Like Andrew, Just With Less Anne http://drewgraham.net Mumblings and Musings posterous.com Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:25:00 -0700 On Computer Game Piracy http://drewgraham.net/on-computer-game-piracy http://drewgraham.net/on-computer-game-piracy

A random Twitter encounter with the head of a games studio just got me thinking about computer game piracy.

Specifically;

  • why do people pirate, and;
  • why do people, with the power to do so, want to stop piracy.

Off the top of my head, the reasons that people pirate in general are economic (not enough money), pricing (not value for money at the price point), ethical (free the poor data), generational (a sense of entitlement), availability (of a sample to make a purchase decision), access (to the data) and criminal (pure cost / benefit analysis of a criminal activity).

I think there are a few reasons for piracy that are given that we can ignore, can roll up into the above categories, or we can chalk up as coming from the mouths of idiots.  These are 'sticking it to the man', which is bollocks almost all of the time, and in the ethical category the rare times it's not. Rebellion against DRM, which is split between the ethical and access categories.  Ignorance, which is complete toss.

It would be fascinating to be able to do a study with a random enough sample to collect the data, but immediately there's many, many obvious bias issues.

Now, I think everybody with an interest in this is going to have their own views on the percentage split of economic, pricing, ethical, generational, availability, access and criminal (and 'other'), but the best I can do is try and find parallels in related areas.

iTunes

If we take music piracy I think that the success of iTunes has shown that one of the main reasons for piracy is access. They made it incredibly easy to view a sample of the song (availability), and then made it easier than pirating to download the song, aided by their end-to-end walled garden, admittedly.

If we turn that to computer game piracy, how can we make the access easier? Steam is helping in this regard, but doesn't have the installed base that Apple had, and is actually hurting in the other regards (purely digital distribution has no tangible product and makes the product seem of a lower value at the same price, it is a closed DRM system which the ethical pirates abhor, it does nothing to assail the generational view of piracy as normal).  

Access is not only about being able to get the game, but being able to get the game on your terms.  Whenever you want, on whatever platform you want, with no artificial barriers between you and the game.  It is also about making it easier than pirating to play the game.  Apple still seems to be the only company in the world that has realised this, and/or has the infrastructure to do anything about it.

This comedic flowchart from a Reddit post emphasises how wrong the movie studios have got it for today's consumers.

Media_httpiimgurcom9z_vpelh
 

Computer games are in no way as bad, but in my view the key to success in any market is simply giving consumers what they want.  Today's generation will pay for media, if you make it as easy for them as not paying for media, and I think that is the magic balance that people will come to realise - the main thing you have to do is make it easy.

Pirating a game is a case of website > download > play.  My gut is that the price of computer games makes it an unfair comparison with iTunes music, but I'd be fascinated to see someone release a game under this principal.  Simply as easy as website > download > play.  Obviously you've got to fit 'payment' in there, and iTunes has the added advantage of automated back-end billing.  [tangental thought] Maybe in-game card payment would be the answer? [/tangental thought]

No clients, no DRM, no account creating, no advertising, no old school distributor. If a game studio's aim is revenue maximisation (as opposed to the ethical desire to eradicate piracy), and in a digital distribution world the cost of incremental distribution is approaching zero, if a game retails at GBP30, and 90% of people pirate it, could revenue be maximised by making it GBP10 and removing all barriers between consumer and product?

Maybe one day someone will try it, and I'll be fascinated to see the outcome.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Tue, 05 Jul 2011 09:58:00 -0700 Bertrand Russell's Teapot http://drewgraham.net/bertrand-russells-teapot http://drewgraham.net/bertrand-russells-teapot
Thank you, my friend, for motivating me to actually read Bertrand Russell's Is There A God?

Here is the famous extract, but it is all succinctly worded and beautiful to read.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. 

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. 

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. 

It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history. Practically all the beliefs of savages are absurd. In early civilizations there may be as much as one percent for which there is something to be said. In our own day.... But at this point I must be careful. We all know that there are absurd beliefs in Soviet Russia. If we are Protestants, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Catholics. If we are Catholics, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Protestants. If we are Conservatives, we are amazed by the superstitions to be found in the Labour Party. If we are Socialists, we are aghast at the credulity of Conservatives. 

I do not know, dear reader, what your beliefs may be, but whatever they may be, you must concede that nine-tenths of the beliefs of nine-tenths of mankind are totally irrational. The beliefs in question are, of course, those which you do not hold. I cannot, therefore, think it presumptuous to doubt something which has long been held to be true, especially when this opinion has only prevailed in certain geographical regions, as is the case with all theological opinions."

From Bertrand Russell, "Is There a God?" (1952), in The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Volume 11: Last Philosophical Testament, 1943-68, ed. John G. Slater and Peter Köllner (London: Routledge, 1997)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Wed, 18 May 2011 00:08:00 -0700 Bitcoin http://drewgraham.net/bitcoin http://drewgraham.net/bitcoin
Image
As anyone that has engaged me in deep / philosophical conversation will know, I'm fascinated with the idea of open source government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_governance).

In a nutshell, the need for politicians and a central government disappeared once we were able to have many-to-many communications, which happened when Facebook happened. There's a lot more to it, but that's the gist. On a sidenote, check out https://joindiaspora.com/ which is basically an open-source version of Facebook. Such initiatives will be key in the development of open source governance.

One of the more far-fetched ideas of open source government is open source, distributed currency. Such an idea seems to be the opposite of what you need to have a currency - you need a distributor, a central repository to control the supply as the value of currency comes from it's natural scarcity when pegged to gold, silver etc, or it's artificial scarcity when it is economically illogical to forge and it's distribution is controlled. Without central distribution, you can't do either.

Some very clever guy called Satoshi Nakamoto has come up with an algorithm that is able to artificially limit the supply of something that is completely uncentralised; a peer to peer currency.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

The possibility are startling - ever since Nikon unpegged the US Dollar from the gold standard in 1971 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock), the US Dollar has been a currency backed by itself - effectively held up by nothing but confidence (see: sheep theory) and it's own supply (see: fractional reserve banking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking).

As a sidenote, ever since the Bretton Woods system came into force in 1944, all currencies were exchanged against the US Dollar, which was itself pegged against gold, thereby ensuring natural scarcity. Nixon's short-sighted, butt-saving fuckup of 1971 was akin to cutting the moorings of a ship with 100 other ships tied to it and saying "well, we're all in this together now guys."

So, the US Dollar is an unbacked currency that is centrally controlled.  Bitcoin is an unbacked currency that is not centrally controlled. Apart from some rich men in large buildings saying what a good idea it is, the two are pretty much the same.

This is another example of technology displacing the status quo with a better, fairer, more sustainable, self-regulating system. Which means that, as Jason Calcannis predicted (http://bit.ly/iuAp2g) it will be illegal before it reaches critical mass.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:45:16 -0700 Today is a good day http://drewgraham.net/today-is-a-good-day-yifxA http://drewgraham.net/today-is-a-good-day-yifxA Y'know there are elements of my job that I will miss. The fact that I'm able to sit in a cafe in a Chinatown townhouse mid-afternoon eating great food, drinking incredible coffee, slurping on a roseberry smothie fiddling with my iPad and managing-by-phone, and be as productive as if I was in the office (or more if you take into account the distance from the morons). And when I am 'at work' I'm generally surrounded by great people and I work on a FUCKING ADVENTURE PARK. Seriously, if it wasn't for the customers and politics I'd have the perfect job. Today, I shall not complain. Today I am happy. Today is a good day.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Wed, 30 Mar 2011 04:18:35 -0700 Cleaners... http://drewgraham.net/cleaners http://drewgraham.net/cleaners I've got a cleaner because I don't have enough time (and, I'll be honest, can't be bothered) to clean my flat. But then leave work early to let her in, tidy up before she arrives and the have nothing to do whilst she cleans. It's so fucked up. It's like I'm paying someone for the motivation to do it myself.

But I know that if I didn't, I wouldn't do it.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:29:05 -0700 Trying to explain The Black Swan http://drewgraham.net/trying-to-explain-the-black-swan http://drewgraham.net/trying-to-explain-the-black-swan I'm reading a book - as anyone who has had contact with me in the last month will know - called The Black Swan.

When I tell people how it is revolutionary and incredible and blah blah, they ask why. And I can't explain the premise of the book succinctly and the conversation ends with them thinking I'm mad or stupid. Or both.

So, in a way that can be edited and revised, here goes...

We used to believe that all swans were white. But then someone found a black swan in Australia, and suddenly not all swans are white. The important fact is that no matter how many white swans we saw, it didn't allow us to accurately say "all swans are white" as witnessing any number of white swans did not prove the non-existance of black swans. Yet we said it, and took it as an absolute, unequivocal truth. And we naturally do this with the entire world every day. And we're wrong.

A black swan 'event' is one that is unforeseen due to this (and four other) illogical tendencies of humans, that also has massive consequences and that we apply post-event explanations to.

You're now on page 135.

Now read Malcolm Gladwell's 2002 piece on the author's investment fund:
http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_04_29_a_blowingup.htm

The idea of a 'perfect storm' of unlikely events is commonly understood. It's the explanation for air crashes and financial crashes and other disasters. And as humans we accept the 'perfect storm' explanation. But we shouldn't, we should understand that nearly all events of note, good or bad, are caused by 'perfect storm' black swan events. Our very existence is a black swan event. Yet our daily routine is betting *against* black swan events, which are bound to happen eventually!

Look, I'm not mad. Or stupid. Just read the damn book, OK?
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbable/dp/1400063515

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:43:46 -0700 Human's puny brains http://drewgraham.net/humans-puny-brains http://drewgraham.net/humans-puny-brains I'm currently fascinated with how we (humans) struggle with scale.

Killing 10 people is appalling. Killing a million is a statistic.

People can't visualize the difference between 1 in ten thousand and 1 in a million. But the first even will happen 100 times before the second happens once. We can fathom this on a theoretical scale, but when applied to our lives we don't act on it; gambling, medical procedures, travel decisions.

And we can't conceive facts like the entire computing power of every device ever made in history - every computer, every space shuttle, every super computer, every PS3 - does not come close to a single human brain.

And that in the summer of 1982 American banks lost more than their entire profits up to that point. Everything. And more.

It's like our brains just haven't develop to think at this scale. Any why would they? Evolutionarily (is that even a word?) we're still concerned with saber tooth tigers and picking berries.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Tue, 15 Mar 2011 06:31:00 -0700 The Double Standard of Religion http://drewgraham.net/the-double-standard-of-religion http://drewgraham.net/the-double-standard-of-religion
It is scary to witness how ingrained the idea of religious sanctity is.

Every time I want to make a comment on religion - any religion - my mind does a double take and thinks "Noooo. You can't say that. You might offend someone." I have to remind myself of the double standard at play. And then I take a sometimes-secret delight in saying it.

On a basic level, I could say to someone "God works in mysterious ways" and, regardless of their beliefs, there is no expectation of offense. 

Or I could say "I am a conservative" and, although a heated debate may ensue, no offense would be expected to be taken.

However, if I were to say that "there is no god", it is considered insensitive.

Putting aside the differences in rationality for the three statements (which itself makes the sanctity even more ridiculous), each one of those statements should be as acceptable or unacceptable as the other.

So this is another small rally cry to other committed atheists; do not adhere to the double standard. Do not allow logic to be browbeaten by the hangover from generations of ignorance.

As usual, no-one sums it up better than Douglas Adams.

[taken from http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking 'Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?' but I wouldn't have thought 'Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics' when I was making the other points. I just think 'Fine, we have different opinions'. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say 'No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it'.

It's rather like, if you think back in terms of animal evolution, an animal that's grown an incredible carapace around it, such as a tortoise - that's a great survival strategy because nothing can get through it; or maybe like a poisonous fish that nothing will come close to, which therefore thrives by keeping away any challenges to what it is it is. In the case of an idea, if we think 'Here is an idea that is protected by holiness or sanctity', what does it mean? Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe, no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard (Dawkins) creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Mon, 07 Mar 2011 03:35:07 -0800 @sprooke thank god for twitter's translate function. http://drewgraham.net/sprooke-thank-god-for-twitters-translate-func http://drewgraham.net/sprooke-thank-god-for-twitters-translate-func

Image

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:05:47 -0800 Proper Gander http://drewgraham.net/proper-gander http://drewgraham.net/proper-gander I know I've blagged this subject before, but this is today's Straits Times front page:

Image

Imagine the Telegraph or Times having a similar lead story in the UK.

RECENT GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE WORKING WELL

or

CAMERON'S PLAN WORKING

It would just never happen. I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong, but the truth often lies between the two extremes. Singapore will hail failures as successes and the UK will hail successes as failures. How about calling a win a win, a fail a fail and getting on with our lives?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Mon, 07 Feb 2011 00:02:45 -0800 Democracy http://drewgraham.net/democracy http://drewgraham.net/democracy The issue is not capitalism versus communism or democracy versus dictatorship, but the concentration of power at all.

There are some things that are just true. Self evident, demonstrable and true. 'Mankind will abuse power' is one of those.  An example of a generalization that reinforces a point there; not all people will abuse power, but the average will.

You can dress up this fact in many different ways; the belligerent dictatorship, corrupt communism, or the diplomatic democracy.

Diplomacy; letting people have it your way.

The humorous quote that underpins the inherent human spirit that breaks any system with a distribution of power. Democracy is just the more modern, evolved, underhand method of abuse.

America's drive to spread democracy to the world has never sat easily with me. The idea of sending men with guns to enforce the rights of the people they are attacking was a juxtaposition I was aware of, but honestly didn't grasp until recently.

Democracy has come to mean a hierarchy of power.  Not the pillar of power that a dictatorship is, but a pyramid of power, with some people at the top making decisions for the people below to live by.  But whether a pyramid or a pillar, it is a concentration of power.

You can imagine how the British democratic pyramid of power - Houses of Parliament - came about; hundreds of years ago it was impossible to get a national consensus on an issue because of geography - an individual in Lothian could not easily send a message to an individual in London, let alone converse with them.  With every additional member of the conversation, the difficulty increased; add in individuals in Portsmouth, Kingston-on-Thames and York and it was actually impossible.  And so there was one individual chosen from each area to represent the views of the local people in a central forum; a member of Parliament was elected to talk on the behalf of their constituents in the House of Commons.  Many-to-many communication was impossible.  One-to-one communication was possible.  It was a good system at the time.

However, once a decision was made in the Houses of Parliament, communicating that to everyone was easier; we had an entire infrastructure set up for 'broadcast' media, for one-to-many communication.

Douglas Adams talks about the ages of sand in a debate in Cambridge University, 1998. It is here in full, and a recommended read (http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams)

In it he succinctly explains what the Internet is so revolutionary. It allows many-to-many communication.  Suddenly the descendants of these individuals in Lothian, London, Portsmouth, Kingston-on-Thames and York could all converse simultaneously. 

"Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day."
- Benito Mussolini to Edwin L James of the New York Times (1928)

So we have the beginnings of the next stage in our evolution; a revolution can bring us closer to a theory that works in practice.  Remove the concentration of power that is a hangover from days gone by and replace it with many-to-many communication.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Sun, 06 Feb 2011 19:53:00 -0800 Douglas Adams on Democracy http://drewgraham.net/douglas-adams-on-democracy http://drewgraham.net/douglas-adams-on-democracy

I secretly love that people think Douglas Adams wrote science fiction.

Stephen Fry, a great friend of Douglas Adams', once wrote in a forward (apologies for inaccuracies) that a Douglas Adams book was full of so many spectacular moments that you just had to show it to the stranger next to you. And that stranger might smile or laugh when they read it, but in the moments afterwards you knew they hadn't really got it. Not like you did.

So, being in a political mood today, and having a slight epiphany about what it is that:

  1. I hate about England, my home, and America.
  2. I find so comforting in the benevolent dictatorship of Singapore
  3. Makes me dislike 'our' quest to spread democracy to the world

I remembered a delightful passage in the fourth book (in the trilogy of five) of the Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy about democracy that I'll share with you.

And I not-so-secretly love that some of you have stopped reading before this sentence because it's from a science fiction book.

And to the rest of you; enjoy. But you won't really get it. Not like I do.

The thing was massive, nearly a mile across, some said, dull silver in colour, pitted, scorched and disfigured with the scars of unnumbered vicious space battles fought with savage forces by the light of suns unknown to man.

A hatchway opened, crashed down through the Harrods Food Halls, demolished Harvey Nicholls, and with a final grinding scream of tortured architecture, toppled the Sheraton Park Tower.

After a long, heart-stopping moment of internal crashes and grumbles of rending machinery, there marched from it, down the ramp, an immense silver robot, a hundred feet tall.

It held up a hand.

"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."

Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the non-stop frenetic news reports on the television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see ..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

"What?"

"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"

"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."

Ford shrugged again.

"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:58:00 -0700 Fixing a broken society... http://drewgraham.net/fixing-a-broken-society http://drewgraham.net/fixing-a-broken-society

I'm the first to admit that I'm embittered by society. I read stories about shit that goes down in London and feel thankful I'm not there. When I'm back in England I feel something between disgust and pity towards most of the people I see. I couldn't actually watch some "16 and pregnant" shit on TV the other night; I just don't want to deal with that. I'm happy to be surrounded in this cocoon in Singapore for the moment. It's not (for once) an elitist and egotistical thing.

We (and I include myself, you and the person sitting next to you here) have become reliant on an enforced social structure. From the left wing cries of financially supporting those who won't support themselves all the way to people having 'job descriptions'. I long to run a company where the employees define the jobs, where anyone can identify a need - from finance to front line - and do something about it, but I digress...

If you don't follow Tim O'Reilly on Twitter (http://twitter.com/timoreilly) then you should. Despite being one of those people you're unlikely to have heard of but have enabled and defined the world you take for granted, he seems (having never met the guy) to have an infectious mix of altruism and realism.

Here's the latest thing he's shown me: http://twitter.com/timoreilly/status/20320418465

I'm as half-offended by the structure as you, but the fact is that you, me, Tim or anyone couldn't survive without the structure that many of us despise. We dream of escaping society but we have become reliant on it, so we may as well admit that and use it for good.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:20:00 -0700 I just want to geek out on you for a sec... http://drewgraham.net/i-just-want-to-geek-out-on-you-for-a-sec http://drewgraham.net/i-just-want-to-geek-out-on-you-for-a-sec

The iPhone was such a ground breaking device that it went far beyond what anyone thought a 'phone' could do.

The problem Apple now face with techies is the same problem any techie faces with mortals; they've set a benchmark.
I get asked questions from the technically challenged people at work like 'can't you just integrate our sales and invoicing systems' as if it's plugging a couple of Lego bricks together. Why do they ask this? Because they've seen other systems that do it. It might have been in a multinational or a complete bespoke system, but they've witnessed it, so it's possible.

"Can't you just spend a couple of hours on it?"

Just like they have NO idea of the complexities of linking a web-based sales system with a beta API to a notoriously closed source and antiquated accounting package, I have little idea of the complexities involved in making an iPhone work. But, there's things I can do on my Windows 7 laptop / Exchange server / even my old Windows Mobile PDA I can't do on my iPhone. Can't Apple just spend a couple of hours on them?

Why can't I search my 4 6GB Gmail accounts instantly from the spotlight search?

Why can't I use the same tagging system in Thunderbird, Outlook and on my iPhone?

Why can't I create some real estate and make the browser bars disappear by shaking the phone?

The answer is because I have no idea what I'm talking about. The difference is, I know I don't, so I shut the fuck up.

That said, I do remember when my iPhone (3Gs) was stable, user friendly, and a joy to use. It was before iOS4. The backward steps Apple have taken with the new OS are because they started listing to people. A camel is a horse made by committee.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:29:29 -0700 You know you're in a 'routine' when... http://drewgraham.net/you-know-youre-in-a-routine-when http://drewgraham.net/you-know-youre-in-a-routine-when I can now walk into my local Starbucks and order "a multigrain bagel, toasted twice, with cream cheese to have in and a grande no-whip mocha to go" with just a smile.

They even know my name. I leave to a chorus of 'bye Drew'.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:25:33 -0700 The Front Page of The Sunday Times http://drewgraham.net/the-front-page-of-the-sunday-times http://drewgraham.net/the-front-page-of-the-sunday-times The thing with living in a dictatorship with complete media control is not that bad shut doesn't happen; it's that you never hear about it.

The worst thing that has happened in this country in the last 24 hours - or even 7 days - is below.

Front page of the Sunday Times. Can you imagine how BIG either the crane or bridge or both would have to be to make the front page of the Sunday Times in England?

Image

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/620064/IMG_0929.JPG http://posterous.com/users/5BhtAz5687YZ Drew Graham fareastenders Drew Graham