Tag Archives: Microsoft

April 11, 2015 · 09:53

Liber Calvariam

Of all the techie things we know, many, even most non-techies, they all have their view on Facebook. I am no different in that case. I have made in the past several cases where I question the actions of Facebook, the choices they made and the things their users agree upon. I have in the past always tempered that to some extent because, I think that there is no such thing as a ‘free service’, there is always a price to pay and that price is not always ‘expressed’ in coin or currency.

The first article in this was in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/31/facebook-tracks-all-visitors-breaching-eu-law-report), it was published on March 31st and the title is of course pretty upsetting, namely “Facebook ‘tracks all visitors, breaching EU law’“, now the title is already reason for debate, but I will get to that shortly. The quote that is part in this is: “People without Facebook accounts, logged out users, and EU users who have explicitly opted out of tracking are all being tracked, report says“. This links to a story that was published on February 23rd. That link is important, as that story links to two articles. The first one (at http://www.law.kuleuven.be/icri/en/news/item/icri-cir-advises-belgian-privacy-commission-in-facebook-investigation), has links to full reports and states: “Facebook’s default settings related to behavioural profiling or Social Ads, for example, are particularly problematic. Moreover, users are offered no choice whatsoever with regard to their appearance in “Sponsored Stories” or the sharing of location data“, I have experienced part of this myself, even now, at times, it still takes a moment to figure out what settings are where and I am very tech savvy. More important, the second link to the full Facebook PDF article was not found, a little sloppy I must say. There is no way to tell whether this flaw was because of actions from the University of Leuven, or from the Guardian.

My issue follows from “EU privacy law states that prior consent must be given before issuing a cookie or performing tracking, unless it is necessary for either the networking required to connect to the service (“criterion A”) or to deliver a service specifically requested by the user (“criterion B”)” as well as “A cookie is a small file placed on a user’s computer by a website that stores settings, previous activities and other small amounts of information needed by the site. They are sent to the site on each visit and can therefore be used to identify a user’s computer and track their movements across the web“, by themselves they seem innocent enough, but when we consider the implications, we get ‘identify a user’s computer‘ and ‘track their movements across the web‘, now we get the issue, so how deep goes this identification and how much tracking is done, just your actions whilst on Facebook or EVERYTHING you do on the web and where you do it? That last part becomes an issue when we consider that we use Facebook on our mobiles. There is an issue that is implied, but not correctly and completely addressed by the Guardian (as well as many other papers).

Yet, the information the article gives as brought by ‘Article 29‘ gives us: “The Article 29 working party has also said that cookies set for “security purposes” can only fall under the consent exemptions if they are essential for a service explicitly requested by the user – not general security of the service“. I do not completely agree with that statement. Their statement is not wrong, but consider the mobile user, the user is a device in motion, whilst at the same time could be engaging with data in motion, two very different concepts, and whilst the cookie is not meant to be for both, it will include both, which could be regarded as an exemption. You see, when you move, from tower X to tower Y, either as Pede Strian, or as the Vehicular Mover, we will need explicit security, not just general security. Their statement has merit from a desktop, but it now becomes a question, whether the mobile or the desktop user is now the majority here. In addition, I have not even adjusted this view for those connected through ‘free Wi-Fi‘ a dubious concept for sure, one where security needs to be a lot more defining. In my personal view there is a clear need for an exemption, which I would quote as “the consent exemption, essential for the secure use of a service explicitly required for the mobile user“. That does not take away the need to address issues involving the advertised purpose of sponsored visibility, which is a fair enough issue, but let’s face it, Facebook is offered for ‘free’, those sponsored moments are the ‘price’ we get to pay and I for one agree with the not like, but I understand that the cost of running Facebook hardware is not that cheap in the end.

Now we get to the ‘actual issue’. The one that was brought on April 10^th (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/10/facebook-admits-it-tracks-non-users-but-denies-claims-it-breaches-eu-privacy-law). The issue is not just the quote “Facebook has admitted that it tracked users who do not have an account with the social network, but says that the tracking only happened because of a bug that is now being fixed“, because, as I see it, this issue has been around at least 8 weeks, and if we accept that the issue was already in play before the University of Leuven came with the (unread) paper and their version of evidence, than we can postulate that this issue had been going on for months. In this Facebook is not innocent, because, if Facebook is set up properly by its administrators, then the system had been collecting parsed data which should have been linked to certain flags. The fact that data was collected ‘unchecked’ gives us pause to question the system as designed, or we accept that Facebook exploited a bug to their own ends. Neither could be seen as illegal, for the mere reason that the evidence linking it all to ‘intent’ could not be proven as I see it. Even if a legal party had access to the entire system, the premise of intent might not ever be proven.

A bigger issue is the quote from Richard Allan “The researchers did find a bug that may have sent cookies to some people when they weren’t on Facebook. This was not our intention – a fix for this is already under way“, you see, a cookie is sent (under normal conditions) when a user action warrants it. They log in, they go to a certain page or they use an app, or location, where they are linked to a Facebook account (for example, we place a comment on the Guardian page (to just mention an option) and we sign in using our Facebook account. In those cases the cookie seems valid to me, yet is that part of the ‘when they weren’t on Facebook‘ part? If not, then it is not just a bug, it seems to me that there is an unchecked balance of server based flags that are triggered by any instance whilst the user is not connected, which is not just a bug, it is a systematic flaw of the Facebook system, but is that the actual case here?

Another issue I have is with the quote from Brendan Van Alsenoy, a researcher at ICRI. Here we see: “European legislation is really quite clear on this point. To be legally valid, an individual’s consent towards online behavioural advertising must be opt-in” that quote might be correct, but is that not part of the user agreement from Facebook, they by creating the account are opting in? In addition, we get a truckload of these opting in moments as we accept the usage of an app within Facebook. So are these not explicit opt-in moments?

I still have issues with something that was on the Wall Street Journal in August 2014 (at http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/08/08/facebook-messenger-privacy-fears-heres-what-you-need-to-know/). You see, I had similar issues, but guess what, suddenly within days all news on this issue just stopped and no one followed up or gave a clear picture on why certain rights were there. I think it would be distressing to people when they agree to “call phone numbers without your intervention,” and “use the camera at any time without your permission”, two of at least half a dozen questionable rights we signed over. My issue was with the part ‘without your permission‘, which is an issue to say the least. Yes, I agree that it could be just an android phrase, but none of these rights or messages ever popped up on Google plus or any other Google option I use, so is it just me?

In the end we love bashing a big boy like IBM, Microsoft or Facebook, but let’s be fair about it all and that is only possible if we get a clear article on the subject, it seems to me that the articles of late do not paint a clear picture, it just sketches events and acting on these partial sketches is not a good thing, or fair towards Facebook.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as Article 29, Brendan Van Alsenoy, Facebook, IBM, ICRI, Microsoft, Richard Allan, the Guardian, University of Leuven, Wall Street Journal

April 4, 2015 · 12:41

A traitor as an ally

This was the first thought I had when I saw the news on the Iranian nuclear deal as it is being ‘stamped’ out. First let us take a look at some of the information, so that you all can see how I got to the conclusions I got to. The first one is the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/iran-nuclear-deal-negotiators-announce-framework-agreement).

So let’s take a look at the miscommunicated truths we can clearly see. The first one is “In a joint statement, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, and the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, hailed what they called a “decisive step” after more than a decade of work“. There has not been a decade of work, the ‘work’ has been no more than 20 months. Before that, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in office, the man was such a sociopath, that he makes the average British skinhead sound like a docile conservative. So, this is not a plan of a decade, this is, as I see it a situation that has been a bad idea for well over a decade. Now we get to the Kerry sound bite: “The test is whether or not it will leave the world safer or more secure than it would be without this agreement. And there can be no question that the comprehensive plan that we are moving toward will more than pass that test” You see, as I see it, it will not leave the world safer and it currently puts Israel in clear and present danger, in addition, the danger to Europe will be illustrated as well.

The quote from the New York Times is “The president promised to increase security consultations and cooperation with Israel to “remain vigilant in countering Iran’s threats”“, when? You see, the issue is not just Iran, it is the Iranian military, who have been openly supporting Hamas. The news (at http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.646624), shows us the title ‘Hamas and Tehran boost ties as Meshal meets Iran’s Larijani in Doha‘, this is not a secret, the quote “Meanwhile, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said in an interview two months ago that Hamas sought to re-join the Iranian-Syrian axis” could be discusses in how good those relations are, but in this there is one non mentioned fact. The fact that these officials are talking is also a clear path that military officials will have been able to meet with them too. It only takes one ‘misplaced’ shipment for many houses to come crashing down. You see, some will state on how weird it is that only Israel is reporting on this, my issue is that the meeting between these parties was open, there were photos taken on March 10^th through March 12^th, which implies (no evidence), that they had all the options to meet with some of the ‘assisting’ military too. Is that such a far-fetched assumption? That news was shown by RT, IB Times and a few others, including American, yet the American sources all stopped around July 2014. It seems that freedom of information comes at a price there too. Now, there are plenty Israeli sources, all with photographs. It includes Debka (http://www.debka.com/), who had additional news recently regarding arms deals, but in light that one localised source is always debatable, I am willing to remain cautious on this. Let’s not forget that Israel also has a political path to walk, to state America has one and Israel does not have one is just ludicrous.

As for the current situation, I have no doubt that Hassan Rouhani is a decent person, who has the best intent for Iran in mind. Yet, in this situation, we must not forget that Iran has a ‘democratic’ election system, which means that in no more than 5 years a new president shall be elected. There is no guarantee that the next elected person will be a former diplomat and a moderate. If the next elected president is an extremist like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, than the future of Israel will move from debatable to non-existent in soon thereafter. Is it not interesting how a proclaimed axis of evil is suddenly an optional choice for between the sheets? Is that what American bankruptcy is getting us?

Now consider the Guardian quote: “Iran will cut its nuclear infrastructure to the point that western governments are satisfied it would take a year to ‘breakout’ and build a bomb, if Tehran chose to follow that path“, so this American administration is willing to be on a one year deadline, whilst they know that whatever hits next will be on the plate of the next administration? How is that anything less than treason? Are you the reader not aware that Iran got more done while it is a clear threat, whilst thawing between Cuba and America took decades, which in light of other events calls for additional questions!

So now we get to the good stuff, because I made a claim and it is important that I show reasoning, if not, it is just noise. You see, the danger from Iran goes a lot further then just Israel. Until recently, my mention would have been ‘If Hamas’, but now, as things escalate, we get ‘When Hamas successfully detonates a dirty bomb’, we get a different picture. What do you think will happen? If the wind is towards the west, which it most likely would be, we get a radioactive cloud that will hit all over the Mediterranean. Now we get a direct danger to the fishing industry for Greece and to a smaller Italy too. Greek tourism will be non-existent for decades to follow, the ‘glow in the dark scare’ will do that to tourism, which might be nice for Portugal. Turkey will also see the fall out here, but not as much as Cyprus and Crete. Once the current spread the radioactive love, there might be larger implications. Then we will suddenly see all kinds of phrased denials, but then it will be too late for Israel and America will get its low cost oil for decades. They only had to be willing to sell their ally Israel down the river.

So is my view too extreme? Not if we believe the New York Times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/world/middleeast/arab-leaders-agree-on-joint-military-force.html). The first paragraph is already a clear notion “The Arab states said on Sunday that they had agreed to form a combined military force to counter both Iranian influence and Islamist extremism“, in addition to this we see “While the Houthis have received financial support from Tehran, the Iranians do not seem to exert a strong influence over the group as they do, for example, with Hezbollah in Lebanon“. It is in part all about the financial support, the Arab league needs to counter extremism, that is getting support from Iran, and now, in the same breath America is seizing the pressure that could have made a real difference. I reckon we all have the same question, ‘what gives?’ which is a statement that is not asked my many in press positions. Is that not odd?

Yet, these thoughts alone are not enough and the facts are not all in my favour. You see, many (including me) would see the previous president Hojatoleslam Mohammad Khatami as a moderate too, but the danger that another Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets elected is too great to suddenly ease on any nuclear deal. Instead of the Cuban approach that is all about reducing tension, we see an unacceptable willingness to just cast it all aside, hoping that Iran keeps a decent form about it all and as such, Israel is placed in immediate harm. That, in my view is not an acceptable act from a true ally. The linked truth to this is that the pressure also includes to the other Arab nations, so what game is America playing, what does it have to gain and why, as such is it willing to risk its ally Israel? No one has a clear answer here!

Another linked statement from the Guardian is “The smiles in Lausanne are detached from wretched reality in which Iran refuses to make any concessions on the nuclear issue and continues to threaten Israel and all other countries in the Middle East“, the person speaking this was Yuval Steinitz, as both Minister of Strategic Affairs and Minister of Intelligence. I wonder what former Mossad director Nahum Admoni would think of all this? He was at the helm when Israel had its ‘lunch’ displayed all over the British press through Mordechai Vanunu. There is however another side to this, one quote from Yuval was “Israel cannot place its security in the hands of international forces instead of relying on the presence of IDF soldiers“. I partially have an issue there too, even though I very much understand the position Mr Steinitz has, the European community at large has felt diplomatically negative about that statement, diplomatically speaking it was the wrong thing to say, tactically speaking, it is an understandable quote, as in the last few decades parties all over all Israel’s neighbourly borders have been single minded regarding the annihilation of Israel.

These are all clear facts, we know that Iran, might be on an improved path, but there is no guarantee passed 2020, so why so eager to give them nuclear freedom? That is a plain reality, the information stated “There is a very rigorous transparency and inspection regime with access for international inspectors on a daily basis, high-tech surveillance of all the facilities, TV cameras, electronic seals on equipment, so we know remotely if any equipment has been moved” sounds nice in theory, but remotely, errors, failings and other issues would not be unheard of, in that ‘confusion’ many acts and miscommunications could and with some degree of certainty WILL happen, then what? What options would be left to Israel? As stated, my issue is less with Iran and more with the willing extreme military officers that have been and are still supporting Hamas and as I see it, any other linked party willing to go against Israel. That path will become a lot clearer as the Arab axis becomes more visible against Iran, let’s not forget that Egypt is next to Israel so a dirty bomb would most definite have the consequence of a panic attack on Egypt too.

Even in America there are sides that to some extent agree with my views. The guardian had this quote “Republican senator Mark Kirk compared the agreement to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler” (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/03/obama-republicans-iran-nuclear-deal). Now if you think that Mark Kirk is so out of centre, then think again. He is Senator of Illinois, a state, where the Daley family stands strong, two of them former Mayors of Chicago for almost half a century, in addition to several other high placed governmental officials, so we can state with certainty that the Daley family does not suffer fools on any side of the political isle; In that environment Mark Kirk survives, so he is no loon! Another quote is “Tehran would have to remove the core from its heavy water reactor in Arak, making it inoperable. It would have to dilute or export at least eight tons of low-enriched uranium, leaving it with only 300 kg“. Here is my issue, at least 8 tons, means that numbers this inaccurate allows for a few hundred kilo’s to be shipped or stored in non-visible places, one of the fears that Israel validly has. In addition, Iran has played fast and loose with lives in the past. What happens when someone figures out to shift the core from steady state to mobile? Yes, the core can be removed, but the supporting system, the steam system and the cooling system will still be there. So what happens when someone MacGyver’s a removable mobile solution? Is that so far-fetched? It took me 10 minutes to come up with that idea, so is Israel that far out of bounds? When we look at the info from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Conversion-Enrichment-and-Fabrication/Uranium-Enrichment/, where we see “the centrifuge process uses UF6 gas as its feed and makes use of the slight difference in mass between U-235 and U-238. The gas is fed into a series of vacuum tubes, each containing a rotor 3 to 5 metres tall and 20 cm diameter. When the rotors are spun rapidly, at 50,000 to 70,000 rpm, the heavier molecules with U-238 increase in concentration towards the cylinder’s outer edge. There is a corresponding increase in concentration of U-235 molecules near the centre. The counter current flow set up by a thermal gradient enables enriched product to be drawn off axially, heavier molecules at one end and lighter ones at the other“. A tank engine is mobile and has the power to get the power shifted, it just needs to get shifted into a carbon coated caboose. Of course it is in reality not a simple 44 minute episode of MacGyver solution, but the overall view of static equipment is relied on too eagerly. My issue remains not with what is now, but what comes next in Iran and it seems to me that Israel is keeping that in mind, but why Is America and why are the European partners at large ignoring that?

So here we get the title, as Israel sees it, the nuclear changes pushed through, with so much ‘enthusiasm’ are more than dangerous and I reckon, when it goes pear shaped, in hindsight, when the event does actually happen, Europe at large will turn away from America for ever allowing such a dangerous event escalate to begin with. Then what will happen? Well, I can speculate on that (remember, pure speculation), whatever Global corporations that would like to remain in business will leave the United States, Google and Apple will announce themselves to be global and move to other shores. So Apple represented by 187 billion will move away, because the bulk of that is not coming from America, in addition Google’s 66 billion comes from all over the world. So a quarter of a trillion dollars will move away, whatever ‘deal’ America thinks it have will become obsolete and whatever economy it has will collapse overnight. I have not even considered another half a trillion that IBM, SAS and Microsoft represent. In a world of over 7 billion, 325 million do not add up to that much in the view of revenue eager corporations. When Europe sees the consequence of any fallout (pun intended) from this deal, how will they react? Nicely? 500 million that makes up the EEC and the Commonwealth that makes up for 2.3 billion, how incompetent, are the politicians pushing for this deal end up willing to be seen as?

Part of me, in all honesty would hope for the Iranian deal to work. All indication of Hassan Rouhani are positive. It is the person after this that is the problem. I am all for a better deal less restriction with Iran, as long as they are non-nuclear for the upcoming decades. That would already be progress. So as I see it, the administration on the way out, an administration that could go into history as one of the worst in recorded American history is playing a dangerous game, a game they will leave to others to pay for.

How is this the responsible act from any ally?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as Apple, Debka, Egypt, Federica Mogherini, google, Hassan Nasrallah, Hassan Rouhani, Hojatoleslam Mohammad Khatami, Houthis, IB Times, IBM, Israel, Larijani, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mark Kirk, Mark Kirk R-Il, Meshal, Microsoft, Minister of Intelligence, Minister of Strategic Affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Mordechai Vanunu, Mossad, Nahum Admoni, Neville Chamberlain, New York Times, RT, SAS, Tehran, the Guardian, U-235, U-238, United States, www.world-nuclear.org, Yuval Steinitz

March 31, 2015 · 22:58

Chicks for free

Yup, that is the name of the game, how to get your chicks for free. You can go towards the end seeing what you can pick up from the free handing from the tray that serves the drinks and babes, but the song is not that simple, you see The Dire Strait sang: “Get your money for nothin’ get your chicks for free“. The song refers to doing things for fun, when it is fun, at times it feels like you are not working at all.

In my view the expression has evolved. As I see it, ‘money for nothing‘ is more and more about value for money. Deals that are too good to pass up. Here we now get to the issue at hand. We look at players like Apple (with their iPhone), Google (with their Nexus) and several other players like Nokia, Microsoft, Samsung, LG and a few others, yet the one player many ignored, namely Huawei did what others would not in their iterative field of exploitation. They decided to give the people value for money, not some half-baked offer, but the power offer that the models P7 and Mate7 are bringing. The P7 priced at almost 50% of the old models of most is more than a contender, in addition, the Mate7 offers a massively stronger device than the new models from Samsung, Apple, LG or Nokia can offer, hundreds of dollars cheaper. So now we get to the BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32126628). So the quote “The world’s second biggest telecoms equipment maker said its net profit was 27.9bn yuan ($4.5bn; £3bn), up from 21bn yuan in 2013” is not all about mobile phones, but Huawei is now quickly showing to be the number one choice for consumers and students (consumers, usually lacking in funds) alike. It seems to me that even though there is a decent group with funds that is all about value for money and that group has been ignored by the providers at large, which means that Huawei is now sweeping the nations on a global level. There are two parts in the story, which become a concern.

The first one is “Huawei’s growth comes despite it facing challenges in several major economies. In the US, it was branded a national security threat by legislators, because of its alleged close ties with the Chinese government“. There is no clarity on how precise this quote is (the next one will touch on this). So, if the statement is true, how about OOCL (containers) and Evergreen (Taiwan containers). Are they a security threat? I think it goes further, as some players were sitting on their hands, Huawei has been growing the business globally, now they are ready to get into bed with ‘facilitators’ in a very wide area of business. If we look at the Huawei Tecal servers we see a device that goes beyond simple needs. Its citrix compatibility gives a first view that soon Huawei will be the number one choice for new SaaS solutions, mobile providers of consultancy but from a cloud environment, meaning that these new engineers will be global. They are not ready for the next part yet, the issue is not just the data; it is about the transit mode of data for Huawei. They are now one step away from nibbling at the feet of Cisco. Cisco is comfortable for now, but that could soon change. You see, in 2012 Huawei was not ready for any of it, but they remained quiet for 2 years whilst their consumer market grew, now within a year, if their router solutions are decently shielded, they can move forward.

Now we get the second quote: “Meanwhile, it has been banned from being involved in broadband projects in Australia over espionage fears“. Really? So American solutions are not any kind of espionage fear? I am not judging, it seems to me that either our personal data goes to America or China. The article does not seem to elaborate on this part. This we see in the final quote of the article: “However, the company said it was well positioned to capture business opportunities with heavy investment in innovative areas such as cloud computing and fifth generation (5G) mobile technology“. Personally, I do not think that 5G is anywhere near an option for providers of mobile networking at present in any affordable kind of way, but the cloud is another matter. Whatever next part will be used to get business growing and moving forward will require the cloud. Yet, as I saw it for the last two years, security is just not good enough, not from any provider. That part can be seen in this place: http://2015itss.ucdavis.edu/event/the-weak-link-in-cloud-security-2/, here we see the following: “This session will illustrate and demonstrate that the very collaborative nature of SaaS (Software as a Service), such as Box or Google Apps, may also be their weakness. When organizations adopt cloud applications, users must take care to ensure that the organization’s sensitive cloud data does not end up in the wrong hands“. This is at the core of one of several issues. SaaS is only one part. The adoption and implementation is at the centre of a cloud that could be the fog that keeps us all blind as we lose data towards whatever provider of consultancy requirements were miscommunicated too. What a weak data web we weave for ourselves!

This event in June 2015 shows several more issues that we all in business need to consider as we are at times decently in the dark of that what must happen and that what needed to be done. The reality is that Huawei is not even a factor here, this all becomes an issue in any implementation. So why is there no clearer broadband issue? Is there truly a Chinese espionage fear, or are some players too dependent on whatever solution SaaS offers and in this stride, data leakage will be an issue from day one, whether the owner of the solution is Chinese or other. What is without a doubt is that Huawei is making massive strides, they are doing it in places where they were not a consideration 6 months ago! So what is wrong with the picture I am showing you?

I am not showing you any picture, but I am implying that the other big players (all American) are currently losing out on business, on revenue and on profit.

I wonder how the Dow will take it!

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as 5G, Apple, BBC, Cisco, citrix, Cloud computing, Dire Straits, google, Huawei, Huawei Tecal servers, iPhone, LG, Mate7, Microsoft, Nexus, Nokia, P7, Saas, Samsung

March 17, 2015 · 11:02

Building Social gaming

Yes, this is about games, about video games specifically. There are two sides to the current article we see in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/16/roblox-minecraft-user-generated-gaming). The first one is the entire ‘for kids’ approach.

Well, that part I am smitten with, you see, games should be to a decent extent to get the next generation into technology. To get them to know how to get by, how to interact and how to properly use technology. Like any skill, a child starts with crawling, moves to walking, soon we see tricycles, bicycles and more advanced options for movement. We have puzzles for the mind, whether jigsaw or other. Even though these options are falling to the back more and more, it is the threshold of technology that will help them move forward and move forward faster. Nintendo has always been a champion in this matter. As it catered to the younger player and to the family game environment, Nintendo had a niche. PC’s have for a long time remained far behind, because the revenue to cater to a less young population was forever more appealing. Even though most will see Minecraft as a provider here, Roblox has been around a lot longer.

Now that Microsoft dished out 2 billion and spare change for Minecraft, Roblox is hoping to see an influx of cash in their market as well, and why not?

Yet now we hit the part that is a little (just a little) cause for concern:

““In December, we hit 4.7 million players. The foundation of Roblox is user-generated content: just like on YouTube there is so much to watch, on Roblox there is so much to play,” says Baszucki” as well as “People get really attached to it: many of our players have played for four to five years, and our developers range in age from eight to 80. Some of the top developers are 18 or 20, and we have kids in high-school who are making two, three or four thousand dollars a month“.

You see, where do they get that money from? More important, who is paying for these ‘costs’?

Well the article explains that as well: “How? By creating 3D games on Roblox’s website, then sharing them to be played online, as well as on iOS, Android and Kindle Fire devices. The money comes from the in-game currency, “Robux”, bought by players to spend within games, and then exchanged for real money again by those games’ developers“.

Is that a problem? Well, no not directly, as I see it, Roblox is all about creativity, yet some things must be bought. So their currency sets 400 Robux at $5 (for builders it is 450 for the same price), making a Robux around a cent (1.25 to be more exact), which might not be a biggie and 10,000 for $100 (15000 for developers), which makes a Robux $0.01, even less for developers. But what does it get you? More important, if some ‘developers’ get 5000 a month, how much money is exchanging hands here? Well, when you become a member of the Outrageous Builders Club and you have in excess of 100,000 Robux and a valid PayPal as well as a verified email address, you could qualify, if you successfully signed up for the Devex program. The last one seems to be set up to prevent phishing, falsehood and a few other markings. This all seems on the up and up. The exchange is 100,000 for $250. That comes down to 0.25 cents to the Robux, which gives the makers of Roblox a 4 to 1 profit. Now we get back to the very first paragraph “Some of our top developers are starting to get about a quarter of a million dollars a year. They’re treating it literally as a career, and starting to hire their friends…”, so how many Robux did that income make?

Now, this is supposed to be about the games and gaming design, which I do not oppose, so when I see the line ‘we have kids in high-school who are making two, three or four thousand dollars a month‘, meaning that they sold R$800K, R$1.2M, R$1.6M. At 4 to one that works out pretty spiffy for the makers, but is no one asking the question, how much money are your children sinking into this game that is the question! Even though much is clearly stated by the people behind it and even though we see “Roblox is free to play, but to get Builders Club which gives you more features“, we soon see that the smallest club is already $6 a month, making this a $70+ a year enterprise, which might not be bad, but everything costs in this game, from hats (that are seen as a status symbol as I personally see it) and there are more parts to all this, so when I saw the ‘promise of income’ as the article seems to imply, my question to Stuart Dredge becomes: ‘How deep did you look into the article you wrote?’ There is another side to the cash thing that was also not mentioned, The Roblox people had relief fund drives, which means that buying a hat (red, Blue, Rising sun) and for every hat sold, Roblox donated to relief funds for Haiti, Red Cross, the Tsunami efforts, so there is also a social drive towards good causes and this game ended up sending thousands upon thousands of dollars fuelled by the people getting the hat to be socially aware. That is a very good thing, especially as this is an environment driven largely towards the ‘less adults’ (small citizens usually younger than 18).

So, am I lashing out at the makers of Roblox? No, not really, they seem to be clear about the options and about the costs, and people can start with a free account, one world and the choice to continue if it is their kind of world. This is all fair, but do the parents realise what happens when these kids sign up for more? Perhaps they do, but do they realise the added price tag? You see, that might all be fair and good and it is important to note that Roblox shows nearly all the information openly and clearly. They have no traps in there. The only paragraph touching on this is “A platform with lots of children playing and a growing number of games using in-app purchases? It sounds like a recipe for controversy, especially with the US Federal Trade Commission poking around in the affairs of Amazon, Apple and now Facebook over children’s in-app spending“. I think the paragraph is much too meager and other elements are not looked at (as I showed in my earlier part).

There is also a second side to Roblox. A side we all ignored unless we actively dug into it ourselves. You see, I was around when Atari had STOS, Amiga has AMOS and when we saw the growth of Little Big Planet one, two and three. We all think we are future game developers. I played with some of the demos and was able to change a few things get some things rolling, but overall, no matter how good my insight, you need creativity and vision. Roblox is giving tools to the makers to address their creativity, but what about vision? Well, I got my parts done in the builder of Neverwinter Nights, and the best result was making an actual adventure for the Commodore-64. The last part was done by a set of articles that were published in a magazine called ‘Computer and Video Games (CVG)‘ in the mid 80’s. I learned so much from those articles.

Here we see the power of these tools, which brings out vision and creativity through patience and persistence. When a parent realises this part and that a game like Roblox could empower these two elements, then spending $72 a year is a steal at twice the price. Whether this results in making some actual cash, or just makes the maker break even with the costs involved, the last one would be worth it all because whatever they make now, will shape the power of innovation down the line. Kids (adults too) could go through life never realising the power that creating innovation brings.

It is the last paragraph that matters: “Ultimately, games that start to look like high-end CGI movies. And companies are starting to realise that this user-generated content segment could be bigger than any individual games company. There’s so much leverage from being a platform rather than a content producer, where every few years you need a new huge property”. There is a truth and a hidden untruth here, the games that look like high end movies come at a large cost for the player, when we see $100 games that give us no more than 10 hours, we see that a move towards sandbox games are definitely worth it, because the overwhelming difference that value for money gives the player, yet the failed attempt we see in games like Assassins Creed Unity, a game released last November, that is still receiving patches (at http://www.designntrend.com/articles/40441/20150218/assassins-creed-unity-ps4-xbox-one-patch-release-ubisoft-gameplay-graphics-multiplayer-glitches.htm). By the way, personally as I see it, when we see the quote “patch 1.05 goes a long way towards promoting ‘stability and performance’ in the latest entry to the annualized franchise“, I mention this for two reasons, the first is that high end games, when not properly supervised could become the end of any software house, the second reason is that the Assassins Creed Wikia calls it a “Assassin’s Creed: Unity is a 2014 sandbox action adventure game“, trust me that any reference to Assassins Creed being a ‘sandbox game’ is like comparing a Ford Edsel to a Bentley, Minecraft being the Bentley that is.

So as we see Roblox and Minecraft as the growing community towards the sandbox loving gamers, I see a win-win situation. You see, I remain a fan of RPG games, these games propel the interest and the desire for RPG games and as such, I will win as better RPG games are released.

So as we consider the subtitle where we see that Roblox is an environment of 4.7 million people, focusing on growth, we can see that Roblox has a future as it focuses on all devices and Cloud based usage. The only danger I see now is that they might try to grow too fast in too many directions. There might be a comparison to Minecraft, but not in the user base, because Minecraft has over 100M users registered on PC and well over 50 million copies sold on consoles. Roblox could grow faster and larger, but as I see it, it will have to offer more to the free player, as I see it by adding 2 worlds and adding those option to have more options for free. It would be fair enough to make those free players earn these options to be unlocked in some way, but as the starting player is reeled in through the growth of options and interactions, so will their eagerness in becoming a premium member. It is that growth curve that Roblox will need, because no matter how proud they are with their 4.7 million players, if they want to attract bigger business they will need to do more than just double their current base, in addition, as the article shows a drive for makers to ‘make’ money, we need to also consider (in all fairness) that in the end, it must be looked at how much currency is transacted in and how this is broken down in user population (especially the age group based demographics). As I stated before Roblox has been on the up and up in this regard, but their continuation will require a massive jolt towards value for money, because that will drive growth faster and a lot more profound.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media, Science

Tagged as Amazon, Apple, Assassins Creed Unity, Baszucki, Bentley, Computer and Video Games, CVG, Facebook, Ford Edsel, Microsoft, Minecraft, Neverwinter Nights, Nintendo, PayPal, Roblox, Robux, RPG, RPG games, Stuart Dredge, the Guardian

February 17, 2015 · 22:34

When the offer is free

Try this for free! This is the commercial teaser we all see when we are offered a dozen of options. There is LinkedIn Premium, Spotify, Salesforce and the list goes on for a very long time. It is a way to get interested in a service or product. I myself tried ‘Today Calendar’ for free, than I upgraded, trials are to some extent a great solution. Try before you buy is a way to get into it. There are games that let you download their Demo, DLC’s that work for a week or two, then you decide, buy or fly!

It is an old marketing option that costs little and bring great reward for those employing the situation. There is however the detail. This we see in the article ‘Why are Amazon Prime customers angry?’ (at http://www.channel4.com/news/amazon-prime-charges-anger-customers-online). Several sources had the story, but Channel 4 read the clearest. The sub-line gives us the goods “Amazon defends a free trial of extra benefits, which ends in an automatic upgrade to paid membership costing £79 a year“. Amazon additionally responded with “Amazon says everyone who signs up to Prime gets an email telling them the duration of the free trial, how to avoid continuing to paid membership and how to cancel membership“. This seems clear enough. So when the guardian gave us ‘Giles Coren declares war on Amazon Prime over free trial‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/feb/16/giles-coren-declares-war-amazon-prime-free-trial-subscription), the impression was left with me that someone did not read their e-mail properly, now that person is crying wolf.

There is however another side to this debate. Should silent transfer be allowed, or should there be a mandatory change to an opt-in transfer? So, should the trial be auto cancelled after 30 days and in addition should we see a second confirmation after 30 days that the continuation is no longer free? This option is the one we usually see in software, when a trial is over, we see that the software no longer functions unless you start paying. On the other side we could consider that some consumers are too stupid to be allowed to have a credit card. The man considers himself an adult. He signed up for a trial, if we accept the response from Amazon that confirmation e-mails have been send, with the explanation on how to cancel it, he himself got into this scuffle by ignoring the message. The Guardian also shows another side that people seem to ignore. The two items involved is a tweet by Giles Coren “I mean, @amazon, offer a free trial in 2012, then quietly start charging £79 and never tell me. That’s what sicko porn sites do! I’ve heard“, so he has been charged for membership in 2012, 2013, 2014 and perhaps even 2015 and only now he ‘wakes up’? Now, this can happen, it has happened to many people, including me, yet 79 pounds is not a costs you easily oversee. To some it amounts to the 6 months fee from your internet provider, which should be taken into account. The second piece of information from Amazon is “Customers who sign up to a free trial of Prime receive an email informing them of the duration of the free trial and how to avoid continuing to pay Prime membership. Customers who become full Prime members can cancel their membership at any time and we will refund the full membership if the customer has not made any eligible purchases or used any Prime benefits“, which gives us the second part. So from that it would seem that Giles Coren must have used some of the services and now he is miffed on having paid for it. That conclusion I get from him not getting a refund, which means he had used the Amazon Prime services.

The article is not just an Amazon or an e-Commerce article. It is also an article that shows the unjustified demand of continued free services after the free trial ends. The two sides pulling on this are Amazon as well as pragmatic realism, as one Tweeter replied to Giles with “Shocking indictment of Oxford and private education as former student doesn’t understand the words ‘free trial’“, which pretty much sums up the ignorance people are showing when they accept free trial whilst not looking at the conditions. The one part I will also illuminate is the complaint we saw from a man called Richard Brown: “Regardless of the legality of the transaction and the stance that Amazon will take that it involves selection and a follow up email each year, the structure of this service is clearly designed to benefit from the customer’s lack of attention“. That too can be seen in two ways. I do agree with Richard on that Amazon should send a follow up e-mail on the subscription every year. These places can send you marketing mails until your hard drive has zero space left, but then shows a lack of ‘tenacity’ to inform their ‘customers’ via e-mail on the payment made, which I see should be a mandatory act in the first place (perhaps that happened, but no one mentioned it in any of the articles I saw).

It is the second statement from Richard Brown that bothers me “this service is clearly designed to benefit from the customer’s lack of attention”, not whether that is the case or not, but in regards to the consideration. This reminds me of the initial marketing when we saw the presentation from Microsoft on the launch of Windows 95. The slogan was ‘without even thinking‘, it was brilliant to some extent. Windows 95 was the first step towards people and true intuitive use of computers. Now, many (pretty much most users) are using their devices intuitive, but there is the added part we see that is at the core, marketing is all about getting a foothold, now we see part that implies (emphasize implies), is that consumers are either getting dim (not that unheard an idea), or that we are faced with two new elements, the first is ‘intuitive buying‘ and ‘intuitive marketing‘, the second one is the holy grail of achieving revenue. When used correctly it is seen as ‘Achieving influence without persuasion‘, there is an interesting article (at http://intuitiveconsumer.com/blog/intuitive-marketing-achieving-influence-without-persuasion/ ). It talks about the six mechanisms of influence used by intuitive marketing. They are ‘Trust: Intuitive marketing builds trust and relies on trust‘, ‘Consistency: Intuitive marketing is consistent and therefore communicates reliability‘, ‘Fluency: Intuitive marketing is easy on the mind‘, ‘Emotional reward: At the opposite end of the spectrum from high aspiration is the realm of small emotional rewards‘ and there are the final two ‘Aspiration‘ and ‘Aligned intent‘. As you see (especially after you read the linked article), the Amazon Prime situation seems to address 4 of the 6 elements of intuitive marketing, so when we see the Amazon Prime issue, is there deception? I personally say no! Amazon offered an agreement, one that gives you a cool down period of 30 days. The definition can be seen as “offer, acceptance, and consideration (payment or performance), based on specific terms“, this is what is at the heart of it all. The emotional response of Giles Coren with the reference to ‘that’s what sicko porn sites do!‘ which in my view holds no value, yet ‘the structure of this service is clearly designed to benefit from the customer’s lack of attention‘, the mention by Richard Brown is much better and decently more apt, but is it valid? ‘Lack of attention’ sounds nice for sure, but does that make the consumer less responsible? Especially when Amazon offers, “Customers who become full Prime members can cancel their membership at any time and we will refund the full membership if the customer has not made any eligible purchases or used any Prime benefits“, which is a decent counter offer, which was part of their offer as I see it. So first, the person gets a 30 day cool down and if the person has not used the service at all, they could get a refund. It seems to me that Amazon offers a decent service, so why do these events cause such a strong reaction?

The part I have not touched upon is ‘intuitive buying’. One vendor had this little slogan with their product ‘intuitive buying just like in an internet shop’. Now we get back to the initial Windows 95 slogan, this gives us in the end ‘buying without even thinking’. So we have a complete picture, but what neither article skates on is when will we see the accountability of the consumer. The person who was given a credit card, an adult who was supposed to be of sound state of mind. The person buying, was notified and then did not react. Intuitive buying does not make a person unaccountable, is that what the articles are steering to? No matter how many complaints we see, the clear indication is given that Amazon gave up front and it allows for correction in hindsight.

Hidden under this is the issue, not on the side of Amazon, but on our side, we consumers need to consider the clear truth that nothing is free! Should any internet offer be treated the same way trial software is? That remains valid, but if so, is that because consumers are no longer to be considered ‘adult’ or accountable, or is it because of another path of reasoning?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law

Tagged as Amazon, Amazon Prime, Channel 4, Giles Coren, intuitiveconsumer.com, LinkedIn Premium, Microsoft, Richard Brown, Salesforce, Spotify, the Guardian, Windows 95

February 15, 2015 · 23:09

A coin with more than two sides

Let us take a look at two of many more sides. The first side is given in this article: Google’s Vint Cerf warns of ‘digital Dark Age’ (at http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31450389). The initial quote is “Vint Cerf, a ‘father of the internet’, says he is worried that all the images and documents we have been saving on computers will eventually be lost“. This sounds nice, but is that not the same as we have had forever? If we did not take care of our old photographs and our old negatives, than those pictures would be lost forever, so how is that different?

See here, the picture of an Agfa Instamatic. It is almost identical to the camera I had in the late 70’s. So, how will you get those negatives developed? Where to buy film? Most will not care about it, many have bought new camera’s, but where to print the negatives you have? Nowadays with digital images, almost any printer will print it, almost every system will show them. How is that different? So are the words of Vint Cerf anything else but a sales pitch for some new ‘forever’ saved option, likely one that Google will offer and not unlikely in a way that gives Google shared ownership. Is that under the current feelings of ‘data collection’ such a sceptical view to have?

Now, I will state, that not unlike those old prints, the owner has the responsibility to keep the images safe, just like in the old days. Even if the originals (the digital negatives) are lost, as long as a print still exists, the image remains, just like the old photographs. Yet, his quote “But as technology moves on, they risk being lost in the wake of an accelerating digital revolution” holds truth, because that is not unlike the 110mm film issue. So as long as you have a data option that survives, like the 110mm negative holder, you can always get another print. So, CDROM’s in a writable version came in the late 90’s, so we only started to have a backup option for 20 years, yet affordable digital images would still need several more years. Yes, that market has grown exponential and now, we see the application of Common Cyber Sense in another way. Now, people will get confronted with the need to back things up. As the Digital disc evolved, so has the quality of these solutions. Now the discs last a lot longer, so backing up the old discs on new discs does make a whole lot of sense, so there is a side that makes perfect sense, but is that enough?

That part is shown in the following quote: “’I worry a great deal about that,’ Mr Cerf told me. ’You and I are experiencing things like this. Old formats of documents that we’ve created or presentations may not be readable by the latest version of the software because backwards compatibility is not always guaranteed’“. This is at the heart of what Vincent Serf is getting to, so he is definitely onto something. How many of you can still access all the WordPerfect files you created in 1992? Who can still access their FRED applications and their Ashton Tate’s Framework solutions? That list is slowly and surely getting close to zero. This is what Vincent is getting to and there list the crux, because this would have gone beyond mere images and what we currently still access. Consider the Digital VAX/VMS systems, the collected data that spans decades from 1982 onwards. The IBM series one (those 64Mb mainframes with 10 9” floppies), so Vincent is perfectly correct (as a man with his experience would be), but what solution to use? Yes, his idea is perfectly sound, but the issues that follows is the one that I have to some degree an issue with, you see, sometimes things get lost, which has happened throughout history, would our lives have been better if the Library of Alexandria survived? Would it be better, or would there be more and more incriminations? There is no way to know, but the issue can be explained in another way. This is a myth I heard in school a long time ago. The story is that a person could ask whatever he wanted for a created chess game. He asked for a grain in the first square, two in the second square and so on. By the time the board was half way through, the person paying for it would owe the person 2,147,483,648 grain seeds and that is just half way through. Now think of today’s world, where we collect everything. Like the chess board we collect every part and this just increased the junk we collect and that at a premium price. So what to keep? That is the hard part, it is interesting to keep on the side that sometimes we need to allow to lose things, but Vincent has a case. Now we look at one of the last quotes: “’Plainly not,’ Vint Cerf laughed. ‘But I think it is amusing to imagine that it is the year 3000 and you’ve done a Google search. The X-ray snapshot we are trying to capture should be transportable from one place to another. So, I should be able to move it from the Google cloud to some other cloud, or move it into a machine I have’“. Yes, there is the sales pitch. “Google search” and “move it from the Google cloud“, so there we have it, the Google cloud! Still, even though there is a sales pitch in here, does that make it a bad approach? Are we better because we save EVERYTHING? That is at the heart of this little conundrum. Now, those having their data on the old Cray might consider their data worthy, so do many who had their data on UNIX mini’s, but now consider every Novell edition, every desktop, now, it will be arbitrary if people decide to take these steps, yet what happens when all data can be baked up like this, what happens when some start ‘offering’ this for ‘free’? Who then co-owns that data, those solutions? Is that such a crazy thought to have?

Here is the last part: “And that’s the key issue here – how do I ensure in the distant future that the standards are still known, and I can still interpret this carefully constructed X-ray snapshot?” This is the part that is interesting; his concept of Digital Vellum is an interesting one. Yet, how should we move forward on that? What happens when these snapshots link up, when they connect, perhaps even interact? There is no way of knowing; perhaps this would be the beginning of a new evolution of data. Is that such a weird concept? Perhaps that is where we need to look at other sides too. Consider our insight, into our memories, our ‘wisdom’ and our ability to filter and extrapolate. Is this solution a primal step from near ‘artificial-intelligence’ to possible cyber/digital intelligence? The question becomes, if intelligence is grown from memories, what do we create when we give it everything we ever collected? I have seen the stories, the way some people think that the dangers of an artificial intelligence is so dangerous. We might consider the thoughts from the ‘Cyberdyne’ stories (Terminator series), but in the end, what if the digital intelligence is the beginning of our legacy? What if we learn to preserve ourselves, without leaving a carbon footprint, without being the deadly blight on nature? At some point we will stop to exist, we die; it is a simple consequence of nature, but what happened, if our wisdom is preserved? Many come with stories and nightmares of the loss of identity, but what happens if we can store intelligence? What happens if the next century Albert Einstein would be there to help us create progress, inspire innovation for all time? Is that such a bad thing? Some of these questions are beyond my ability to answer but there is a dangerous dark side too, what happens when this becomes commercial Intellectual Property? I am all for IP, yet, should cloned intelligence become the property of anyone? I feel that I might be alive long enough to actually see that question go to court. I hope that those making that decision are a lot wiser than I currently feel.

This now gets me to story two, which also came from the BBC (at http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31440978), the story here is ‘Cybersecurity: Tech firms urged to share data with US‘, which gave me the initial scepticism regarding the Vint Cerf story. So, I am not linking them perse, they are separate stories. The initial quote is “Private tech firms should share more information with government and with each other to tackle cybercrime, according to US President Barack Obama“, I do not disagree with this thought, however, there is a side to this that is not addressed. The given quote is “Senior Google, Yahoo and Facebook executives turned down invitations to the summit, held at Stanford University“, so is this about not sharing, or about keeping the data non-sharable. There is part that we see when we look at the quote “Mr Obama is backing the creation of information sharing and analysis organisations (ISAOs) to help firms and government share material on potential threats“, yes, if we consider that Snowden fellow there could be issue, but is that a valid path? You see, consider how some do NOT want the cyber threat to reduce for the largest extent, consider how many software ‘solutions’ are out there, for viruses, phishing attacks, identity theft and several other parts. There are two dangers, at one part we have a possible solution to theoretically start solving and decently diminish the danger, the other side is on how all that data gets linked, that part in the wrong hands is a lot more dangerous than many could imagine.

The following quote adds to the worry: “Government cannot do this alone. But the fact is that the private sector can’t do it alone either because its government that often has the latest information on new threats” My issue is that this should not in the hands of any private part, it could be seen as the execution of the premise ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’, those who face that lesson will not have an option. I would see a solution if there was collaboration between NSA, GCHQ, DGSE and a select few more. Reasoning? Cybercrimes have a distinct impact on national income and also national tax donations. They have all the drive to get it resolved. I have less faith in private companies, their allegiance is to profit, their board of directors and more profit. This is the issue as they will do what they need, someone falls on a sword and many get extremely wealthy, the data goes everywhere and many become exploitable, classifiable and re-sellable. I have been in data for decades, I think that governments can do what needs to be done, and it is time to change the cycle of re-iterated profit. Governments have made themselves the bitch of the private industries, the three mentioned initially is not enough, consider the quote down the line “Facebook, Yahoo, Google and Microsoft have all sent less senior executives to the conference“, so why was Microsoft not mentioned earlier? What is going on? The interesting part is that Bloomberg mentions Microsoft several times, the BBC article just twice. It is clear that something needs to be done on several levels, but it takes a different scope and a different approach, I feel decently certain that keeping the private touch out of this will be essential, for the reason that private companies have a mere commercial scope. I feel uncertain that this approach will work, it has not worked for a long time; I have seen ego and political play and personal reasoning interfere with results, in more than one nation. Whatever is done, it needs to be done, it needs to be done a lot faster than many consider and even though taking the politician out of a government seems to be impossible, we need to make sure that an approach is considered that does not allow for political exploitation, but how to get that done is another matter entirely.

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as Agfa, Ashton Tate, BBC, bloomberg, Common Cyber Sense, Cyberdyne, Cybersecurity, DGSE, Digital VAX/VMS, Digital Vellum, Facebook, GCHQ, google, Google cloud, Google search, ISAO, Library of Alexandria, Microsoft, NSA, President Barack Obama, Terminator series, UNIX, Vincent Serf, Vint Cerf, Yahoo

January 29, 2015 · 21:21

Whinging from a desperate left

This is how I felt when both ‘We must stop Angela Merkel’s bullying – or let the forces of austerity win‘ by Owen Jones (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/28/syriza-merkel-economic-greece-europe) and ‘Bank of England governor attacks eurozone austerity‘ by Larry Elliott (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/28/bank-england-governor-attacks-eurozone-austerity) passed in front of me. It is a unique issue, the political left in league with the banks. It is likely to be a first. The left want the image of cost of living relief, which is a ludicrous fantasy to begin with and that fantasy seems to be all about getting to spend money. We have a similar ‘BS’ joke like this in Australia. That person is called Bill Shorten. You see, as I see it, the banks want ease so that this generation can get a few more millions in commissions before it all collapses.

Let’s take a look at the youthful Mr Oxford (Owen Jones). It starts with the opening premise: ‘Angela Merkel is the most monstrous western European leader of this generation‘. No, she is not! Let’s take a look at the past. Around 2009 Merkel stated that enough is enough. She introduced austerity measures and she sliced back on German spending by a lot. The German people were in pain, they all were. The consequence was that the debt had gone down by a lot, so when harder times came, Germany had shed some of its debt and as such, lower costs on interests and therefor the pain that followed in 2011 and 2012 was suddenly not as painful for the Germans at large. I remember seeing the news. The Dutch did not adhere to such notions, they were all in the mindset like ‘it will get better next year’, at that time the Dutch Finance minister was Wouter Bos. It would not be so good. To be honest, the pain the Dutch felt would not have been that extreme if they had tightened the belt from 2009 onwards as well, but they were all adhering to their ‘good news cycle’, whomever came next had to clean up the mess. It was not just the Dutch, the French, the Italian, the Spanish, as well as the United Kingdom, they all went overboard in spending trillions.

So when I read the deluded word by Owen Jones, it just makes me a little sad. the quote “The Greeks have rebelled against machine men – and women – and they are crying out for others to follow“, that sounds nice as an epitaph for Don Quixote as he marches against the next windmill (possibly a Dutch one), but the Greeks created their own mess. Their inadequacy to deal with corruption, tax collection and a host of other issues got THEMSELVES into the mess they have. Would it not be nice to clearly state that?

Then Own comes with “As Krugman notes, the troika – the IMF, European Central Bank and European commission – promoted “an economic fantasy”, for which the Greeks have paid. They projected that unemployment would peak at 15% in 2012, but it hurtled to over 25% instead“, which is a part I do agree with. There was an economic fantasy, because the austerity measures needed where on lethal levels which cannot be denied, how do the Greeks react? With a series of strikes and vandalism events which only got them into deeper water. A watery grave the Greeks had created for themselves. They now have a debt of well over 325 billion for a population of 11 million, so how wealthy are those 11 million Greeks? If not, where did that money go? The fact that Greek bonds are now at 9.85% should be an indication that Greece is now almost denied existence, it for the most, only has itself to blame, since 2009, how many Greeks actually went to court and to prison for what was done? Of the 2069 Greek accounts in Switzerland (as mentioned in a Greek magazine), who besides the journalist has appeared in court? It seems that making Germany the scapegoat for something the Greeks did themselves is absent of loads of logic.

Then we get another quote that is up for discussion: “Germany ploughed money into countries such as Greece and Spain – that’s the “magic” of deregulated markets – and in doing so “lent more than they could afford”. German banks and their political champions should have known this would end in disaster“, I disagree. Greece was given an option, but was also informed of the intense pressures that this causes. What did they do? Whinge and whine like faulty politicians with the spinal cord of a paperback, not a hardcover amongst them! Instead of going after tax dodgers and those who had made bad calls, to see what they could get back, they went into states of denial, like flaccid applications to a concrete wall, not a scratch was made and when the time was up, they again, whined for more cash, an idea given to them by Charles Dickens in his story Oliver Twist. Then suddenly miraculously, the crisis was over and suddenly they went back to the bond market for more. None of those events are in this article.

Last we get “The future of millions of Europeans – Greek, French, Spanish and British alike – will be bleak indeed. That is why a movement to defend the already ruined nation of Greece is so important. Defeated Germany benefited from debt relief in 1953, and we must demand that for Greece today“, how about the clarity that debt relief came and Greece did nothing, and now, they are whinging and whining (again) for more cash, less debt (through forgiving current debts). However, nobody is making any headway in aligning the justice system and the law to take care of those evading taxation. It will not be anywhere near enough, but it will be a clear signal that Greece is serious about taking a stance for resolving debt and fortifying its annual income. Oh and when the debt is forgiven? Who pays for that money not coming in? The IMF or divide the debt over all the EU nations, who are all beyond their maximum borrowing points? Perhaps option 2? Let the ‘Grexit’ commence and let’s see how the Drachma will leave the Greek people in a state so much worse. At that point the people will dream of those good old austerity times.

Let’s face it, it is not fair to the Greek people, not one bit, but I have seen enough BS in regards to blaming the Germans for what some Greeks did to Greece. If we look at 2013, the quote “The state collected less than half of the revenues it was due to receive last year as it appeared unable to ensure that taxes and fines found their way to its coffers, according to a State Audit Council report submitted in Parliament on Tuesday by its president, Ioannis Karavokyris“, this was an article from November 2013, almost 4 years after the mess they themselves created. (at http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite2_1_05/11/2013_526451), so as the Greeks drop the ball over and over again, who do they have to blame but themselves? So as I take my leave from Owen Jones, we look at the second Mr Oxford in this equation. With Owen I am willing to concede that he has his ideological heart in the right place, with Mr Smiley Smiley Canadian Mark Carney, former Governor of the Bank of Canada and the current Governor of the Bank of England, the gloves come off. So let’s introduce Marky Mark to the business end of a two by four in the shape of a keyboard!

It starts quite lovely, immediate of the bat with “Mark Carney says eurozone is caught in a debt trap and should ease hardline budget cuts just days after the Syriza election directly challenged policy“, just under the title. Why should we ease up? If we ease up after an election, the Greeks can forgo debt by having 12 elections over the next three years. It is the cost of doing business and as such, the Greeks themselves have not shown one iota of intent from 2009 onward (the lack of artful tax dodge prosecution could be regarded as evidence piece number one).

The second whopping ‘miss-statement’ might be seen in “Speaking in Dublin, Carney said the eurozone needed to ease its hardline budgetary policies and make rapid progress towards a fiscal union that would transfer resources from rich to poor countries“, when we see parts like ‘transfer resources from rich to poor countries‘, in my view (and in the view of some others), it reads like ‘as big business transfers corporate structures towards economic ailing areas. This was achieved through a subsidy structure that gave way to spreading business opportunity to less fortunate areas’. It also translates in the non-written text part of that statement as less tax liable options for big business, already far beyond normal wealth, move towards areas where labour laws are even less protective, optimising profits for big business.

So when he states as a bank governor the following “Carney made it clear that he thought the failure to complete the process of integration coupled with over-restrictive fiscal policies risked driving the 18-nation single currency area deeper into a debt trap“, which is not untrue, yet the part as a banker, that he does not mention is that he and his buddies profit greatly from spending sprees, if governments suddenly get a hold of their budgets, banks lose out a lot. This can be seen in the simplest way when we consider the Greek bonds. When that market opened up again (which should never have been allowed), the Greeks did not just add to their debt, someone in the banking world ended up with a 65 million euro bonus (in total) for selling these bonds, I am certain that the ‘wealth’ was spread around a little, but some of these financial people just cannot make ends meet on 350K a year, supporting a wife, kids, a Ferrari, a Ducati and two mistresses. You need that bond bonus to feel secure in your way of life as I see it. I wonder if the easing up has anything to do with meetings that places like Loomis Sayles ‘might’ have had with Natixis, perhaps Mr Carney attended a social event in such settings?

I agree with the premise we read in the quote “Since the financial crisis all major advanced economies have been in a debt trap where low growth deepens the burden of debt, prompting the private sector to cut spending further. Persistent economic weakness damages the extent to which economies can recover. Skills and capital atrophy“, I agree with that premise, yet this was a given already in 2011. I foresaw these events in 2012 and I read as bankers all over the place were hosting to ‘bright weather forecasting‘ whilst not taking the cautious steps that should have been taken. We can either state that politicians were too stupid to consider the dangers, or they were happy to leave the mess to those who followed (like Labour left hundreds of billions in debts to the Liberals in Australia), after that we see banks and the media in cycles of ‘bad news management’ slowly lowering expectation and forecasts, whilst the money had already been spend. So, yes Mr Carney, you state a good quote, it is just incredibly incomplete!

So, when we read “Carney has been vocal in his support for the European Central Bank’s decision to start buying government and commercial debt in its own version of the quantitative easing programmes, but said the Frankfurt-based central bank was unable alone to eliminate the threat of a prolonged stagnation“, we see nothing wrong. It is to the smallest degree commendable, only to the smallest degree, because several governments had entered a state of overspending, followed by ‘bad news management’ an intertwined cycle that would undo whatever headway quantitative easing would bring. The need for greed will always win in the end, so those programs are just a fantasy, Greece has some evidence of that part too, as they were part in both sides of that game. Isn’t it nice when the bank plays player one, player two and acts as the bank in the middle. That part truly sucks if you are player three and four in a game of monopoly. If we see Germany as player 3, than who is player 4?

I’ll let you do the math there!

You see, the actual solution would have been to take a stronger position on IP rules and regulations. An approach to ease the path for the small innovator of newly designed products. As several IP sides were all about setting goals towards ‘business’ (read big business), they forgot that when we look at the period between the 50’s and the 70’s, innovation came from the small inventors. Nearly every economy starts stepwise from small players and small innovators. Today, the players are so focussed on the large amounts, they tend to focus on large players like Apple and Microsoft and they forget that these companies, for a larger part live of the premise of the Vulture cycle, you pick the carcass until the hunter shoots a new prey, then they wait until it is feeding time. Small innovators (like Markus Persson with Minecraft) have the actual idea, which a large company then buys for 2 billion plus. As small innovators are given space to proceed and as larger players are denied blocking patents to force amalgamation of the true visionary into their moulding process that is the moment when economies will truly move forward. That is how you get forward momentum!

So when we see the final quote by Mark Carney “Carney said the eurozone’s unemployment rate of 11.5% was more than double that of the UK, but its fiscal deficit – the gap between tax revenues and spending – was only half the size of the UK’s. The eurozone, he said, should be using a “constructive” fiscal policy to support demand and mitigate the “tail risks of stagnation”“, we should wonder who he is catering to. As I saw it, the article was all about policies that are interesting for the boards of directors of the corporations, but the people will only be allowed the conceptual benefit on the tale end. Benefits that might have been a realistic form of support for treasuries all over Europe if they had done something actual to properly set up tax policies. Catering to big business stopped being constructive or lucrative for governments for half a decade now, how much longer will you take until you figure out that big business only caters to their own board of directors?

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Angela Merkel, Apple, austerity measures, Australia, Bank of England, Bill shorten, Charles Dickens, debt relief, Don Quixote, Dutch, ekathimerini.com, European Central Bank, European Central Bank and European commission, France, Germany, Governor of the Bank of Canada, Governor of the Bank of England, Greece, IMF, Ioannis Karavokyris, Italia, Krugman, Larry Elliott, Loomis Sayles, Mark Carney, Microsoft, Natixis, Netherlands, Oliver Twist, Owen Jones, Oxford University, Spain, Switzerland, SYRIZA, the Guardian, Wouter Bos

January 2, 2015 · 10:54

Misrepresentation

That was the first word in my mind when I looked into the Guardian seeing the following headline ‘NHS cancels 3,000 operations in two December weeks‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/28/nhs-cancels-3000-operations-in-two-december-weeks), it is not the only NHS story in the Guardian and to be fair, there has been an awful lot of bashing of the NHS, not entirely in an unfair way, but it has been in a very misrepresented way.

I have written about the NHS a few times, with the main reason that whatever hits the UK, will hit Canada, Australia and perhaps even New Zealand, later if not sooner. The small inserted text “The figures, highlighted by Labour” is entirely an issue too. Perhaps the Guardian might also want to illuminate that part of all this is DUE TO the actions of Labour, not just illustrated now by Labour. It all starred in the age of Blair, perhaps not the most unknown Prime Minister of the UK (1997-2007), followed up by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown who continued the mess from 2007 to 2010.

So why blame them?

Even though the project started in 2002, during these three administration cycles, that project was blown in access of well beyond 10 billion with nothing to show for it. 10% of that fund could have prevented well over 80% of all current NHS issues. So, I will state that Labour might not have started this mess; they definitely were in the midst as it got bungled again and again. When we consider the September 2013 article (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn), where we read “CSC’s contracts could not be cancelled because a legal challenge by the company may well have succeeded, the report claimed“, we can see that this issue was bungled in several departments, the IT branch not being the smallest one.

Yes, we know, we see and we all feel that any NHS system costs us, but this fiasco is beyond the entire budget of the Ministry of Transport for 2015, so we can say that there are issues. Whatever we will hear in defense regarding how things must move forward, the current administration is still cleaning up the mess of Labour, best way they can (with emptied coffers), so the sanctimonious highlighting by Labour (not unlike the current acts of Labour in Australia), should be looked at with some contempt. When the previous landlord sells the garage, he does not get to remark on how less ‘clean’ the car is, when he had removed the shelter in the first place.

When we see the quote ““To reduce pressures on hospitals and to keep a flow of patients coming in and leaving hospital, we need to manage the number of available beds more efficiently. To achieve this, we need to reduce unnecessary admissions and visits to A&E and improve community care.”“, we should add to that that the system was meant to be better by having an actual system. When we consider a previous made quote “Dr Mark Porter, chairman of the BMA, says £20bn savings drive to blame, as doctors and nurses are made redundant“, we must now remember that wasting in access of £10bn for a non-working IT system has everything to do with that part. But that is only one factor.

For the next part I need to refer to a decent article in the Independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-myth-excessive-government-borrowing-got-us-into-this-mess-8601390.html). There we see the following: “In fact, government borrowing did not get us into this mess. As we shall see, the last government did not borrow excessively, whilst the recession was a consequence of overleveraged banks and the collapse of the US housing market. The banks overextended themselves in poorly regulated financial markets, indulging in high-risk lending in the belief that a housing bubble would never burst“, this is absolutely true, yet not entirely correct. consider in 2008, Gordon Brown was handed a lemon for sure, yet, the strong measures that should have been taken, like cutting back hard, especially in late 2009 onwards, were also absent. The article has a few other ‘represented’ events that are true, yet incomplete, you see, no one will deny that the banks were all at fault for the bulk of the mess, yet harsh acts afterwards were mostly none existent, moreover, many of these big wigs went home with a golden handshake a fat donation to their bank account and enough to buy a ‘St James Hamper’ for all the members of their family (Catalogue Code: 2099429 at http://www.fortnumandmason.com).

So when we see the current Labour highlights, we need to take a few more details into consideration and can we agree that those issues were absent in this article?

So when we see the very premature promise of “He pledged Labour would invest an extra £2.5bn in the NHS each year, resulting in 20,000 more nurses and 8,000 GPs“, we need to consider that the bungles under labour had costed many of them their jobs in the first place. The NHS still needs a much better IT system then it has for now and until this is completed these issues will remain, trusting labour to get the job done is really not a good idea. We could misrepresent that we currently have well over 10 billion pieces of evidence to make that case. I will let you mull over any contemplation in that direction of financial deficit.

By the way, when considering that part, we must also consider Wednesday’s article (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/31/sexual-violence-soars-uk-hospitals), there we see security issues of several levels in the Guardian, now reread the issue from December 28^th, at that point, these issues would have been clearly know. There is no mention of security or upgraded HR needs; just nurses and GP’s, so how out of touch is a three day old statement that did not consider known details at that very moment?

I see this as an out of touch Labour government that is highlighting and promising, yet the highlight is incorrect, the promise in inaccurate, perhaps even insincere and all of this in completely unrealistic (personal note: it sucks to be Labour at present). This is the view from Labour, whilst only looking at the issues that are touching the NHS, one of the most important issues that will remain around in the coming decade. I hope that the siblings of the UK (Read: Australia, Canada and New Zealand) take these thoughts into consideration, because if we ‘the Commonwealth’ in the upcoming age of IP want to survive, we need to up the game in several areas buy a lot! In this regard IP is not just a piece of software; our Intellectual Property is not just software (even though it is largely regarded as such). If we consider that the mind is the software of the brain, we need to rethink the premise that Big Business has forced us to make in the age where ‘they’ had set the target, the premise and the consequence. If we take the basic approach where ‘the Turing test is a test of a machine’s ability to conclusively show intelligent behaviour that is indistinguishable from a human being’, can we make a similar statement that ‘a system’s adherency to set and cater to a rule of definitions, which in turn allows servicing the need of a community’?

So what if we invert the current situation as we might see in the paper by Alan Turing ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence‘ around 1950. Our systems have been exceeding the ability of those computers for a long time, yet as technologists have been greed driven into a iterative release of hardware (and software), we ignored use of innovation in UNIX (or LINUX or SE-LINUX), to truly drive productivity as large players like Microsoft, to cater to profits forced business to take a step back, to be the sheep carrying the pay checks for these large corporations. So as we stare at the words of Alan Turing and as we look at the words of cognitive scientist Stevan Robert Harnad, where we wonder whether a machine can act indistinguishably, we all forgot (an implied assumption by me) about the part, ‘can a system truly cater and flexibly work under a premise of security as it caters to the need of health officials’, so that they can focus on treating and curing. A system bogged down by consultants and speculators on how it ‘must’ be, whilst ignoring the small academic innovators on how it actually could be.

Whilst dishing billions to a company with a legal challenge, we all should have looked at the future of IT as these minds were shaped at universities. The technologies required were never with the people in office now, they learned the previous iteration of technologies, the actual innovators are at university now and catering into that direction at 1% of the cost is more likely a solution then the one not delivered at present. Consider for a moment the PDF (at http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/rec-man-pol.pdf). Now, there is nothing wrong with the entire approach to the document, yet at 5.9.12 we suddenly see “Be aware when redacting Microsoft Word documents electronically by using the black highlight text tool as this process is reversible. A Microsoft Word file converted into PDF can be easily read merely by copying if from PDF back into Word” suddenly we see that Microsoft is just part of all this, a ‘simple’ formatting is now a Microsoft based guideline. Why?

At 5.18.1 we see: “A secure drive (S:drive) has been created to hold such data and staff should contact openservice@atos.net to request a secure folder“, so this goes via a French multinational IT services corporation headquartered in Bezons, France, making 10 billion in 2013? How much of that revenue is coming from the NHS, and why is this cost not going through a British company (seems like an awfully simple question to pose). By the way, one other thing to notice is that the Glossary after page 27 shows the term ‘metadata’, yet the document itself leaves the term metadata unused, which refers to Protective marking, only discussed in Appendix D, where it is mentioned to the minimised extent. Although this document should not be seen as any representation of NHS IT (the document is actually a very decent piece of work), it should leave us with several questions, we might not get an answer to, if not for the now, then definitely towards the goal the NHS must steer to if it wants to survive beyond 2015, just adding funds will not do, and the funds Labour offers are those they have no access to until after an election, which will then be the funds that are non-existent as the present shows.

So where should we look when we are confronted with these misrepresentations (as I see them)?

I am not telling, just asking!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Accidents and Emergency, Alan Turing, Atos, Australia, Bezons, big business, Canada, chairman of the BMA, Community, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Dr Mark Porter, england.nhs.uk, France, Gordon Brown, Labour, LINUX, metadata, Microsoft, Ministry of Transport, NHS, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Prime Minister Tony Blair, SE-Linux, St James Hamper, Stevan Robert Harnad, the Guardian, The Independent, Tony Blair, UK, UK Labour, UNIX, www.fortnumandmason.com

December 14, 2014 · 21:39

Where we disagree

There is another article in the Guardian; it was published almost 12 hours ago (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/14/deficit-problem-crisis-productivity-george-osborne). It is a good story, it gives a decent view, but I feel that I cannot agree. It must be said that this is all in the eyes of the beholder. The article is good and sound and many will adhere to this idea. Yet, I do not completely agree. Yes, all the facts are right, the view is not incorrect, but it feels incomplete. The first quote “The most important issue is the poor performance of the nation’s productivity, which, far from being improved, has almost certainly been exacerbated by the constant emphasis on the putative need for austerity”, now this is a decent view to have, it is an optional view, yet in my view the following com up:

Productivity relies on orders; the UK is competing with its baby brother India where daily labour rates are decently below the hourly rate of a UK worker. That in itself is not enough, the EEC overall is pretty broke, no less than one in 10 has no job, it is driven up by Spain and Greece, yet after a long term most Europeans are very careful about where money is spend on. So which manufacturing industry is getting the few coins that do get spend?
There is no reputed need to austerity; there is an overspending in excess of 1 trillion that needs to be addressed. We can bark high and low on the reasoning for it, but that water passed the bridge a long time ago, now the debt needs to be taken care of. The US, Japan and UK have a combined debt of 30 trillion of national debt, the UK is a little over 3% of all this, let’s make sure that when the two behemoths stumble into nothingness, the UK does not end up being the biggest debt of all (again just my view), yet I feel certain that the banks will be in charge of a nation with such debts.

Yes, productivity will take care of all it, but I believe that the debt needs more then productivity. It needs innovation and IP. They will drive true productivity. People forget about the innovators. Alan Turing is still regarded as the man behind the concept of Artificial intelligence. What was a fab in the 40’s became the driving power for the planet from the 90’s onward; let’s not forget the foundations for the computer. We seem to herald IBM and others, yet Professor Sir F.C. Williams was at the foundation of the driving force that became the behemoth for almost half a century and this wave is still going strong.

The new currency will be IP; innovation will drive the places of work, the places of sales and the filling of coffers (the empty bags currently in a corner of George Osborne’s office).

People keep on ignoring the need for innovation; I tried it twice in a previous job. The response remained almost the same ‘it works as it is, so leave it‘, that is the drive stopper that ends a future, although the early 1900’s did not have the need for IP, consider the history of the paperclip and Gem Manufacturing Ltd, a British company. They had the better design, but never registered the patent, which is why Johan Vaaler is often seen as the inventor. I am not debating the validity, yet he registered his patent. In those days the rights were approached a lot more liberal then now. Nowadays our lives are all about IP, patents and who it is registered to. Haven’t we learned anything in 115 years? No matter that we now enjoy an article that is not patented, in nice contrast to people who enjoy a life because the man behind finding a cure (read vaccine) for polio did intentionally decide not to patent it (Dr Jonas Salk, who deserves a sainthood for that act), our future for certain, our survival to some exaggerated extent is depending on IP. Need drives production, but who owns the article that is needed? That part I see ignored again and again.

William Keegan does not look at the IP side, because he focuses on the steps following it, yet those in this real rat race seems to silence the need to look at it as they talk about productivity and manufacturing, but the innovator behind it, the one designing the IP, that person is worth gold. Consider Microsoft paying 2 billion for a piece of IP called Minecraft. A simple game, looking the way Minecraft does, is worth the revenue the high end looking GTA-5 made. It is all about IP in gaming; it should be the same in nearly any industry, not just the one that got kicked off by Alan Turing and Professor Sir F.C. Williams. IP drives every computer industry, it became the centre piece in the jewel that is now called ‘Business Intelligence‘ and ‘Predictive Analytics‘, but we broke the system after that.

Why was the system broken?

It is a broken system that is now illuminated in its flaws by people like Sir Kenneth Robinson and Brian Blessed. We ignored for too long that IP and innovation requires creativity. As Universities have been pushing logic and business, they forgot that the future tends to be created in the arts. Creativity is the driving force for any future, whatever is produced after this required a need for IP. It is a chicken and the egg issue, will the thought create the idea or is the idea the drive for creation? As I see it, this drive needs an artistic side, a side I was never any good in, but the best futures will need an artistic hand. It is shown into the massive amounts of IP the gaming industry manages. People might wonder why I keep on coming back to the gaming industry.

The answer is simple Games have driven a trillion dollar industry (totalled). Commodore Business Machines (C-64, Amiga) Atari (2600,800, ST), Creative Labs (soundcard), The consoles that followed by Nintendo, Sony, SEGA and Microsoft and the list goes on and on, all from creativity. Even the military sees the essential need of creativity. Consider the text “Space-based Missile Defense: Advancing Creativity“, it is at the heart of everything, so many forgot about that, those in charge forgot about that part. It is why my vote for Cambridge chancellor would not have been for Lord Sainsbury of Turville, but for Brian Blessed. Lord Sainsbury is not a wrong person, or a bad choice. As I see it, all our futures require a much stronger drive towards the arts and creativity. In my crazy creative view photography was invented in 1642 by a Dutchman named Rembrandt van Rijn; his visionary view came 200 years before the chemicals were invented, if you want evidence? It is in the Rijksmuseum and they call it ‘the Nightwatch’.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT, Science

Tagged as Alan Turing, Atari, Brian Blessed, Business Intelligence, Commodore Business Machines, Dr Jonas Salk, Gem Manufacturing Ltd, George Osborne, India, IP, Japan, Johan Vaaler, Labour rates, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, manufacturing industry, Microsoft, Minecraft, national debt, Patents, polio vaccine, predictive analytics, Professor Sir F.C. Williams, Rembrandt van Rijn, Rijksmuseum, Sir F.C. Williams, Sir Kenneth Robinson, the Guardian, the Nightwatch, UK, United Kingdom, US, William Keegan

November 16, 2014 · 00:14

How the mighty can fall

You see, I’ve have had a few issues with Ubi-Soft (or you be soft) in the past. After 5 iterations of glitches and increasingly less reliable accounting of that what they claim, we can see that the floodgates are opening. I wonder if anyone ever explained to Yves Guillemot that relying on marketing and shareholders equals screwing your company value over, those who push for short term gains, will long term destroy a company, in that view the danger of the existence of Ubisoft grows. They are in sizeable company IBM, Microsoft, Electronic Arts, WordPerfect and that list goes on. The first part you see can be found here http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/11/14/ubisoft-responds-inadequately-to-assassins-creed-unity-embargo-and-performance-issues/ “Obviously, they can handle this situation however they want, but there has been close to zero diplomacy throughout this launch. This statement simply reads as “we are fixing the things you are yelling about.”“, but there is insincerity in that past. It reminds me of a Beta version that was launched, just to keep with dividend expectations. Unity as I personally expect it to be is nowhere near ready. The glitches seen should be caught by a decent QA team, so either it was skipped, or this was about setting shareholder expectations. It is short-sighted and dumbfounded as I see it.

The second term is one I really have a problem with “It’s now a significant, highly uncommon event to have a major game launch without issue“, how about doing your job right? How about proper game testing, how about not being the bitch of marketing (for the shareholders)? These issues are central in the entire debate on quality software. I wonder why a billion plus company did not figure that out, or is this the bad side of the image they accepted?

There are even criminal charges to consider at present “To say that this one aspect of the game mandated a 12-hour-post-launch review embargo time is nonsensical” is more dangerous than people realise. You see, for that time, people buy a product which the company knows to be faulty, that by itself constitutes fraud, which might be seen as ‘an act commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage‘, is that not the case here? The fact that it was shipped broken seems to be enough of an indication.

I will take it one step further: ‘A party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud‘, now let’s take a look at this. Consider that the gamer lost time, which is a given, now consider that many gamers can only afford one game until thanksgiving, now they bought Assassins Creed, whilst they might have bought Sunset Overdrive of the Evil within. So it might be considered that they defrauded the others whilst keeping knowingly the lid on faulty merchandise.

I foresaw this coming roughly three years ago, when we heard about a new Assassins Creed ‘every year’. Good gaming does not come on command and innovation takes time, which means that the gamer gets sold short right of the bat!

Forbes brings a good tone, but they remain soft on Ubisoft. Looking at YouTube and searching “Unity sucks” will get you a massive list of rants, which is only in the second day of release. Can we agree to some extent that Yves Guillemot needs to get a grip on his company unless he ends up being found liable on a near global scale (this game is apparently not played in North Korea)?

Gamespot seemed a little ‘softer’ on the makers as they are their primary sponsor, but likely they will claim that it had nothing to do with that, yet the fact that Gamespot gave the game 7 out of 10, should be indicative that the game has massive issues beyond the glitches and bugs as well. Yet Gamespot had good things to say as well “I had that roof approach licked, jumping into the building through an open window and blending into a crowd of bourgeois loyalists before sneaking up on my target and making the kill. With multiple options of attack available, the replay ability factor here is huge, giving you more of an incentive to go back and nail those bonus conditions for completing a mission“, this truly sounds like the old Assassins Creed many loved, yet then they state “These excellent sandbox-style assassinations make up the bulk of Unity’s missions” followed by a few negative notes. You see, the only true sandbox style I have seen is with Bethesda and both Elder scrolls and Fallout. The rest are often scripted to force you in a direction in the main story (for a larger part). Unity does take additional leaps when we consider the quote “I’m all for giving people the option to extend the experience onto mobiles and tablets, or on the web, but those things should offer standalone extra content; locking stuff out of a game you’ve just dropped $60 on is infuriating“, this I felt in the past as well with other games, so seeing it here is not a good thing. I personally think that this is about the data collection side of it all, as they get the information of the player, added with PC and Console information, we become targets in a very real sense. A view I do not treasure.

So as I had decided to let AC Unity slip by (a lack of funds will do that), I feel happy to miss out on the bugs and the glitches. There is one issue in hindsight of this, this is definitely strike two for Ubisoft, I reckon that Far Cry 4 will be their Waterloo in a very real sense. Gamers are more than just a little angry and their end might come harsher then they think. If we consider the quote by Play4Real (at http://www.p4rgaming.com/ubisoft-to-release-eight-assassins-creed-titles-in-2015/) stating “With the release of both Assassin’s Creed Unity for the PS4, Xbox One and PC plus Assassin’s Creed Rogue for the PS3 and Xbox 360 this year, Ubisoft knows that the demand for Assassin’s Creed will never die“, if we believe Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot, then they have 8 releases planned from now until 2016. I reckon he needs to revisit quality before even attempting one next one. When we see “but will wait for reviews as AC unity was a bug fest” in regards to Far Cry 4, which was supposed to be the big thing for Ubisoft, we see that gamers are about done with Ubisoft

Watchdogs fell short of expectations (rated 8 out of 10)
Bug fest (we mean Assassins Creed Unity) launched on all major platforms. (7 out of 10)
? (X out of Y)

Strike three might come next week, so we will hold out fairly for Far Cry 4, especially as number 3 was a decently good game.

This is the first true indication of the sliding levels of quality in gaming. As developers (likely more precise would be marketing and shareholders) are pushing deadlines, we see a lowering standard of gaming. The approach, ‘we’ll patch it on day one’ is more and more the standard, whilst this tends to lower the joyous gaming we all anticipated, it also sets a dangerous precedent, because as proper QA is more and more ignored, the overall quality of the game tends to falter too. I do not ignore, that with size comes glitches, yet when we see an overall lack of care, then it is something entirely different and stringing gaming fans along seems almost too criminal. It might be regarded as criminal as people bought a finished game, which is not what this game seems to be, not by a long shot!

1 Comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media

Tagged as Assassins Creed, Assassins Creed 2, Assassins Creed Unity, Electronic Arts, Forbes, IBM, Microsoft, PS4, Sunset Overdrive, the Evil within, Ubisoft, Wordperfect, www.p4rgaming.com, Xbox One, Yves Guillemot

Tag Archives: Microsoft

Recent Posts

Archives