Archive | Original Site

Holding Out Hope for Motion Control

Posted by Jared Newman on May 5, 2009 at 4:36 pm

wiimotionplusWe’re just over a month away from the release of Wii MotionPlus, an attachment to the Wii Remote that adds much-needed precision. Two EA Sports games, Tiger Woods 10 and Grand Slam Tennis, will be the first to show off the new technology, and hopefully they’ll be the antidote to Wii Sports’ heartless wrist flicking.

But an opinion piece by Crave’s Jeff Bakalar, titled “Is MotionPlus too little, too late for Nintendo?” got me thinking. The article brings up a familiar criticism of some Wii games’ tacked-on waggle controls when simple button presses would do and wonders, without a definitive conclusion, whether motion control’s ship has sailed.

For me, at least, accurate swordplay and sports simulation — both ideas that currently exist in half-baked form — still sound like a blast. To answer the core question, though, Nintendo may have missed its opportunity to dominate that experience.

It depends on whether Microsoft and Sony unveil their own motion control devices in the near future. Rumors of motion-tracking camera technology coming to the Xbox 360, which we reported on in February, have surfaced again, and Sony reportedly has its own motion controller in store. Now that everyone’s expected to cough up extra money for a cool gaming peripheral, the playing field is level.

As year after year of dominant Wii sales suggests, the average buyer of Nintendo’s console either didn’t know or didn’t care about the Wii Remote’s lack of accuracy when making the purchase. In more dedicated gaming circles, however, you still hear talk of “1:1” control — that elusive idea of seeing one’s gestures mimicked precisely on screen, no matter how complex. Nintendo may be working with a bigger install base, but I don’t think its customers will be more inclined to pick up a new peripheral than owners of the other two consoles.

Come E3, if motion control comes to the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, it’s anybody’s game. Best of all, the competition could inspire some great video games for everyone.

2 comments

Buying a CD? How About a Side of Carbon Offsets?

Posted by Jared Newman on May 5, 2009 at 3:02 pm

cdcaseIf you’re among the steadily shrinking group of consumers that purchases music CDs, you probably don’t think much about the materials used in packaging, but like any piece of plastic or paperboard, there’s a bit of environmental destruction involved in its production.

Setting out to tackle this problem with a study of sustainable CD packaging, the Recording Industry Association of America and the National Association of Recording Merchandisers offered up an interesting possibility: Buried deep in the 66-page report (PDF), released this week, is a suggestion to sell carbon offsets to individual consumers.

The study notes that Orbitz (and now Expedia and Travelocity) offer a similar option to their customers. The price of the offset is added to the bill, and the money goes to creators of sustainable energy and other eco-friendly causes.

In the music industry’s version, a customer could either buy a credit online or at a retail store when purchasing the CD. For incentive, the report talks of “exclusive access to merchandise or special offers.” Digital downloaders could get in on the act as well, as online music also carries “significant environmental impacts associated with running download servers and maintaining IT infrastructure, in addition to the amortized impacts of CD recording and production,” the study says.

As recently as today, Washington is considering a cap-and-trade program that would likely apply to CD packaging. Loading some of the burden onto the consumer would take pressure off the recording industry, but it runs the risk of guilt-tripping customers. Hopefully the incentives offered by the record labels would make carbon offsets feel more like a partnership than a way for big business to dodge taxes.

Of course, all of this is theoretical at the moment. I’ve called a spokesman at the RIAA to ask where this initiative stands, and I’ll post the response if it comes. Update: Okay, this came in pretty much immediately after I clicked “Publish.” Spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said the study is analysis and advisory. “It’s up to each company to determine what best works with their individual business plan,” she said.

No comments

Hide File Extensions, Invite Hackers?

Posted by Harry McCracken on May 5, 2009 at 12:56 pm

Mikko, at F-Secure’s Weblog:

…in Windows NT, 2000, XP and Vista, Explorer used to Hide extensions for known file types. And virus writers used this “feature” to make people mistake executables for stuff such as document files.

The trick was to rename VIRUS.EXE to VIRUS.TXT.EXE or VIRUS.JPG.EXE, and Windows would hide the .EXE part of the filename.

Additionally, virus writers would change the icon inside the executable to look like the icon of a text file or an image, and everybody would be fooled.

Surely this won’t work in Windows 7.

As a grizzled old Windows veteran, I remember the days when computer users spent a lot more time thinking about extensions (and we liked it, dagnab it!). It was kind of discombobulating when Microsoft began downplaying them. But Mikko brings up a pretty compelling reason why it’s not a great idea to hide ’em. Wonder if Microsoft has thought about this, and why it hasn’t erred on the side of safety?

13 comments

Windows 7 Release Candidate: The Technologizer FAQ

Posted by Harry McCracken on May 5, 2009 at 2:49 am

Windows 7 Release Candidate FAQWindows 7 is here–sort of. Yes, Microsoft still isn’t talking about when it’ll ship the final version–all evidence suggests it’ll be sometime this Fall–but the company is unleashing the Windows 7 Release Candidate today. It’s a free, all-but-final version of the operating system, and it’ll work until March 1st, 2010 before Microsoft forces you to uninstall it or overwrite it with a paid-for copy of the final edition. In short, if you’re itching to give Windows 7 a try, you can.

I’ve been using Windows 7 in various prerelease incarnations since last October, and for the more part, I’ve liked what I’ve seen. (So did most of the Technologizer community members who took our survey on the beta.) For the past few days I’ve been running the Release Candidate–mostly on an Asus EeePC 1000HE, and to a lesser extent on a Dell XPS M1330 laptop. (Full disclosure: The latter machine was loaned to me by Microsoft for Windows 7 testing.)

I’ll be writing about this beta a lot in the coming months–right up until the time that I get my hands on a version of W7 that’s even closer to being ready to roll. After the jump, some questions and answers about the Release Candidate and Windows 7 in general.
Continue Reading →

Pages: 1 2
22 comments

Twapple? Let’s Recap a Dozen Other Apple Acquisitions That Aren’t Going to Happen

Posted by Harry McCracken on May 5, 2009 at 1:30 am

Twitter AppleOwen Thomas of Valleywag has published a rumor which is both wildly entertaining and wildly improbable: Apple is supposedly in negotiations to buy Twitter for $700 million. What’s the alleged rationale? Well, Owen says that Apple is making dough as people snap up Twitter clients for the iPhone from the App Store. But A) it would take a heck of a lot of $2.99 copies of Tweetie to come up with $700 million; and B) as Owen points out, Apple will make money from Twitter clients whether or not it owns Twitter.

Owen goes on to theorize that Apple might covet Twitter  in order to a make a statement about embracing openness and the Web. That seems like a pretty damn remote possibility. Apple does indeed buy companies, but it does so to become more like itself, not less so. (Good example: Its 2008 acquisition of PA-Semi, which will let it design its own chips and therefore gain more control over its products. Better example: Its 1996 acquisition of NeXT, which got it both a powerful OS and a new CEO with an outstanding resume for running Apple.)

People love to talk about Apple buying other famous companies. Sometimes they say that deals are in the works (although I wonder if any of the rumored transactions even reached the talking-it-over stage). Other times, they just wistfully hope that a deal might happen, or wonder what would transpire if it did.

Let’s review a dozen examples, shall we? After the jump, that is.

Continue Reading →

39 comments

Windows 7 Release Candidate: Available to All

Posted by Harry McCracken on May 4, 2009 at 8:23 pm

Windows 7 LogoIt’s not all that often that the words “Windows” and “ahead of schedule” can be used in the same sentence, but here we go: As Cnet’s Ina Fried is reporting, Microsoft. which said it was going to make the Windows 7 Release Candidate available for download tomorrow, opened up the floodgates tonight, ahead of schedule. Here’s the download page. I’ll be posting a detailed guide soon, but here’s the short story: I’ve been using the Release Candidate for a few days and it’s gone–well, not perfectly, but really well. Even though Windows 7’s final version isn’t due for months, I hope and expect that the Release Candidate is the version of Windows I’ll turn to most often from here on out.

If you’re intrigued enough by the Release Candidate to consider trying it, I say go for it–as long as you can install it in its own partition, rather than overwriting a working copy of Windows Vista. (Unless you’re really anxious, though, waiting a day or two’s not a bad idea, given Microsoft’s history of struggling to keep up with the initial throngs of crazed downloaders.)

If you spend time with the RC, please let us know what you think. And stay tuned for more thoughts from me.

3 comments

Let’s Get the App Store Approval Process Straight

Posted by Ed Oswald on May 4, 2009 at 7:44 pm

macmondayApple is once again finding itself at the short end of the PR stick with Nine Inch Nails’ Trent Reznor publicly taking the company to task over what is clearly still a inconsistent process on Apple’s part: its approval process for App Store applications.

As Jared touched on earlier this evening, an update to Reznor’s application, nin:access, was denied by Apple. It appears as if the problem lies in some of NIN’s content, which is readily available through iTunes to anyone.

I can see Apple’s preference to keep profane content out of the App Store, although as I’ll point out later the company is far from consistent in its application of the rules.

Apple’s reasoning is content from The Downward Spiral. Several of the songs on that album, especially “Closer,” may be a bit over the top for sensitive users. For those who’ve never heard it, lyrics from the song include it’s notable chorus:

I wanna [expletive] you like an animal
I wanna feel you from the inside
I wanna [expletive] you like an animal
My whole existence is flawed
You get me closer to God

The video (which may be what caught Apple’s eye) is pretty graphic — such that the TV version included several missing scenes in order to allow it to be shown on MTV — but at the same time, its far less offensive than some other things that have made it past the iTunes censors.

But get this: you can’t get The Downward Spiral directly from the application. It’s only in the band’s podcast.

Consider the “Baby Shaker” application, which would have probably still been in the store if it hadn’t been for the amount of negative coverage Apple got for leaving it through. This app was probably the most egregious example of Cupertino’s approval issues, but there’s a lot less severe ones, either in bad taste or just questionable altogether.

How about an App that tracked menstrual cycles of your girlfriend? Or the multitude of fart apps, including one that actually showed a person’s backside? Or an app that cost $1,000, yet didn’t do a single thing?

So let’s go back to the clause in the iPhone Developer Agreement that Apple’s using to explain it’s reasoning for rejecting Reznor’s update:

Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users.

Hmm. Baby Shaker wasn’t offensive? Or the menstrual cycle tracking applications, which could easily be obtained by those possibly too young (in their parent’s judgement) to be having sex? I’m not sure about the $1,000 application, but when there’s no value to an application, why is it allowed to be sold?

This inconsistent application of the rules just makes Apple look bad. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s good the company is gatekeeping a little bit. It results in better and safer applications. But why are some of these applications making it through?

Apple won’t talk and explain itself. All we’ve seen from them is the pulldown of the app, and then an apology if we’re lucky. Every time they’re asked how they’re picking applications, they’ll either defer or not comment at all.

So, we’re sit here leaving to wonder why stuff like what I’ve listed gets through, and other applications which don’t even really seem to meet the criteria listed above get rejected.

I don’t think that NIN really should have had their application rejected. What really changed between the first and second versions of this thing, and didn’t the first reviewer did any research on the band’s work?

Guess not.

4 comments

Identity Theft Protections Put Off Until Tomorrow–Again

Posted by David Worthington on May 4, 2009 at 6:53 pm

Measures that would protect consumers from identity theft have been delayed, because many businesses are not compliant yet with federal regulations. Fortunately, there are solutions to help them protect your privacy.

In 2007, the United States Federal Trade Commission issued its final rules on identity theft “red flags” and address discrepancies. Fast forward to today, and the implementation of those rules has been delayed for a second time until August 1st.

The rules are intended to protect consumers from identity threat by governing how businesses that deal with credit handle financial information. Industries affected by the rules include healthcare providers (doctors, hospitals), utilities (gas, electric, telephone, cable TV, etc.), auto (car, motorcycle, RV dealerships), real estate (brokers, lenders), banks and credit unions and more, according to Compliance Coach, a company that sells risk assessment software.

It was an e-mail pitch from Compliance Coach about the delay that inspired me to write this article. The delay has occurred due in part to the fact that many businesses are not yet compliant with the rules or are unaware that they applies to them, the company says. It’s onto something.

A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with Peter Coffee, director of platform research at Salesforce.com. Peter said that it would be okay for me to disclose that a significant portion of IT professionals (not all of who were Salesforce customers), surveyed in third party research that it uses internally, understand that they are not compliant with existing laws and legal rulings that affect IT operations.

He noted in a follow-up e-mail that the research he discussed is not a statement of the legal opinions of the company’s corporate counsel, nor is it a formal statement of the assurances provided by the team that is headed by its chief trust officer.

Salesforce needs to think hard about compliance, because its customers are forced to tackle issues around data when they use its services. The cloud computing model that Salesforce pioneered–where data is hosted by a third party on remote servers–forces companies to build applications that abide by regulations that govern data, such as who can access it, and where it can exist.

Today’s delay is yet another example of how traditional IT has trouble keeping pace with cloud services. It is simply too difficult for many businesses to build the systems that they need to be compliant.

Cloud services can help organizations with limited IT resources meet today’s standards for business processes and data, because cloud providers must meet those considerations as part of their business model. The easier that is for businesses to be compliant, the safer your personal information becomes. Now let’s just hope that the FTC’s new protections go into effect with no further delays.

6 comments

Chrome for the Mac: Still Waiting!

Posted by Harry McCracken on May 4, 2009 at 6:03 pm

Chrome IconIt’s been seven months now since Google released its Chrome browser for Windows and said that versions for OS X and Linux were in the works. In the time since then, Chrome has become the browser I turn to first when I’m using Windows. And when I’m using a Mac? Well, I spend a fair amount of time brooding about the absence of Chrome, not to mention the absence of any reliable information on when it might show up.

Charles Arthur of the Guardian did more than brood–he downloaded a developer build of Chrome for the Mac, and found it to be a work in progress. And it sounds like a lot more progress has to be made before the browser is ready for mass consumption–many basic features aren’t in place yet.

On one hand, it’s reassuring to know that Chrome for the Mac isn’t in limbo, but I’m now recalibrating my expectations for when it might arrive in a form that anyone’s going to use as a primary browser. I’m thinking it’s going to take months, not weeks, and I’ll be relieved if it’s ready before Chrome for Windows celebrates its first birthday.

5 comments