setting trying not to lose face. Articles like ‘AC: VALHALLA WAS GREAT, AND THEN SOMETHING HAPPENED’ are a bit of a joke, the game had bugs, glitches from the very beginning, YouTube is filled with that part, so when I see “Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla has to function properly in order to keep fans’ interest”, this could have been resolved by proper testing and that was never done, it is either that or the big boys on top knowingly let a defective game take the money of gamers, what do you think it is? One gamer in one site gives us “I didn’t think it would be possible after Odyssey but Ubisoft managed to exceed my disappointment”, you see, that is the hard center of the problem. Exceeding disappointment. I was in a mid level meeting once where the bosses were trying to convince us that it is unrealistic to aim for 100% satisfaction in support, so what would be the acceptance of aiming for 80% satisfaction? All whilst they would still pay us based on a 100% scale mind you, but that is trivial at that matter. A stage 25 years ago where market saturation and unrealistic goals would feed reduced quality. A stage we saw repeated again and again and also in gaming, what if we do not deliver in day 1, but get them started and get it all fixed by day 60, and even that they could not achieve 6 months later and here is a game that delivered on day one fifteen years ago, are we starting to see the distorted image?
So when we are given ‘Ubisoft Says It Will Focus Less on AAA Games, But What Does That Actually Mean?’, we see a move towards indie games and microtransactions. As such we see the decline of games, soon they will make an about face and make some cloud gaming announcement, they will not do it themselves, they will let someone at Google, Amazon, or Microsoft make that announcement, optionally all of them, it is the game they decided to play and it is up to the gamers to consider what is the better path to take. Ubisoft will make clearance of their commitment towards some gaming pass from one of the consoles, or a cloud streaming selling and get their revenue, a stage that does not hand 100%, but as we have seen it all over the place that losers will accept the 60% marker.
In this we need to wonder, we saw the teasers, will EA clean up its act up and will ME5 be the game we hoped to get in ME4? I set that stage a year ago on how that would be possible and I am not convinced on the actions that EA games will take. At the stage is not done yet. You see, even as we saw the excellence that the Mass Effect trilogy brought, there was a contender and that player is ready to push Microsoft towards a fifth position. Nintendo is sitting on a gold mine, and they know it. The Metroid Prime series is as revered as Mass Effect was, this sets a different station as Microsoft never had it in the first place, and should Luna or Stadia be able to talk Nintendo into it, there are loads of players that ill want to play it on Switch and one of the two cloud gaming systems. And with Microsoft facing gamer backlash of a non performing Halo game adds to the setting, Nintendo has the option to push ahead a lot more, and more important, they have the ammunition to make it work, as such the question who will become the number three system? Google Stadia or Amazon Luna? For the gamers it will be a larger stage, one where it is not merely dominated by Nintendo and Sony, but the stage will become which of the two systems will add to the gamers that selected both Sony AND Nintendo, we might think it is Google, but the Luna performed so close to Stadia in 2020 that the verdict is out and as Amazon commits to developers and to developing games, they might actually win. So what will we see in the future? I hope that it is more of the same feelings that Bioware gave me the last three days, I had truly missed them. Other great games followed, I acknowledge that, but you never forget your first one (or second one for that matter) and in that I am one of those gamers that have enclosed Oblivion and Mass Effect in my heart, good times!
We are feeling all kinds of weird at times, we fall for someone, for something, and we also trip at times. These things happen and more often than not we have ourselves to blame, but is that the case all the time? In this I refer to a BBC article 3 days ago called ‘Victim of ‘Elon Musk’ Bitcoin scam loses home deposit’, first of all, the scam used the name ‘Elon Musk’ the man himself has no dealings here. But it was part of the article that woke me up. It is “Ms Bushnell, an investor in cryptocurrency, spotted an item on a website that appeared to use BBC News branding, claiming Mr Musk, the billionaire boss of the Tesla car firm, would pay back double the sum of any Bitcoin deposit”, now in my case the part where I see ‘pay back double the sum’ would raise all the red flags, but it is “an item on a website”, not merely “appeared to use BBC News branding” that got my eyes.
There are two elements here, the first is that more and more advertisements (and scams) rely way too heavily on ‘deceptive conduct’ and the law has been dragging its heels here for 2-3 years on drowning that issue. Stronger laws against deceptive conduct needs to be there, not some political loon relying on some complaints department, but laws that give power to the law to chastise the advertisement agency that allowed for this with fines in excess of £1,000,000. I reckon that these people will clean up their acts when the fine equals a quarter of their revenue. Do you think it is overreaching? I myself thwarted 5 attempts to get scammed last week, and I believe it is getting worse, with Indian developers learning that for a mere investment of $250 they could reap $250,000 matters are getting worse and it needs to be halted, or at least diminished by a hell of a lot. In this I am willing to point the finger at Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and optionally Amazon as well. Some advertisements should not be allowed to continue.
Even when we see the Guardian giving us (some time ago) “investigation shows apparent ease of promoting fraudulent services online”, we see the lack of actions by all. They made these AI claims, so use your AI (actually AI does not yet exist), but there needs to be a much larger level of checks and even as the BBC watered down the stage towards “spotted an item on a website”, which due to a lack of presentable evidence makes sense, the setting is not all towards the victim. Yet in that light, If I had a real option to double your money, do you think I would go open, or go to my best friends? If I had an option that there was a 100% chance of a 100% gain, do you think I would give this to strangers, or to close friends? Consider that question when you go out and spend (read: donate) your money on something that is without evidence and without verification.
And there is a reason to blame big tech in this instance, it is seen in “The fake site is still currently online”, this implies that there was advertisement, there is a trail and I reckon there is a need for action and an option for action. You do not need a big degree in IT (I do have one) and we do know that there are ways to mask one’s digital identity, but wonder should those with a masked digital identity be allowed to advertise?
The article gives more questions than answers, but that is not a bad thing. Getting the questions out into the open optionally raises the bar or perception and if we get that bar high enough, my peers in the House of Lords will wake up and demand action, which gets us at least part of the way there.
Consider your mobile, especially when you bought it less than a year ago. You think it is a mobile, you use it as a mobile and we all do, but the short and sweet is that it is more, it is your personal data server and EVERYONE wants access to whatever you have there. This has been the case for a while yet as per soon with 5G, a lot more people want access including organised crime, that is because data, personal and categorised data is the new currency and it is like printing money in your living room (if you have enough data). You see the governments are not ready for the waves that are about to hit us all and with 5G the waves will be higher and they will come with a factor 50. Now, for the most you will never notice, but when your data is out in the open, your value decreases. This is not some figment, this is a given. Insurance companies want all the data to see what premiums they can skew in their favour, some want to see your interest so they can advertise more directly and personally, some want to see who your connections are. For the most these corporations have no interest in your life, they want the data of millions and every ‘convenience’ added to the mobile is one step closer to the getting your data. It does not matter whether it is an Android or an iPhone, they want it all. So in the first stage I came up with the Dumb Smart Device. The dumb smart device is simple, it is a buffer. It will replace the swipes you will make at marketing, in shops, getting information and requesting data. It can accept data from all but will only pair with 1 or 2 devices, your mobile and your laptop, or desktop. It will make more sense as the other devices are added to public domain.
There is more, but it will come with the second device, this should get the hungry designer started, lets see what w get next.
You see we might ignore the swipes, but some will not, some will want to milk it for all they can and that cannot be stopped, but this device will dampen and delay the effect. Some will state that this is all between my ears, this is not real and it will never happen. Search the news, zero day faults, hacks on Cisco, Microsoft Exchange, Android hacks, iPhone hacks and all kinds of transgressions. We might think that we have a handle, but with 5G the usage pressure will increase factor 50 and the law cannot even keep up now, when that happens they will fight a battle they have already lost and they are all about blaming, but the real part is that they have no clue, so I came up with a few devices that to stem that tide. I doubt it will completely stop it, but I can delay the impact. And as the DSD gains momentum, we will see a new retail era emerge.
These DSD devices will be part of jewellery, rings (in a more advanced stage), pendants, necklaces and some will be kitsch, it will take shape like the ghetto blasters did. More and more will be a little oversized, some will become fashion statements basically saying ‘I have one’, some will do it to show it is a tool. There will be all kinds of reasons, but it will grow in several directions all at the same time. A tool that needs no swiping, it keeps the mobile where it is sae, in ones pocket. And this stage is merely the beginning.
You see this was not designed in the Covid era, even though it benefits on a larger scale, it was not set as such. This came to mind when I saw the first drafts of Marketing needs to evolve, approaching customers will go differently and as my mind was adjusting to that stage, developing new methods of digital power towards customers and interactions, I saw that the power needs to be with the customers, only such an approach will create a larger wave of loyalty, not the ones taking power away from the customers, those giving them options will benefit to the same degree , but much longer, it creates larger retail waves. Yes the books are all saying the opposite, yet those books were written in an age where newspapers ruled, where the population was known, in a digital age that is not a given as such the empowering party will gain a longer benefit to that population, creating a larger wave of customers. It is a different approach to a different era. The iterators never understood it, they come from their ‘position of power’ and that dog no longer barks, we need a different approach and I a setting the first step by making it public domain, now the faster connector will become a larger player and optionally a winner. It is my first step, one of several to debunk those wannabe managers relying on bulletpoint memo’s. Now they cannot shout, now they have to deliver. Well, have fun with that.
Today I stopped (via YouTube) to watch one movie that I had not seen for some time. Who could pass up the chance to watch Natalie Wood again, in this movie with Louise Fletcher and Christoper Walken it is all about recording the brain. The movie Brainstorm (1983) is all about what is not possible and it is done well, the story takes a little dip when the military gets involved (like it was in the 80’s) but overall still an entertaining movie. I wondered what would happen if some young upstart (new director) gets to talk to a decently financed producer and makes this into a mini series for whatever streaming service takes it. A friend of mine (yes, I actually have those) wondered why I am not going that distance myself. Well, I turned 59, I am not a director, I do not feel that I would make a decent director and starting a new career as well as getting schooling at 59 is not my idea of retirement preparations.
So as I was pondering that field we were not meant for show business, apart from the optional new anime by Ridley Scott where I am considering to do the Dutch voice over, there is no real flame to go that distance. Yet, in that same setting I was wondering the advances that Electroencephalography has made (if any), you see that is still an important part, if there is to be any real AI in computing, a better recollection and parsing systems is required and Electroencephalography might be the only technology that gives (at some point in time) a more human (or is that humane) setting towards AI. That drive could be part of the brainstorm mini series. It is not the weirdest idea, the writer Bruce Joel Rubin did make a real good script, he was also behind Ghost, Jacob’s Ladder, and Deep Impact (and a few more), as such this man has earned his stripes. But the nagging feeling that the movie left behind beckons exploring. The 80’s was a great era for loopy ideas, but not one for deeply thought through options. I reckon that these movies are all under investigation by the streaming houses as remaking IP tends to be a lot cheaper than making new IP. The fact that this movie is almost 40 years old gives it the forgotten tender group.
Yet in all this we need to wonder if this all we are, are new IP settings (Harry Potter, Game of Thrones) so rare that remaking is all we can do? There are almost 130 million books out in the open, is finding new IP that hard? The producers seem to clamp down on the bestseller lists and when the going gets tough they fold (example: Percy Jackson series), yet in all this the world has so much more to offer. It had one additional thing to offer, because my mind got the better of me. It started with me reading a part wrong ‘One idiot abroad’, this was accentuated with the slightly ‘psycho’ look of Stephen Merchant. It showed two additional people and the thought came ‘One won’t make it out alive’ and I giggled. That is a popcorn moment, it is reality TV that I would watch, especially when death becomes a factor. Consider all these celebrity survival games. We all get it, there needs to be a winner, but let’s be honest, should the losers survive?
There is no way that you haven’t had similar thought at some point. It is almost as corny (and perhaps essential) as letting an anti-vaxxer Twitter influencer die of Covid-19, some things are just meant to be and should that person be allowed to deprive actual victims of essential oxygen? We are setting the stage that the makers have given us and we twist that setting a little more. It is almost like walking into a bookshop and placing some of the Stephen King books ‘the Stand’ in the non-fictional section, there is a little demon on our shoulder whispering “You can do that, do not be the pussy you usually are”, and at some point we just give in.
If we are out thinking patterns, is it not equally so that intelligence will be shaped by the quirks we give into? Yet what is the stage where we record these impulses and can they actually be recorded at present? If electroencephalography is the way to that, is it not also the way towards an actual AI? If a biochemical computer can be mapped and truly be understood, is that not a first step in creating a silicon version to do something similar? Yes, I understand that they are not the same, but to get the other version working, it needs to be able or an effort needs to be made to mimic the other version, that has been true for the longest time. You see, mimicking also shows what goes wrong and when we understand, truly understand why it is going wrong, we can work towards new levels of innovation.
The path to innovation is never a straight line, only according to some person with a business degree and basic knowledge of Excel, they think it is a simple formula, but the rest, those treading innovation will tell you it is something different entirely, perhaps a new Brainstorm might reveal a lot more scientific paths than we give the art credit for.
Speaking of credits, those who follow me, let it be known that a certain counter is at 21,447, as such certain revelations will not take much longer.
You think it is simple, but if you have been in photography like me (1975), that question becomes easier to comprehend, but explaining that becomes harder, I get that. Distractions, obstructions, light and focus are 4 basic elements of missing a detail, optionally several details. Yet the professional photographer learned not to be hindered by obstructions and to adjust for focus and light, which leaves the focussed photographer and the photographer. So the focussed photographer can make the ‘snatch’ shot and the photographer merely looks for a tissue. Seems bland and crude but this example matters.
To see one application, we need to turn to ‘Telstra, NATO and the USA’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/06/20/telstra-nato-and-the-usa/), an article I wrote in 2018 “unless you work for the right part of Palantir inc, at which point your income could double between now and 2021”, the shares were at $9.69 and ended last night at $23.18, basically I saw that coming a mile away. And that is not all, there are several avenues where their value should at the very least double within the next 19 months. It is the flaws we set ourselves up for and when the stupid people (loud mouthed politicians) realise that their loud mouths will require data, Palantir is close to the only option they have.
That article has a few more connections to what is to come, the most important part if 5G and there is a lot going on (at https://www.gadgetguy.com.au/australian-5g-speeds-truth-revealed/) in Australia. Gadget Guy gave us last week one take (not the highest quality source), but they do give us “There are two issues for Australian 5G speeds. The primary is that despite Telstra insistence that it covers 50% of Australians and 75% of the population by the end of June, it does not! nPerf (based on real 5G user’s) shows minimal reception. The second is real download and upload speed. While the average is 240.9/15.5Mbps Mbps, it is well short of Telstra’s hype – so fanciful we won’t embarrass it by mentioning it’s up to 20Gbps claim debacle when first introduced”, oh hold on, did I not give you “The problem is that even as some say that Telstra is beginning to roll out 5G now, we am afraid that those people are about to be less happy soon thereafter. You see, Telstra did this before with 4G, which was basically 3.5G” with a reference to ABC in 2011 on how Telstra was BS’ing the population on the 28th of September 2011. So thats two elements where we see that their ‘photographers’ ignored obstacles, blamed the lens makers for focal points, the sun for shining to brightly and they all went running for their tissues. They audience got distracted (as I personally see it) by all the baubles that they were offering. It worked in 1700, so why not in 2021? Yet CMO gives us 2 days ago (at https://www.cmo.com.au/article/688024/tourism-australia-7-eleven-telstra-balancing-data-driven-engagement-consumer-consent/) “Panel of digital executives share the role of first-party data and personalisation in their customer experience approaches against consumer consent and control of their privacy”, a setting where we might see that a panel of 5 are slicing the new currency (data) cake in a way that THEY are happy with, all whilst we are told “the key is to balance data sophistication as a business with consumer controls and transparency. He also noted the varying levels of control and regulation around using data across geographies such as Europe versus the US, which the tourism bureau is operating in”, yet the answer which was not really an answer is about ‘balance data sophistication’, all whilst ‘consumer controls’ (for the consumer) will be as nonexistent as possible. We might not get that when we see “invest in first-party identifiers as well as a unified ID for the tourism industry that can be leveraged”, yes but to what extend it is leveraged is never stated, merely implied, the additional ‘unified ID’ would have a much larger impact, but that too is never stated, they all want as large a slice of that data pie and Cambridge Analytica has made them very very cautious.
These two elements are merely that, elements. Yet the underlying data there will require analyses and whilst some will claim that they can, Palantir is close to the only source that actually can analyse the whole lot and that is what I saw coming a mile away.
A linked small digression You see it takes a massively large level of stupid (and greed) to cater to this, but I believe that the EU (Margrethe Vestager) is trying and optionally succeeding in pulling this off. She is all about “European Commission anti-trust regulator Margrethe Vestager tweeted that “consumers are losing out”. It relates to charges brought two years ago by music streaming app Spotify which claimed that Apple was stifling innovation in that industry”, you might think that, but I do not. You see the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56941173) gives us “It relates to charges brought two years ago by music streaming app Spotify which claimed that Apple was stifling innovation in that industry”, no it had set a premise to all (which it does not), all 23,000,000 Apple developers. It set a premise where they could develop whatever they want whilst having zero deployment cost and they would be charged as they gained incomes, so not the $75,000 upfront to get started, but after the fact and with no time limit. As such wannabe innovators flourished. It never stifled innovation, it limited greed. So whilst we see the painting of bad bad evil Apple, no one is looking at the fact that Spotify is paying artists HALF of what Apple and Google pays them, it amounts to $0.0032 per stream, so to make 1 cent, the song needs to be requested 3 times. This is why I still buy music, at least the artists I care about will get a much better slice.
And when we see the image where they are now CHARGING for algorithms, all whilst they made a brute gross profit of $575,000,000 in Q4 2020, I think that the EU commissioner is massively loopy. You see, this is about consolidating greed plain and simple and in the process it will endanger consumers (the ones she claimed to protect).
The image is merely one element of greed, it goes further. That part is not directly seen, but the BBC does give the goods with ‘The ransomware surge ruining lives’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56933733), there we see “Ransomware gangs are now routinely targeting schools and hospitals. Hackers use malicious software to scramble and steal an organisation’s computer data”, in this the larger stage is not merely the theft, it is how they use larger systems to spread across all the internet and with 5G that danger becomes 5,000%. You see people like Spotify, Epic Games et all want to be outside the Google and Apple store, but they will limit protection (they will call it something else) and when the consumer ends up paying for that, we will get to see all kinds of apologies, but it was not entirely THEIR fault. As such I say, when you get hit (and you will) make sure that as you sue Spotify for damages, you add Daniel Ek and Margrethe Vestager to the culprits of your damages. Organised crime is getting better and better in walking away and as such their greed must be addressed in courts and their approach towards a ‘too big to fail’ setting must be answered, the data will be out there and s such players like Palantir will make even more money, it will be all about the data from 2022 onwards, in this the OCCRP their 2021 serious organised crime threat assessment where we see “The threat from cyber-dependent crimes is set to further increase in volume and sophistication over the coming years”, and in this stage Margrethe Vestager is willing to open the floodgates towards greed driven idiots setting the stage for organised crime getting more? You think that will ever be a great idea? I think not.
And it does not stop there. The fact that the exchange hack was hard to detect for a long time, some hacks were out in the field for years and now we see greed driven idiots scale away the two decent bastions of protection that consumers have (Apple and Google) and let others skate around them? How long until we see some corrupted Amazon like app via a phishing spree be offered to millions. By the time some will have a clue billions will have been shifted and who pays for that? Insurers? I very much doubt that. As such these two will be required to sit in the dock explaining their catering to greed. You see if Margrethe Vestager was really about the consumers, she would also be about protecting the artists and where is it acceptable that they get one third of a cent for a song? Is there more? Yes, but I will admit that this is part speculation. The BBC article gives us “The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, also a member of the Ransomware Task Force says it handled more than three times as many ransomware incidents in 2020 than in the previous year”, you see paying a bitcoin is only one part, the data can still be shared with others and as data become currency the damage setting goes up by a lot. The dangerous part is that commissioner Vestager knows that the law and policing are not up to the task and she is catering to someone with dubious greed needs? One that underpays artists by what I consider to be as close as criminal levels of renumeration? And in my mind, some excuse ‘If we get this they get more’ does not float, in that setting their business model was wrong from day one, in addition, the entire algorithm setting shows a larger exploitation to kindle greed and leave an artist with less. So how accomodating to EU consumers do you think Margrethe Vestager actually is, that in opposition to catering to greed driven players? Apple and Google might not be god, not great but they agreed on a format to keep their consumers safe all whilst giving an option for starting developers to score big, the fact that these players were not as good as they hoped they would be and as they relied on advertisement to push the players is a mere side effect, but without these store protection, the mess will be close to unimaginable and players like Palantir will have the data and the greed driven players (as well as some not too bright politicians) get to defend themselves in the dock against lawyers with massive class actions. When that happens, be sure that you have stocked up on popcorn, because it will be worth watching. It will be reality TV with lots of fake tears and CEO’s claiming that they did not know certain things and watch their fortunes dwindle. It will be a much better class of reality TV for some time to watch.
I said it before, and we are now approaching the moment of doing. I had hoped there would be more time, but after another so called ‘whisper’ stating ‘just give us the idea and we will do right by you’, I basically have had enough. They forgot that those who are not rich and never were will not bow to those eager to use greed as a tool to spike their own bank account. So as I prepared the stage, I had already uploaded the documents on other systems to a dozen Chinese and American distribution channels, when these places get well over 50,000 hits I will publish it here, it should not take long, a 5G IP that no one has and becomes public domain is a greed driven person’s worst nightmare. IP that they cannot claim and 50,000 hits (over a dozen) places like 4Chan and a few others makes any claim of that IP non-existent. My dumb smart device is first, after that two other devices with outreaches into several IP will change the balance and in all this anyone who is not up and running true 5G is out of the race. The most dangerous setting is one where the maker have nothing left to lose. I have pretty much hit that point and it is time to show the world where everyone forgot to look, so as such it is a nice stage of peek-a-boo, showing where the greed driven were not looking and when all others state how obvious that was, my work will be done.
A stage where others will all make claims, but as the stage of non-evidence explodes into the internet, we will see just how stupid some were. And that stage was out there well over a year, I mentioned a few parts on my side, but not all and no key elements were mentioned, as such these people (et’s call them clowns) are in a stage where none of them can defend themselves with originality. For once I get the jump on some captains of industry who decided to listen to bulletpoint memo managers and they will be proven to be wrong, and all in a stage where my systems will slow down cybercrimes (to some degree), they will decentralise retail and open a wide are network of new opportunities, what a lovely way to show that making a buck was better then to make claim on IP that was never theirs. The stage where we now find ourselves on is a path where the maker would prefer to see his idea to become public domain then to see vultures grab what was never theirs.
Too bad for me, but I saw no other way and if I cannot have that nice apartment in location X, they will not have anything of my IP’s they were after.
I know that is sounds selfish (according to them) yet all that technology in public domain will make me feel rather nice, such is my conviction on the matter. It might not make me the political highlife, but for the others their political highlife will end right quick, their bosses and greed driven connections will take it out on them which is fine by me as well.
I see only upsides in this and even as I do not get paid for these thoughts, I will come up with new ones and now (as I personally see it) my value will be established.
So keep your eyes peeled, soon you can judge for yourself whether I was plain crazy, or a hidden savant (genius sounds too arrogant).
We always have questions, we all do. Some are based upon curiosity, some are based on acquisition and some on compilation. The people tend to have questions in the range of one and three, businesses on two and three, with an optional need for the first group to see if a creation towards awareness is required. And in this we need to see ‘Facebook v Apple: The ad tracking row heats up’, the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56831241) gives us “The IDFA can also be paired with other tech, such as Facebook’s tracking pixels or tracking cookies, which follow users around the web, to learn even more about you”, yet the question no one seems to be asking is how much is an advertiser entitled to get? I have no issue that Facebook, within Facebook measures and ‘collects’ it is the price of a free service, but did we sign up for a larger stake (or is that steak) at the expense of the consumer? Even as we tend to agree and accept “Apple co-founder Steve Jobs acknowledged that some people didn’t care about how much data they shared, but said they should always be informed of how it was being used”, in this the question takes a few steps and has a few exits in where to go next and we tend to remain in the dark about our needs, and what we are comfortable with. This is not new, but digital marketing is new, we have never faced it before. Even as we accept the quote by Tim Cook, the setting given with “If a business is built on misleading users, on data exploitation, on choices that are no choices at all, it does not deserve our praise. It deserves reform”, we forget that this is not merely misusing, it is a much larger stake. I some time ago refused to play a game because it collected my religion. Since when is a game’s requirement the religion I have? So (its Catholic by the way), even as we decide to not use an application, consider the price we pay and it goes further as app’s and their advertisements strategy on nearly EVERY device is set to showing us advertisements (to further the financial setting of the maker), in this I have no real problem, but what information is collected by the advertiser? And we all like the steps Apple seems to be making and as we ‘revere’ “Apple is baking privacy into its systems. Its browser Safari already blocks third-party cookies by default, and last year Apple forced app providers in iOS to spell out in the App Store listings what data they collect” we are forgetting what all advertisers are collecting and no less the issue becomes what happens when 5-7 games collectively are collecting and for the most we have no idea where this will end and it is important to take that in mind. It is there where Facebook is getting the largest negative wave. With “And it argues that sharing data with advertisers is key to giving users “better experiences””, precisely what is that ‘better experience’? And in what setting should ANY data be shared with an advertiser? We get that the advertiser wants to segment WHO gets to see their advertisement, we get that and I reckon no one will object. Yet why share our details? How is that priced and why are we not informed? OK, we are not told that Facebook is getting money of us, it is after-all a free service and as Mark Zuckerberg told the senate in a hearing “We sell ad’s”, yet he did not say “We sell ad’s and user data”, you all do understand that there is a fundamental difference between the two, you do get that, do you? And we see that given in the BBC article when we are given “Facebook appeared to accept the changes and promised “new advertiser experiences and measurement protocols”. It admitted that the ways digital advertisers collect and use information needed to “evolve” to one that will rely on “less data””, but that now gives us a much larger problem (optionally), when we see ‘new advertiser experiences’ we should be concerned on what it will cost, in pricing, in experience and in data segments. It does not make Facebook evil or bad, but when we are given “Technology consultant Max Kalmykov wrote in Medium that advertisers had to “prepare for the next, privacy-focused era of digital advertising””we accept change, we accept evolution, but in the stage of digital marketing most can be achieved WITHOUT sharing data of any individual level with the advertiser, the setting we see come might be good, yet I am concerned with their view of ‘new advertiser experiences and measurement protocols’, a setting for sales, not the consumers and optional victims, because to some degree that matters. Do I care when I see another advertisement by MWAVE.com.au? No, I do not, and for the most I do not care about that part, it is basically the cost of a free service, but no one accepted sharing data and that I what Apple is bringing to the surface even more than Cambridge Analytica brought.
There is a larger setting in all this and we optionally see that with “Device fingerprinting combines certain attributes of a device – such as the operating system it uses, the type and version of web browser and the device’s IP address to identify it uniquely. It is an imperfect art, but one that is gaining traction in the advertising world”. You see I made the personal choice not to link devices, not to link services of any kind, it will not stop aggregation, it will merely slow it down, yet most of the people did not have the foresight I had a decade ago, as such the apps that have a identifier of hardware, they will get a lot more information on non-Apple devices in the near future. When the people realise that all others will take a backstage, it is a powerful advantage that Apple is creating, I wonder what Google will do next, because their market is in the middle of Apple and Facebook, they need to side one way or the other and it will have deeper repercussions in the long game. As such we see that Apple made its choice, it is one the consumers will embrace, some will accept the scenario that Facebook offers, and laughingly they oppose the data governments have and give it to whomever else wants it. In this Google has an opportunity (or a burden), but only if they change the game they are playing. When the consumers see this, they will wonder where to go next and they are all about flames and biased options through the media.
It started last year and got to be serious in December 2020 when we were given (at https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/17/22180102/facebook-new-newspaper-ad-apple-ios-14-privacy-prompt) ‘Facebook hits back at Apple with second critical newspaper ad’, in one form we are given “Forty-four percent of small to medium businesses started or increased their usage of personalised ads on social media during the pandemic, according to a new Deloittestudy. Without personalised ads, Facebook data shows that the average small business advertiser stands to see a cut of over 60% in their sales for every dollar they spend”, is that true? When you pick up the newspaper, how much is personalised? There will remain a level of personalised ads within Facebook, but the following outside of Facebook (within Apple products) stops and that might be a relief to a lot of consumers. As such I have a much larger issue with “the average small business advertiser stands to see a cut of over 60% in their sales for every dollar they spend”, I would be interested to investigate the data that brought the statement, and I have some reservations on the application of the data used. We could optionally say that the digital marketing that relies on such a 100% application is also to some degree unfair on printed media, but that is a very different conversation.
And in all this the question will soon become “What should you (be allowed to) collect from me?” And now with the upgrades Apple has created a massive advantage, Google will need time to define an answer and direction, because Google will need to make a choice, and this is not a simple one, their business profile will alter accordingly and as Facebook is setting its premise, we see a larger stage, one with the option where Google Plus might be re-introduced in a much larger application of personal and non personal data, you see they are all about the personal data all whilst the hardware fingerprints in 5G will be a much larger setting then it ever was and there a much larger gain could be made by the proper makers in all this.
Did you see the new world where your mobile, tablets, laptop and domotics are linked? I can see it and the application of one of my mobile devices, yet the stage that it offers (or not) is still open to a lot of the players, so as I see it the next year will see a rapid evolution of digital marketing. Those who adjust will see 2023, those who do not ‘Goodbye!’
This is not unknown to us, the ego versus reality. We saw it in the US (the age of Trumpism) on how anti Chinese events were hitting Huawei. I have forever opposed that. Huawei is one of the really few true innovative companies and as such they pretty much owned the market. I have never weight to any accusation of Huawei is taking orders from the Chinese government, because all these wannabe makers could not present evidence, and are we not a population of evidence? There had been 1-2 claims that were decently made, but for the most it was a joke. Yet today the BBC gave us (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56851558) ‘GCHQ chief warns of tech ‘moment of reckoning’’ which is a different setting. Here we see “Jeremy Fleming said there was a risk that key technologies on which we rely will no longer be shaped by the West. “We have to keep evolving our approach if we’re going to keep up,” he said of the growing challenge from China”, here I agree. There is a harder need to evolve matters, but that issue needed to be given to the larger players in 2018 when they decided to sit back, relax and watch their bank account fatten overnight. That play was a bad one and governments had to step in years ago to make it happen, as such the next 3 years will be about catching up. British Telecom, Telstra, KPN, they all hd the same flaw and they pretty much all were sitting back and let third party evolution decide the future. It is a choice, but that old story of ‘when you hand over the reigns you lose control of direction’ was too easily forgotten. So when we see ““The risk, as I see it today, is that we lose control of the standards that shape our technology environment,” he told the BBC. “The things that make sure that our liberal Western democratic views are baked into our technology.”” We see that Jeremy Fleming (fearless leader of GCHQ) is right. A national interest is having national products, I do not disagree there, but the players were lazy. Even now (a short time ago) on November 14th 2020, in the article ‘Tik..Tik..Tik..’ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/11/14/tik-tik-tik/) I gave the quote “as Gerhard Schindler (no relation to Oskar) is giving us ‘its technology is now so advanced that Germany cannot tell if it is being used for sinister purpose’, we see the first truth, technology in the EU (and the US) is massively behind Huawei and Chinese IP as well”, this was Gerhard Schindler, former President of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), the German Federal Intelligence Service. If they are technological in the dark, how bad did it get?
So, I am on Jeremy’s side when it comes to the fact that such technology needs to be in national hands, I never opposed that, but the next three years we are all blatantly behind and we either buy the current IP from Huawei, or we accept them, or we lose the 5G war right here and right now. Even as the US is screaming alternatives (Nokia among them) and we see a months ago (source: the Guardian) that ‘Nokia to cut 10,000 jobs worldwide to bankroll new 5G drive’, we should wonder (with stress) just how far they got behind on the other players. That is seen in the quote “The Finnish telecommunications company Nokia has unveiled plans to cut up to 10,000 jobs worldwide in the next two years, and wants to use the savings to catch up with rivals on 5G technologies”, so how can the UK (Australia and Canada too) expect to get ahead of Huawei in the near future? Lets not forget that the denial of existence in the EU, Commonwealth and the US of Huawei technology implies that Chinese companies will have a massive leg up winning the 5G race and as such the larger stage of the IoT will be in THEIR hands, there is no other way to see it at present. Then we get a part that is important, and partially surprising. “Mr Fleming said it was vital to ensure all the technologies were not from one place and to understand how data was being processed. There were only a relatively small number of areas where the UK would need to completely control a technology, he said, and more broadly working with allies would be essential to shape international standards and to defend itself in cyberspace. At home, the UK has to invest in skills and innovation.” In this I agree with all part, the surprising part is ‘the UK has to invest in skills and innovation’, in this the surprising part is that this cannot be done overnight, it is the recognition that skills and innovations towards 5G are 2 years away, close to my predictions a year ago, so nice for GCHQ to catch up on this. All whilst we see overly clever puzzles all over the place, the setting of skills go further than that. My previous article involving ONT gives rise to a developing need and there is nothing at present, the evolving need for digital forensics is blatantly yesterday’s approach and they will need people thinking in other area’s as well. The digital future is not where they expect it to be, they need to consider that it is in directions that aren’t even considered today. Even now as they are contemplating the need of where organised crime will be, the setting is not dissimilar from disorganised corporate crimes and most haven’t even worked out that part, it is a large amount of billions a year, but they are still pondering what is important. When you ponder that for 3-5 years, we tend to call it sitting on your hands. It is a close relative of ‘waiting for the other shoe to drop’ (AKA waitstate). And when was the last time that this worked? You can initiate actions on the spot when it is football, but not when billions in costs are found that does not hit the revenue of the media, UEFA, or FIFA? How is that even possible?
We all understand practical limitations, yet innovation is found in directions where limitations were evident. Consider asking Wilbur Wright, Igor Sikorsky or Jacques Cousteau that question. Even with the limitations (practical or not) we got the plane, the helicopter and the aqua-lung. Can you even imagine this world without any of these three? And even as the west used to be the rulers of technology, China and South Korea have the bulk of all patents in that regard today, as such it will be extremely expensive, or we need to work with a different set of rules. Nothing else will quite serve national interests, wherever that is. And consider that I came up with two weapon based IP’s in a matter of days (a few months ago), one was a novel way in making a nuclear reactor meltdown, as such, we need to consider looking in other directions for the ideas that truly innovate the future (I used a posh snow-globe for one of them) and in the process came up with two new valve systems, not bad for a simple IT support guy. Even as the article ends strong with “The UK should not be “fatalistic”, he said, and had a “very strong track record” of meeting technology challenges”, the failure here is that the decision makers tend to have a ‘what can I get out of this’ approach, and when did THAT ever lead to innovation? It merely created a setting of distrust and a group of people who sat on ideas instead of pushing that idea in a group that truly pushed innovation, not a group that grabs the idea and transforms it into a partial iterative idea for long term gains. That is what is killing nearly all innovation, especially the innovation we need now, it is the only way to get ahead of what is now, we need to create what will make it tomorrow and that comes with flaws and failures, there is no other way, but in that setting people did come up with the true innovations, not unlike the Montgolfier brothers in 1783. It took 8 years to get ready and even as we dreamed of flight for many centuries that was the moment reality stepped in. It would take 120 years for the Wright brothers to take it into a new direction, now we become the watchers as Huawei is leading the 5G race, the others are all eager to catch up, but some have to let go of 10,000 employees to fund the events. So how long will be be the spectators instead of the actual pushers? I will let you decide, yet in this, the larger problem is another unmentioned one, there is a ring of decision makers who want to be ‘included’ in whatever comes next and that is stopping way too much. The era of those joining DARPA leading the fight of innovation is nearly over, you remember that group of nerds? They invented the internet, you might have head of that.
It is all part of one currency, hubris and practical limitations, but we need to see through both to understand where progress is possible and seeing through practical limitations is hard, I know that, I understand that. I wonder if Jeremy Fleming does.
Yup, it is about the desert, well in some form. To be honest, I never had it, I saw pictures, I saw people making it (YouTube), but I never ate it. And for today that is OK. You see, it is not really about food. It all started this morning when I saw ‘PS5 isn’t good value compared to Xbox Series X, and I’m sick of it’, that is his view, I believe it to be a bit of a hatchet job, but that is usually the case with opinion pieces. There are also ‘anti-Xbox articles’ and that is fine by me. In the end the systems are closely matching, yet for me the actions by Microsoft over the last 8 years have been an indication that the Xbox console is lost to me. No matter what promises they make, as I personally see it, they betrayed the gamers, all in favour of more and more Azure pressure. It is a personal choice and you need to realise that, I personally demoted Microsoft, but it remains personal. Even as they are now starting the Xcloud and other services, I do not want any of them on my systems, but it is mostly personal (partly instinctive). I will not tell you to not do it, you must select what you think is best for you.
When it comes to Xcloud, I feel that I am leaning towards Amazon Luna if I get into that field. The Luna was close to the Google Stadia, almost there but not quite. Considering that Google should have won it as a tech giant implies that Amazon is more hungry and more willing to make the leap, it gives them an edge and in all this, I want something giving me games no other system will, exclusivity matters. I am not certain if the Luna can deliver, but their setting is looking good.
The fact that we saw ‘Amazon Games opens new Montreal studio, developing a multiplayer game with Rainbow Six Siege veterans’ implies that Amazon has skin in the game, and as such, if my IP (as published earlier) is either PS5, and/or Luna, see it as public domain. The setting for good gaming is what we need and Microsoft (in my personal view) has betrayed that approach. It was their right to make choices, but they come with consequences. So why is there a baked Alaskan in play? Consider the method “The entire dessert is then placed in an extremely hot oven for a brief time, long enough to firm and caramelise the meringue but not long enough to begin melting the ice cream”, it is a way to use the crust to hide what is inside and it can only done once, yet via Microsoft we get ‘As Microsoft pushes partner transformation, a state of ‘channel inertia’ is emerging’, ‘Microsoft’s Surface Laptop 4 Is Nearly Perfect’ and ‘Microsoft’s Visual Studio 2022 is moving to 64-bit’, all different titles, all different sources, but there is a link, lets see if you pick up on it. There is also “Microsoft officials also said they are planning to refresh Visual Studio for Mac by moving it to the native macOS UI”, perhaps you are already catching on. One more hint. It is ‘The FBI removed hacker backdoors from vulnerable Microsoft Exchange servers. Not everyone likes the idea’ there are two parts here.
A court order allowed the FBI to enter networks of businesses to remove web shells used by cyber attackers exploiting Exchange vulnerabilities. But what does this mean for the future of cybersecurity? It is one view, I am not against it, but I get that some are. This has nothing to do with the FBI, it has everything to do with Microsoft dropping the ball.
Microsoft is seemingly everywhere, with connections way past their computers, Xcloud gives them more and there is too much questions on what Microsoft is capturing, when I asked why they needed to upload 5GB their help-desk stated that this was with my ISP, how stupid is that? I will not allow them on any device, no matter what game will become unavailable to me.
You see, it is not today, or tomorrow, it is what happens a week after that, when we see the exchange issue, the idea of a DDOS version that can use Xcloud is not that farfetched, a DDOS setting using any console it can connect to is a nightmare that should keep several Cyber divisions awake for a long time to come and when we see how Exchange was ‘bitched’ that thought is not the weirdest one to have, with any connection through Xcloud and Azure, the data options are the wettest dreams of organised crime, whilst data facilitators will seek access in whatever way they can and it connects to your systems, your data and could optionally impact your consoles and games. If we get (as published earlier) the setting of ransomware, considering the millions of gamers who have built up a lifetime of achievements, gear and wealth in a dozen games. How long until someone gets a hold of that? Microsoft is spreading itself too thin on too many systems, channels and operating systems. I believe it to be the much larger danger down the track. Yes that is a personal feeling and it is riddled with speculation, but when we see the transgressions over the last 6 months, is the thought that far fetched?
At the middle of this is their marketing. ‘Partners should ‘ride the wave’’, ‘Nearly Perfect’ and a lot more, all to make sure that Microsoft is on the high rise and in the light of diminished negativity, which is the job of marketing, with over 285,000,000 hits on Microsoft (as per today), and 329,000 (Microsoft+scandal), 14,500,000 (Microsoft+problem) we see an overly positive view, which might not be wrong, but that imbalance is making me massively uncomfortable. Especially when we consider “Some Windows 10 users are encountering serious problems following the release of the recent “KB5001330” update, with some reports even coming in that the update itself can’t be installed on some machines”, now these things happen, anyone making other claims is flat-out lying, there is no way that things go perfect, things happen. However, in a stage where Microsoft is so widespread that one hitch could mean all kinds of transgressions, the setting becomes a problem. When we see that and consider “Socure to Provide Identity Verification for Microsoft Azure Active Directory Verifiable Credentials”, we see more and more third party solutions becoming part of the equation. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but speculatively consider that any danger is double of the previous danger per party involved, as such we see 1%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 16%. The fifth (third party) connection sets the danger to almost one in five, and now consider that we see a stage of overlaps of PC, MAC (iOS), Surface, Azure, Xcloud, Android, we are now optionally in the 32% group, almost one in three where things can go wrong and organised crime wants in, I hope that you realise that a group like HAFNIUM will have no issues selling their solution to the highest bidder, as such, are you sure you want to connect all these systems?
I accept the work that any marketing division does, but the setting of keeping the users for too long in the dark can have massive consequences down the line and that is where Microsoft has become (my personally speculation) a clear and present danger to gaming (among other parts), that is beside the fact that they are in it for the data, but that too is my personal assumption on the matter. Oh, and I remained conservative, when the error becomes exponential, the setting goes towards 1%+4%+9%+16%, there we see the 4th link making a lager negative impact then any before, I see that, but I personally do not believe that the situation will become quite that bad, but it could be.
The other night I was pondering the setting (as you might have read in the previous blog) on RPG’s and the setting of a dream within a dream. The idea took another turn as I was considering the interaction of reality with virtuality, and in this a game based on a 1 exabyte setting, an online multiplayer game based on virtuality. A game where players fight each other, they create alliances and they conquer. To get this done, we either create a world that is believable, or we turn it around and let the world create our reality.
And as I was pondering this, I remember a game called ‘Virus’, in this shooter the game created the levels depending on your hard-drive, that was when the cogs clicked together.
The new game an entire exabyte of challenges.
The world where we are thrown into is not unlike TRON, but in this setting we become citizens of a cloud environment, we are kidnapped and as we scape we end up getting left to our own devices. So as such we see a challenge, but consider a cloud environment, one that has a dozen Fortune 500 companies, thousands of mid sized companies and a lot more small companies. So will you take on a large player, or do you start small? A game with settings unlike we have ever seen and it is a game that develops further as more players sink into a company, a game without a timeline, but with time as either an ally or an enemy. A stage we have (as far as I know) never seen before and as the cloud evolves, so does the world and the enemies we face. So consider creating a cloud environment for that event and turning it into a game, we are always looking for a challenge, so why not become the infecting part and take over companies, corporations and grow in that way and this is the game with a difference, it is hard core only, one life! You can restart as often as you want, but one defeated you start at square one, until you have complete control of your first company, corporation or enterprise. So as we see and as we get into one cloud, it will be close to an all out war with anyone you face, that is unless you can strike an alliance, and alliances require all parties to see the benefit of one another. The nice part here is that this might (or might not) be the stage where we either love it or hate it. You see this will not appeal to all, there is no doubt it is, yet how can we create the challenge of such a game? We appeal to the player and we set the event that the player will embrace. An approach where the benefit of both sledgehammer and scalpel are seen, and the creation of an environment where both can thrive. And that is the challenge, creating the environment where everything piece of hardware is shown as something, where every router and its components are shown as challenges, I wonder if it can be done.
The question Yes, I do ask myself the question if it is feasible, if it is even remotely possible. You see, we all have Monday morning quarterbacks in one end, but the other end is also taken. Usually by some manager that has a new plan every Monday morning, but it never pans out to be possible, achievable or even deeply contemplated. I see that, I always question my own thoughts, you see the person who does not question their own thoughts ends up drawing castles in the sky, and then expects a dot matrix printer to print a 1200 DPI photograph. We must question ourselves at all times, especially when we caress our creative side.
So is my idea a castle in the sky? Perhaps it is, there is no doubt on that. Yet for every 8-10 failures, that one idea will push through and become a real winner. In 1997 I opted and idea to my bosses to use a marketing strategy that used websites as the central core for reaching out to others, my bosses laughed, stating that there was no business model for something that delusional, and stupid me, I listened, 4 years before Facebook, I had the idea for a digital marketing path and it was ignored, silly stupid me, as such I am putting ALL my ideas on the public domain, some will find ground, some will not, perhaps most will not, yet in this I am setting the stage for some to take the idea and push it into a direction that I am currently unable to pursue, for a few reasons, but I digress.
We can try to literally translate a cloud, or we can set the inventory of any given cloud and create a converted one that boggles the mind. Consider that a company has a server, users, computers, routers, Cloud Connectors, Data Center Interconnect Platforms, Mobile Internet Routers and a few other devices, and the larger the company becomes, the larger the hardware and that is before the cloud, in the cloud we see all kind of other issues and to map these out we need a different set of rules, a different set of limits to add to the game, to give some version of ‘reality’ to the game, a set of spawning rules (I hate spawning in games) or to set a better stage, if a cloud is represented in elements (see image) now consider that each company has larger or smaller elements of all, how diverse will be the challenge a gamer has, even as the gamer goes from place to place, he is still in one cloud and there is the larger cloud security to content with. Perhaps the game is a fools errant, yet I believe that if gaming is the edge of technology, the only way we get beyond what we have now, is to push the stage of a new game towards and beyond the horizon of what we now can see. Sony gave us the console to do it, so let’s push into a realm we have never seen before, it is the only way to keep gaming at the height of any system, if we do not do that, we are hopelessly lost.
So where is your virtual gaming life? In a new version of an existing game, or in a stage of gaming we haven’t seen yet? I have nothing against the next iteration in gaming, I played Tombraider, 1, 2 and 3 and never regretted that, yet even there, we saw evolution of gaming. That part was less and less visible in some other franchises and that is a sad part, because only those who push gaming beyond the limits will show a game worthy of conquering. We have all kind of views on this, some hate them, some love them and that is OK. I was never a GTA fan, but a lot are, some hate Watchdogs 2, I loved it (3 as well). Some love Breakpoint, me not that much. That is fine, I always state that those claiming to create a game that appeals to all, will create a game that pleases none, so if I am not part of any equation, that is fine by me. Others, will serve the game I like.
This is how it should be and in all this creativity will push limits and creativity will open up other doors, such is life and we need to push as many doors as we can if we are to make life better all around us, the iterators never will, they are part of the margin spreadsheet, sailing a safe course to last longer, it will never ever go their way. Nintendo is perhaps one of the shiniest examples. It pushed the Wii, which was a decent success, then the WiiU, an abysmal failure, yet it resulted in the Nintendo Switch, an absolute home run in gaming and there we see that failings will optionally turn to wins, an iterator will never see that, only the innovator will get there. Nintendo at present is close to 75,000,000 switch consoles sold, that implies 2 Nintendo’s for every Xbox, so where is their ‘most powerful system in the world’ now? Iterators always have a good story, but they do not yield results, we will get another ‘We’re not driven by how many consoles we sell’, it is the same all over, the losers will say the numbers are shallow, but when they are in pole position, it is everything. A brand gone to the dogs, largely because they ignored the voice of the gamer, I saw that almost a decade ago. And now we see a new world rising, one run by Sone ind Nintendo, it is fine by me, although I needed Microsoft to keep Sony on their toes, this idea will soon be a bust. So the best I can do is to set a stage of creativity and hope that some will Create more and more Sony exclusive games, those who do will be able to use my gaming IP free of charge, I do have commercial needs (income) for my 5G IP, such is life and I do like to enjoy a good meal.
So is my cloud game a bust? Perhaps it is, but for now I will try to envision more and more of that approach, consider a complete created cloud, one where you travel and set the premise of ruling the cloud, yet not alone, it is too big making alliances more and more important, a stage that several have attempted, some a lot more successful then others, I merely want to add to the success rate, or at least attempt to do so. It is the price of creativity and its push to innovation, only the successful continue that battle stronger, the failures continue too, but on a smaller scale, and that is fine, every person will fail at some point, it is what they do next that matters, because Steve Jobs had its successes, but he also had the NeXT computer. We recognise success, but we fail to recognise the failures and where they lead to, it is the flaw in many of us. And this is a larger stage, so how can we set that stage, when people keep on pushing Microsoft and their Blue solution. So as ZDnet reported “Microsoft acknowledged it was a service update targeting an internal validation test ring that caused a crash in Azure AD backend services. “A latent code defect in the Azure AD backend service Safe Deployment Process (SDP) system caused this to deploy directly into our production environment, by passing our normal validation process,” officials said”, a lot of bla bla and yada yada, yet the flaw is not merely within Microsoft, it is the same approach that is replicated again and again. So as we see mentions of Active Directory, we also see ‘a validation ring that doesn’t include customer data’, as well as ‘the SDP didn’t correctly target the validation ring due to a defect and all rings were targeted concurrently causing service availability to degrade’, so how long until there are more and more failures and the rollback merely adds to the problem? This is what I saw when I considered the NSA approach towards Trust Zero, the idea is good, but larger players will screw up making any rollback a much larger issues over the whole field. This is part of the idea to make the cloud a game, we could optionally see something we never noticed before, because thousands of gamers will kick the one part everyone ignored.
Whether we see the issue in reality, or merely virtual. We need to look with different kind of glasses, I see that because 20 years ago I listened to the wrong people, those relying on bullet points, memo’s and ego. There is no space for that in gaming, or in innovative design, I wonder when Microsoft will figure that part out, they are now in 3rd position, what happens when they become deal last (behind Amazon), will they blame metrics or will it be a Covid set of variables? No matter what they will rely on, they are in a stage where they are losing more and more slices of business cake, they are losing slices in a time where they should have had the entire pie, as I personally see it stupidity, greed driven short sightedness and ego driven conviction made them lose field after field, and now they are in a ratchet state, they have no ability to get close to Amazon and at the same time there is every chance that Google could catch up with them. When that happens, Microsoft will be holding a losing hand in the both the cloud and the gaming field and as their surface solution falls short, we see them handing over slices of that pie to Apple, a three sided losing streak, it is a rare but slightly satisfying field. Why do I think that Microsoft will fail? ZDnet stated it best with “There is still no publicly available data on Azure sales. Azure is the part of Microsoft’s cloud business that most rhymes with AWS, but is buried in the commercial cloud”. In a lifetime of working in IT, I have learned that when commercial driven players rely on ‘no publicly available data’, it tends to be because someone is too close, they are too far behind, or the results create questions, and as I personally see it, Microsoft does all three, Google is too close, they are too far behind with Amazon and the Exchange server issues call in question issues with the Microsoft cloud as a whole. As we saw (from 2019 onwards) more and more hacks towards clouds, there is every notion that together with one source claiming that 90% of clouds are in danger, Microsoft has a lot is problems coming their way, I do not know if this is completely fair on Microsoft, as all three have issues, but the replicated approach Microsoft has (Active Directory anyone?), we see a larger issue, if hacks can be transposed from one system to the other, Microsoft hacks might be seen as lucrative (from the organised crime point of view), it makes the NSA approach more and more essential, yet I personally feel that any rollback has hidden flaws and flaws are a problem, especially in a cloud where one flaw transfers to a whole number of corporations. I will be the first to agree that my view is speculative, because it is, but to see that part you need to grasp back to 2003 where the people got “Erroneous VeriSign-Issued Digital Certificates Pose Spoofing Hazard”, this needs to happen only once on the cloud and the mess is almost complete and I believe that a rollback will make it happen. So how do you feel about ‘due to a defect and all rings were targeted concurrently’ now?
So perhaps my idea for a cloud game has a few additional benefits, apart from it being an interesting approach to a new game.
