Well it seems I gave Cameron too much credit last time. I praised his ability to recognise successes from both parties. Methinks I spoke too soon.
This week he was brutal, responding to all of Harman's questions by attacking the former government. As I said in my last post, I hate this. Particularly when it's used as an evasive strategy to avoid questions on difficult subjects. The blame game is old politics, not 'new'.
There was some fierce debate on the unemployment figures (that was cleared up here). During this argument the Prime Minister was noticeably arrogant and bitter. Much more like the privileged public schoolboy act I abhor. I'm a keen believer in personality being a key factor in good leadership - Cameron hardly showed his best side.
It was sad to see Clegg nodding along. Much of what he symbolised was a different, more moderate, balanced approach to politics. During the election campaign, he mostly seemed to shy away from the political point-scoring. He was hardly squeaky-clean, but he did seem the best of the party leaders. It's strange to see him now supporting Cameron's shameless Labour-bashing. Admittedly I don't think I've ever seen a man look so uncomfortable doing it, but he is doing it.
As far as I'm concerned, Simon Hughes is the de facto leader of the Liberal Democrats and Clegg is just stuck as a pretty useless member of the cabinet. His role should be bringing Lib Dem policy to the forefront of the argument. Instead, he seems suffocated in a government he can never fully support. I can imagine him becoming increasingly frustrated with his position. Particularly as Cameron will spread his wings further and their differences will become far more apparent.
Friday 18 June 2010
Wednesday 9 June 2010
Prime Minister's Questions: Cameron's Second. My First.
This was my first time seeing Cameron on PMQs. I've never been a huge fan, because I find myself frustrated seeing the argument never go anywhere. However, this time I was glued to the screen. There was real debate here.
First off, Cameron deserves credit for his performance. He was confident and convincing. His PR skills are certainly far better than Brown's ever were. This will be very important throughout his term as leader. With harsh cuts on the way he will need to utilise this skill to keep the British public on his side.
Whilst I certainly don't instinctively agree with the policy decisions of the Tory government, they are (at least mostly) in power. It's reassuring to see a leader that listens and responds even to his opposition.
Cameron certainly argued his case well, and at times I found myself agreeing with him. I'm not sure about CCTV or Iraq/Afghanistan, but he did make a clear case about gun laws and redrawing constituency boundaries.
Many commentators claim that Harman failed to land any real blows against Cameron's electoral policy, but I feel she made an incredibly good point about electoral registration. I doubt this will change the coalition's policy, but it does stick in my mind.
Conversely I can see Cameron's point about Labour not sorting this out in their time in Government. I don't think that's a good enough argument to ignore it now, but it's still a good point.
I still can't side with his views on the failures of the previous government, but it's nice to know that it's unlikely we have another Thatcher on our hands. Whatever my beliefs are, much of the country are quite angered by the last 13 years of Labour government. The situation could be much worse.
I have to admit that I'm still on the side of the coalition. I want this to work out because I think it's in the country's long term interest for governments to be open and break the long-standing tradition of partisan, two-party politics. I can't say the same for all of Tory policy, but I recognise that Cameron is a far more open and progressive Tory leader than any before him. In many ways I prefer his personality to Gordon Brown's, who I found could be unnecessarily stubborn on important changes in policy.
First off, Cameron deserves credit for his performance. He was confident and convincing. His PR skills are certainly far better than Brown's ever were. This will be very important throughout his term as leader. With harsh cuts on the way he will need to utilise this skill to keep the British public on his side.
Whilst I certainly don't instinctively agree with the policy decisions of the Tory government, they are (at least mostly) in power. It's reassuring to see a leader that listens and responds even to his opposition.
Cameron certainly argued his case well, and at times I found myself agreeing with him. I'm not sure about CCTV or Iraq/Afghanistan, but he did make a clear case about gun laws and redrawing constituency boundaries.
Many commentators claim that Harman failed to land any real blows against Cameron's electoral policy, but I feel she made an incredibly good point about electoral registration. I doubt this will change the coalition's policy, but it does stick in my mind.
Conversely I can see Cameron's point about Labour not sorting this out in their time in Government. I don't think that's a good enough argument to ignore it now, but it's still a good point.
I still can't side with his views on the failures of the previous government, but it's nice to know that it's unlikely we have another Thatcher on our hands. Whatever my beliefs are, much of the country are quite angered by the last 13 years of Labour government. The situation could be much worse.
I have to admit that I'm still on the side of the coalition. I want this to work out because I think it's in the country's long term interest for governments to be open and break the long-standing tradition of partisan, two-party politics. I can't say the same for all of Tory policy, but I recognise that Cameron is a far more open and progressive Tory leader than any before him. In many ways I prefer his personality to Gordon Brown's, who I found could be unnecessarily stubborn on important changes in policy.
V Pliot
I'm a sucker for sci-fi. When I heard about V I couldn't help but be at least a little interested. I don't know much about the original 1983 series, but I thought I might as well watch an episode of the reboot.
To get straight to the point, the pilot was really good. However, I'll admit now that it did have a rather big 'wow factor' that I'm not sure they'll be able to maintain for the rest of the series. The special effects were some of the best I've ever seen for a TV show. There's little chance the budget will allow for that kind of spectacle every week.
The characters introduced were interesting and mostly 'real' (ok, so they're sometimes cheesy, but they mostly get away with it). There's some (albeit limited) chemistry between the actors that's unspectacular, but watchable. Also, two words - Alan Tudyk.
As with much of good sci-fi, the genius truly lies in the subtext. There was a fair amount of exposition to help demonstrate what the show will attempt to explore. There was clear mention of indoctrination (and parallels drawn with religious extremism), parental responsibility (and teenage rebellion - itself paralleled with political rebellion) and political corruption. These themes will almost certainly play a big role in the show overall. So far they've been compelling and I hope the writers can keep it up.
Whilst I can't say I truly believe that the series will continue to be as good as this episode, I think the creators deserve credit for making an excellent pilot. The plot and characters are laid out clearly and the direction was used very effectively to help tell the story. The image on screen is often contrasted with the dialogue to highlight differences in characters' viewpoints and, conversely, to draw parallels between other characters. The dialogue itself is quite clever and often carries dual meanings. I get the feeling this has all been very well thought out.
In addition, the episode was well-paced and there were interesting, believable plot points that moved the story along. I didn't notice any examples of lazy writing or deus ex machina. This is often a dead giveaway of a poor sci-fi show. If the same attention to detail is given to the whole season then this show could really work. I hope it does.
To get straight to the point, the pilot was really good. However, I'll admit now that it did have a rather big 'wow factor' that I'm not sure they'll be able to maintain for the rest of the series. The special effects were some of the best I've ever seen for a TV show. There's little chance the budget will allow for that kind of spectacle every week.
The characters introduced were interesting and mostly 'real' (ok, so they're sometimes cheesy, but they mostly get away with it). There's some (albeit limited) chemistry between the actors that's unspectacular, but watchable. Also, two words - Alan Tudyk.
As with much of good sci-fi, the genius truly lies in the subtext. There was a fair amount of exposition to help demonstrate what the show will attempt to explore. There was clear mention of indoctrination (and parallels drawn with religious extremism), parental responsibility (and teenage rebellion - itself paralleled with political rebellion) and political corruption. These themes will almost certainly play a big role in the show overall. So far they've been compelling and I hope the writers can keep it up.
Whilst I can't say I truly believe that the series will continue to be as good as this episode, I think the creators deserve credit for making an excellent pilot. The plot and characters are laid out clearly and the direction was used very effectively to help tell the story. The image on screen is often contrasted with the dialogue to highlight differences in characters' viewpoints and, conversely, to draw parallels between other characters. The dialogue itself is quite clever and often carries dual meanings. I get the feeling this has all been very well thought out.
In addition, the episode was well-paced and there were interesting, believable plot points that moved the story along. I didn't notice any examples of lazy writing or deus ex machina. This is often a dead giveaway of a poor sci-fi show. If the same attention to detail is given to the whole season then this show could really work. I hope it does.
Tuesday 8 June 2010
The Boondocks
The Boondocks follows two black kids from inner-city Chicago who've been sent to live with their rich uncle in the suburbs. The story itself is not hugely important, but it provides the set up for what this show does best - social satire and biting political commentary.
The whole show acts as window through which the writer expresses his viewpoint as a true disillusioned 'African American'. So rarely does it seem that any black TV writer gets the opportunity to express their views this way without having to conform to the rules of mainstream American society. Thankfully, Aaron McGruder (creator) uses this opportunity to its fullest. The show is controversial, in-your-face and often downright offensive. Never before have I heard the 'N-bomb' dropped so many times in a show.
This may seem like a terrible thing, but it's only offensive to the people that, quite frankly, deserve to be offended. The 'N-bomb' is only overused because it is overused in real life. Much like other great satire, it uses these shock tactics to help highlight the ridiculous elements that exist in African American culture and (more broadly) American politics.
The Boondocks is thoughtful, obscene and incredibly funny. Everything it should be.
The whole show acts as window through which the writer expresses his viewpoint as a true disillusioned 'African American'. So rarely does it seem that any black TV writer gets the opportunity to express their views this way without having to conform to the rules of mainstream American society. Thankfully, Aaron McGruder (creator) uses this opportunity to its fullest. The show is controversial, in-your-face and often downright offensive. Never before have I heard the 'N-bomb' dropped so many times in a show.
This may seem like a terrible thing, but it's only offensive to the people that, quite frankly, deserve to be offended. The 'N-bomb' is only overused because it is overused in real life. Much like other great satire, it uses these shock tactics to help highlight the ridiculous elements that exist in African American culture and (more broadly) American politics.
The Boondocks is thoughtful, obscene and incredibly funny. Everything it should be.
Open Source: The Way of the Future?
For those who aren't 1337 h4xx0r5, the GNU Public license is the most widely used freeware license. It's one of many licenses that allows the creation of Open Source projects. I'm sure many reading this have never even heard of open source, so I'll elaborate. 'Open source' means that the source code of any software is available on a project hosting site to be edited by a host of community programmers. Unlike most commercial software development, this software is created for free by a group of enthusiasts that hop in and out of development whenever they choose. No individual/group owns the intellectual property.
The GNU public license is the legal framework for this kind of development. It allows programmers to submit code to the project without fear that code will be stolen or copied by other individuals and used for profit. There are actually many ways of profiting, but there are significant restrictions on anything that might in any way compromise the overall project.
It seems that open source is becoming more and more common in our generation. Part of this is because we now have the technology that allows us to do this incredibly easily. High-speed broadband, large amounts of web-space for hosting, advances in general program development, etc. all allow 'sharing' to happen much more easily than ever before. In my view, open source will become even more popular in the future as more people realise its advantages.
My first experience with open source projects came from homebrew on the Wii. Homebrew programming has been around for a long while. Video game consoles are essentially custom-built gaming PCs and many gamers felt that they should be able to run their own programs on these systems just like they do on their computers. They've paid for the hardware and are using entirely original code to bend the system to their will.
Their are currently large communities of amateur Wii programmers developing their own code to run on the Wii. Applications range from simple programs to back up their save games to fully fledged media players capable of turning your Wii into a media centre PC.
ALL of these projects are open source and all completely free. If a project is popular then more users will be attracted to it, more programmers will submit code and more users will report bugs. This means that updates can regularly be added to the program, fixing bugs present in previous versions and also adding new features. I've seen several projects, starting from humble roots, eventually develop into incredibly deep and robust applications. In fact, now I use the homebrew applications more than the original Nintendo apps! They work better, have greater functionality and greater use. Many Wii users don't even realise these exist and purchase expensive hardware that don't do the job nearly as well.
There has been some debate as to the legality of these homebrew projects. Mainly by the big hardware manufacturers that dislike their systems being used for purposes other than they were initially intended. Nintendo has tried many times to take legal action against the creators of such software. In my view, homebrew is only as illegal as adding spoilers and rims to a car or upgrading a part in a computer. No copyrighted intellectual property is used and all the code is entirely original. If a user chooses to change their system, for whatever reason, the manufacturer should have no control over it.
This legal issue thankfully doesn't affect PC users. Open source projects have thrived for many years on this platform. Many users are unlikely to have even noticed that they are using these types of programs because they haven't researched their development. Even web novices use programs like Firefox or VLC player. I heard quite recently that for the first time ever, Firefox has become more frequently used than Internet Explorer.
For anyone that has ever used these browsers I'm sure they'll notice that Firefox is faster, more intuitive and just all around better, even though Microsoft employs a huge team of developers to work on their browser (who, by the way, are employed using the money you spent buying their Windows operating system). They still can't best a project that is available entirely for free.
With talk of Windows, it's worth mentioning that there are entirely free operating systems available too. For those that don't realise, every time a computer is purchased with Windows or Mac OS X pre-installed, a surcharge is added to cover the cost of operating system development. I recently built my own computer and since I already own a Windows 7 license key, I saved myself the £100+ surcharge that would be added if a bought a computer with an OS. Many don't realise they're paying this fee and assume that computers actually just cost that much. They don't. Parts are surprisingly cheap, it's software that is unnecessarily expensive.
Now I like Windows 7. In fact I love Windows 7. It's fast, simple and functional. It helps that I got the license on a student offer that only cost me £30. That's a bargain in my eyes. However, this very same license normally costs 4 times as much and there are actually better alternatives available for free.
Ubuntu is part of the Linux family of operating systems. It's available at no cost and for a long while it has been better than Windows and OS X. I used Windows XP for almost a decade because Vista was just an abomination. All these years, I used (and paid for) an OS that was inferior just because I had no idea that there was any alternative.
Ubuntu recently released version 10.04 and after a quick play around with it I know it's actually better than the Windows product I currently own. The only reasons it's not my main OS is that I've already paid for Windows 7. From now on, I'll almost certainly choose a Linux build over paying for an upgrade. I'd also probably advise anyone else to do the same. It takes a little getting used to, but it's designed with novice users in mind, so expect simplicity and streamlined functionality. All drivers are pre-installed, connecting to the internet is automated, programs and features can be un/installed with a click and, hell, it even integrates your social network sites directly into the OS.
Most people never learn this, of course, because Microsoft has deals with manufacturers to ensure that Windows is distributed on 90% of PCs before they even reach the consumer. A recent European Commission ruling judged that Microsoft was creating a monopoly of internet browsers by integrating Internet Explorer into Windows 7. By the same logic, I believe that Microsoft's control over manufacturers stifles competition in the OS market. Could we perhaps see an eventual ruling that prevents this happening? I can't imagine it will happen any time soon.
It does raise an important point though. Technology is developing at such a fast rate that it's difficult for legislation to catch up. In my experience, those currently in power greatly misunderstand technology and so conduct that is otherwise illegal in other forms of business are rarely noticed.
I'm currently in the process of buying a new phone. I have to admit that I'm rather excited about getting an Android phone. Android is an open source OS for mobile devices (i.e. mobile phones). With the increasing success of smart phones, it is becoming more clear that consumers are looking for devices with functionality similar to a PC. After all, like video games consoles, mobile phones are just specialised computers.
Applications (or 'apps') have become incredibly popular as flexible functionality becomes more important. Before, every single phone of the same model had the same features. We can now add apps that work within the phone's OS to add functionality that previously didn't exist. Apple has had incredible success with its iPhone but, in my view, it is still limited by the OS of the device itself. If a bug exists, the original OS developer is still needed to fix that bug. Android doesn't have this problem. In fact, because the source code is available online, anyone with sufficient skill can (in theory) legally create their own version of the OS and tweak it to their liking.
However, things aren't so hunky dory. Currently, your mobile service providers have the final say on what Android version can be installed on any smartphone. This is not the case for sim-free, factory unlocked versions, but it is true for any other phone. If your phone came with a sim card and has an Operator logo on the box, then you're out of luck. You'll have to wait for that version of the OS to be approved by your network. This can take months, even years. It's a pretty ridiculous system that allows the Service Providers to push their users into upgrading their phones more regularly by allowing bugs to persist. It's the equivalent of your computer manufacturer restricting your upgrade to the latest version of Windows, only to then turn around to you and say that they can sell you a new computer that does have the new software that you were entitled to get for free in the first place. There are no laws against this, so the system is easily exploited by those with know-how.
I've talked a lot about open source yielding better results - better software for the consumer - and that's all very well, but how do these people make any money? Community led projects are not owned by any individual and cannot be sold. What would happen if all software became open-source? Many of these 'enthusiasts' are actually programmers working for big software companies, who use their spare time to help support a project they really like.
At the moment, this is the big problem I see with Open Source. It's still reliant on large corporations to support the skilled individuals who then contribute to these projects. I can complain all I want about Microsoft and mobile phone service providers exploiting the system for profit, but if the law did change, wouldn't these companies make less money? Wouldn't there be less jobs for programmers working for Microsoft, Apple or Orange? Consequently, wouldn't there be less skilled people to actually work on these projects?
It's a valid argument. The restrictions on this technology allows more profit to be made, which is then reinvested into the software industry. If all software was open source, there would need to be a way for people to make money off it, without compromising or restricting the project. There needs to be a reason for people to be sufficiently interested in programming to make it their career, without worrying about financial difficulties.
Now I've quite clearly delved into the realm of economics. There's no way for this model to work without skilled programmers in large numbers. By its very nature, open source maximises the number and variety of individuals working on any project and therefore means that end products tend to be better than proprietary software. This success is dependant on the number and skill of the programmers involved. Affecting these two factors positively is important for the prosperity of this model.
Therefore job attractiveness is important. Money and job satisfaction are probably the two most important factors in making this job appealing. I can imagine that much of the reason open source is already so successful is that it's far more satisfying working in a community, producing a product that people love (even more than the ones that they have to pay for). However It's less straight-forward to make money from freeware.
As with any popular, in-demand product there is always a way. XBMC is a good example. XBMC (XBox Media Center) is an open source media player originally developed as homebrew for the XBox but then brought over to multiple platforms including Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. The program is similar to Windows Media Center (WMC) and allows users to browse through their media collections using a TV. Once again the free version is almost unequivocally better than the Windows version. Boxee is a program that was developed from the XBMC source code and took the program in a slightly different direction. The developers have used the basic elements of XBMC, but added proprietary (closed source) elements that are all their own original intellectual property.
Boxee itself is free, but the developers managed to negotiate a deal with hardware developer, D-Link (most well-known for their network adapters and routers). D-Link have designed a hardware kit (named the Boxee Box) that bears the Boxee logo and acts as a specialised platform for this software. Boxee are paid by D-Link for the closed source elements that they own, D-Link get money from selling their hardware and the consumer gets a great, cost-effective product. Boxee's revenue is still heavily dependent on XBMC so they have vested interest in contributing heavily to the original project. They also have to release Boxee for free on all other platforms because the license prevents them making profit from the XBMC elements. Everybody wins.
Whilst things may not work out so well in every case, it does show that hardware development is a great source of revenue for open source developers. HTC have been able to do exactly the same thing by slightly modifying the Android OS and selling hardware with their version shipped on it. No other hardware manufacturer can use that exact software because HTC own the bits they've modified, but the whole Android project benefits from HTC's success and development. So long as HTC is able to continually create great software and hardware, they will always be able to make a profit. Is this not a true example of a meritocracy? Isn't this why we value the idea of a free market in the first place?
Of course, hardware is not the only route for revenue. There are many other projects that get money from advertising, donations and many other methods. If you're still not convinced that it's possible then here's an entire article on how profit can be made.
On top of that, due to the nature of a community led project, non-programmer users of the program are invited to participate in discussion and development. I myself have submitted bug reports and enhancement ideas for programs I like and want to support. Project hosting sites like Google Code make this simple and straight forward. There's a very democratic approach to the whole process. Each individual has a say in what the final product will be and can give their expertise (however limited) to the project. Great with ideas? Suggest a new feature. Great with computers? Write a few lines of code. Great with design? Help develop a new user interface.
The whole system rewards input, even in small amounts. Large companies producing commercial software would have to out-source for all these little things and the whole process ends up being incredibly cost-inefficient. The older model encourages developers to do the bare minimum to cut costs and just get a product out so it can sell. Quality control isn't such an integral part of the model as it is with Open Source. Here only the best ideas are retained and anything disliked will be changed in future releases.
I did want to end on a bit of a big bang, so I saved the best 'til last. Whilst it may not be software, it's still the biggest community-led project in the world. It's also the most widely used and widely revered. Yup, that's right, Wikipedia. If you haven't used this site then, chances are, you're completely brain-dead. This project has revolutionised the way we access information on the internet. It is the single greatest collection of information available in human history. If that doesn't convince you that Open Source is an integral part of our future, then I don't know what will.
For those who are interested, here are a few examples of excellent open-source projects that served as the inspiration for much of this article:
Firefox,
Google Chrome (Chromium project),
VLC Media Player,
Media Player Classic,
Linux,
Android OS (mobile),
Chrome OS,
Quake (Quakes I, II and III arena),
Doom,
Wolfenstein 3D,
GIMP [lol] (save yourself £500 and download this freeware Photoshop-equivalent),
XBMC (A vastly improved alternative to Windows Media Center)
Wiibrew (wiki for all legal Wii homebrew applications)
The GNU public license is the legal framework for this kind of development. It allows programmers to submit code to the project without fear that code will be stolen or copied by other individuals and used for profit. There are actually many ways of profiting, but there are significant restrictions on anything that might in any way compromise the overall project.
It seems that open source is becoming more and more common in our generation. Part of this is because we now have the technology that allows us to do this incredibly easily. High-speed broadband, large amounts of web-space for hosting, advances in general program development, etc. all allow 'sharing' to happen much more easily than ever before. In my view, open source will become even more popular in the future as more people realise its advantages.
My first experience with open source projects came from homebrew on the Wii. Homebrew programming has been around for a long while. Video game consoles are essentially custom-built gaming PCs and many gamers felt that they should be able to run their own programs on these systems just like they do on their computers. They've paid for the hardware and are using entirely original code to bend the system to their will.
Their are currently large communities of amateur Wii programmers developing their own code to run on the Wii. Applications range from simple programs to back up their save games to fully fledged media players capable of turning your Wii into a media centre PC.
ALL of these projects are open source and all completely free. If a project is popular then more users will be attracted to it, more programmers will submit code and more users will report bugs. This means that updates can regularly be added to the program, fixing bugs present in previous versions and also adding new features. I've seen several projects, starting from humble roots, eventually develop into incredibly deep and robust applications. In fact, now I use the homebrew applications more than the original Nintendo apps! They work better, have greater functionality and greater use. Many Wii users don't even realise these exist and purchase expensive hardware that don't do the job nearly as well.
There has been some debate as to the legality of these homebrew projects. Mainly by the big hardware manufacturers that dislike their systems being used for purposes other than they were initially intended. Nintendo has tried many times to take legal action against the creators of such software. In my view, homebrew is only as illegal as adding spoilers and rims to a car or upgrading a part in a computer. No copyrighted intellectual property is used and all the code is entirely original. If a user chooses to change their system, for whatever reason, the manufacturer should have no control over it.
This legal issue thankfully doesn't affect PC users. Open source projects have thrived for many years on this platform. Many users are unlikely to have even noticed that they are using these types of programs because they haven't researched their development. Even web novices use programs like Firefox or VLC player. I heard quite recently that for the first time ever, Firefox has become more frequently used than Internet Explorer.
For anyone that has ever used these browsers I'm sure they'll notice that Firefox is faster, more intuitive and just all around better, even though Microsoft employs a huge team of developers to work on their browser (who, by the way, are employed using the money you spent buying their Windows operating system). They still can't best a project that is available entirely for free.
With talk of Windows, it's worth mentioning that there are entirely free operating systems available too. For those that don't realise, every time a computer is purchased with Windows or Mac OS X pre-installed, a surcharge is added to cover the cost of operating system development. I recently built my own computer and since I already own a Windows 7 license key, I saved myself the £100+ surcharge that would be added if a bought a computer with an OS. Many don't realise they're paying this fee and assume that computers actually just cost that much. They don't. Parts are surprisingly cheap, it's software that is unnecessarily expensive.
Now I like Windows 7. In fact I love Windows 7. It's fast, simple and functional. It helps that I got the license on a student offer that only cost me £30. That's a bargain in my eyes. However, this very same license normally costs 4 times as much and there are actually better alternatives available for free.
Ubuntu is part of the Linux family of operating systems. It's available at no cost and for a long while it has been better than Windows and OS X. I used Windows XP for almost a decade because Vista was just an abomination. All these years, I used (and paid for) an OS that was inferior just because I had no idea that there was any alternative.
Ubuntu recently released version 10.04 and after a quick play around with it I know it's actually better than the Windows product I currently own. The only reasons it's not my main OS is that I've already paid for Windows 7. From now on, I'll almost certainly choose a Linux build over paying for an upgrade. I'd also probably advise anyone else to do the same. It takes a little getting used to, but it's designed with novice users in mind, so expect simplicity and streamlined functionality. All drivers are pre-installed, connecting to the internet is automated, programs and features can be un/installed with a click and, hell, it even integrates your social network sites directly into the OS.
Most people never learn this, of course, because Microsoft has deals with manufacturers to ensure that Windows is distributed on 90% of PCs before they even reach the consumer. A recent European Commission ruling judged that Microsoft was creating a monopoly of internet browsers by integrating Internet Explorer into Windows 7. By the same logic, I believe that Microsoft's control over manufacturers stifles competition in the OS market. Could we perhaps see an eventual ruling that prevents this happening? I can't imagine it will happen any time soon.
It does raise an important point though. Technology is developing at such a fast rate that it's difficult for legislation to catch up. In my experience, those currently in power greatly misunderstand technology and so conduct that is otherwise illegal in other forms of business are rarely noticed.
I'm currently in the process of buying a new phone. I have to admit that I'm rather excited about getting an Android phone. Android is an open source OS for mobile devices (i.e. mobile phones). With the increasing success of smart phones, it is becoming more clear that consumers are looking for devices with functionality similar to a PC. After all, like video games consoles, mobile phones are just specialised computers.
Applications (or 'apps') have become incredibly popular as flexible functionality becomes more important. Before, every single phone of the same model had the same features. We can now add apps that work within the phone's OS to add functionality that previously didn't exist. Apple has had incredible success with its iPhone but, in my view, it is still limited by the OS of the device itself. If a bug exists, the original OS developer is still needed to fix that bug. Android doesn't have this problem. In fact, because the source code is available online, anyone with sufficient skill can (in theory) legally create their own version of the OS and tweak it to their liking.
However, things aren't so hunky dory. Currently, your mobile service providers have the final say on what Android version can be installed on any smartphone. This is not the case for sim-free, factory unlocked versions, but it is true for any other phone. If your phone came with a sim card and has an Operator logo on the box, then you're out of luck. You'll have to wait for that version of the OS to be approved by your network. This can take months, even years. It's a pretty ridiculous system that allows the Service Providers to push their users into upgrading their phones more regularly by allowing bugs to persist. It's the equivalent of your computer manufacturer restricting your upgrade to the latest version of Windows, only to then turn around to you and say that they can sell you a new computer that does have the new software that you were entitled to get for free in the first place. There are no laws against this, so the system is easily exploited by those with know-how.
I've talked a lot about open source yielding better results - better software for the consumer - and that's all very well, but how do these people make any money? Community led projects are not owned by any individual and cannot be sold. What would happen if all software became open-source? Many of these 'enthusiasts' are actually programmers working for big software companies, who use their spare time to help support a project they really like.
At the moment, this is the big problem I see with Open Source. It's still reliant on large corporations to support the skilled individuals who then contribute to these projects. I can complain all I want about Microsoft and mobile phone service providers exploiting the system for profit, but if the law did change, wouldn't these companies make less money? Wouldn't there be less jobs for programmers working for Microsoft, Apple or Orange? Consequently, wouldn't there be less skilled people to actually work on these projects?
It's a valid argument. The restrictions on this technology allows more profit to be made, which is then reinvested into the software industry. If all software was open source, there would need to be a way for people to make money off it, without compromising or restricting the project. There needs to be a reason for people to be sufficiently interested in programming to make it their career, without worrying about financial difficulties.
Now I've quite clearly delved into the realm of economics. There's no way for this model to work without skilled programmers in large numbers. By its very nature, open source maximises the number and variety of individuals working on any project and therefore means that end products tend to be better than proprietary software. This success is dependant on the number and skill of the programmers involved. Affecting these two factors positively is important for the prosperity of this model.
Therefore job attractiveness is important. Money and job satisfaction are probably the two most important factors in making this job appealing. I can imagine that much of the reason open source is already so successful is that it's far more satisfying working in a community, producing a product that people love (even more than the ones that they have to pay for). However It's less straight-forward to make money from freeware.
As with any popular, in-demand product there is always a way. XBMC is a good example. XBMC (XBox Media Center) is an open source media player originally developed as homebrew for the XBox but then brought over to multiple platforms including Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. The program is similar to Windows Media Center (WMC) and allows users to browse through their media collections using a TV. Once again the free version is almost unequivocally better than the Windows version. Boxee is a program that was developed from the XBMC source code and took the program in a slightly different direction. The developers have used the basic elements of XBMC, but added proprietary (closed source) elements that are all their own original intellectual property.
Boxee itself is free, but the developers managed to negotiate a deal with hardware developer, D-Link (most well-known for their network adapters and routers). D-Link have designed a hardware kit (named the Boxee Box) that bears the Boxee logo and acts as a specialised platform for this software. Boxee are paid by D-Link for the closed source elements that they own, D-Link get money from selling their hardware and the consumer gets a great, cost-effective product. Boxee's revenue is still heavily dependent on XBMC so they have vested interest in contributing heavily to the original project. They also have to release Boxee for free on all other platforms because the license prevents them making profit from the XBMC elements. Everybody wins.
Whilst things may not work out so well in every case, it does show that hardware development is a great source of revenue for open source developers. HTC have been able to do exactly the same thing by slightly modifying the Android OS and selling hardware with their version shipped on it. No other hardware manufacturer can use that exact software because HTC own the bits they've modified, but the whole Android project benefits from HTC's success and development. So long as HTC is able to continually create great software and hardware, they will always be able to make a profit. Is this not a true example of a meritocracy? Isn't this why we value the idea of a free market in the first place?
Of course, hardware is not the only route for revenue. There are many other projects that get money from advertising, donations and many other methods. If you're still not convinced that it's possible then here's an entire article on how profit can be made.
On top of that, due to the nature of a community led project, non-programmer users of the program are invited to participate in discussion and development. I myself have submitted bug reports and enhancement ideas for programs I like and want to support. Project hosting sites like Google Code make this simple and straight forward. There's a very democratic approach to the whole process. Each individual has a say in what the final product will be and can give their expertise (however limited) to the project. Great with ideas? Suggest a new feature. Great with computers? Write a few lines of code. Great with design? Help develop a new user interface.
The whole system rewards input, even in small amounts. Large companies producing commercial software would have to out-source for all these little things and the whole process ends up being incredibly cost-inefficient. The older model encourages developers to do the bare minimum to cut costs and just get a product out so it can sell. Quality control isn't such an integral part of the model as it is with Open Source. Here only the best ideas are retained and anything disliked will be changed in future releases.
I did want to end on a bit of a big bang, so I saved the best 'til last. Whilst it may not be software, it's still the biggest community-led project in the world. It's also the most widely used and widely revered. Yup, that's right, Wikipedia. If you haven't used this site then, chances are, you're completely brain-dead. This project has revolutionised the way we access information on the internet. It is the single greatest collection of information available in human history. If that doesn't convince you that Open Source is an integral part of our future, then I don't know what will.
For those who are interested, here are a few examples of excellent open-source projects that served as the inspiration for much of this article:
Firefox,
Google Chrome (Chromium project),
VLC Media Player,
Media Player Classic,
Linux,
Android OS (mobile),
Chrome OS,
Quake (Quakes I, II and III arena),
Doom,
Wolfenstein 3D,
GIMP [lol] (save yourself £500 and download this freeware Photoshop-equivalent),
XBMC (A vastly improved alternative to Windows Media Center)
Wiibrew (wiki for all legal Wii homebrew applications)
Tuesday 1 June 2010
The Matrix: A Retrospective
It's no exaggeration to say that this film helps define our generation. When it came out it was revolutionary. I rewatched it and I still think it's revolutionary.
The philosophical element is possibly the reason The Matrix stands out so clearly from others around it. This film changed the way people think about the world. We take it for granted how easily this film is used to help people think about existential concepts. The phrase, "y'know, like in The Matrix?" is commonplace. Ordinary.
However, it's also easy to read this and think that's the only reason this film is so great. After rewatching it, I've found greater appreciation for its story-telling and, more importantly, its style.
The Matrix is incredibly referential. Some influences are far more obvious than others. Most notably Cyber-punk and Kung-fu films. It's interesting that the Wachowski brothers have chosen such vastly different styles to form the overall aesthetic.
These elements seem to be fairly self-contained within individual locations. This is especially clear in the training scene where Morpheus fights Neo. The dark, grey, harsh asthetic of the 'real world' is juxtaposed against the fluid, airy wire-fights of the 'training world'. Ancient Chinese Zen clashes with futuristic Western dystopia - Crouching Tiger versus Alien.
'The Matrix', the training programs and the 'real world' all feel completely different. Each is clearly distinguished by its cinematography, character movement and music. The green filters used during scenes in 'The Matrix' world are iconic, becoming almost synonymous with this film.
There are other notable cinematic references. Much of the gun-oriented sequences are reminiscient of old-fashioned Spaghetti Westerns, most obviously in the final show-down with Agent Smith. There's a lot of mirrored imagery here that is very Sergio Leone.
There are a LOT of religious references too, mainly Christian, although some Buddhism and general Eastern philosophy too. To name a few: Zion, Judas Iscariot (Cypher), The Nebuchadnezzar, (Holy) Trinity, Neo rising from the dead and 'Spoon Boy'. Much of this seems incidental, but it's clear that the brothers have an interest in (and significant knowledge of) Christianity.
The most overt literary influence is Alice in Wonderland, which plays such a large part in the story. Neo follows the white rabbit, Morpheus asks him if he want to find out "how far the rabbit-hole goes" and Neo takes a pill in order to alter reality.
There's a lot of influence from classical literature too. The use of oracles and prophecies borrows from everything from Macbeth to Oedipus. There's also philosophy mixed in too. These elements are used as devices to explore the nature of destiny and free will. Neo is clearly a strong voice for Libertarianism, whilst Morpheus and The Oracle offer a more Compatibilist viewpoint.
However, simply listing everything that The Matrix has stolen from does not give the film-making duo the credit they deserve. Much of the content is entirely original. Who can forget the feeling when they first saw bullet-time, or the lobby-scene or even the crazy one-armed fight with Agent Smith at the film's climax? This was ground-breaking stuff!
All of these styles are layered over each other to form a hybrid that works exceptionally well. The Wachowski Brothers took influence from many other works and fused it with their own innovation and creativity to create one of the greatest and most influential films of our generation.
The philosophical element is possibly the reason The Matrix stands out so clearly from others around it. This film changed the way people think about the world. We take it for granted how easily this film is used to help people think about existential concepts. The phrase, "y'know, like in The Matrix?" is commonplace. Ordinary.
However, it's also easy to read this and think that's the only reason this film is so great. After rewatching it, I've found greater appreciation for its story-telling and, more importantly, its style.
The Matrix is incredibly referential. Some influences are far more obvious than others. Most notably Cyber-punk and Kung-fu films. It's interesting that the Wachowski brothers have chosen such vastly different styles to form the overall aesthetic.
These elements seem to be fairly self-contained within individual locations. This is especially clear in the training scene where Morpheus fights Neo. The dark, grey, harsh asthetic of the 'real world' is juxtaposed against the fluid, airy wire-fights of the 'training world'. Ancient Chinese Zen clashes with futuristic Western dystopia - Crouching Tiger versus Alien.
'The Matrix', the training programs and the 'real world' all feel completely different. Each is clearly distinguished by its cinematography, character movement and music. The green filters used during scenes in 'The Matrix' world are iconic, becoming almost synonymous with this film.
There are other notable cinematic references. Much of the gun-oriented sequences are reminiscient of old-fashioned Spaghetti Westerns, most obviously in the final show-down with Agent Smith. There's a lot of mirrored imagery here that is very Sergio Leone.
There are a LOT of religious references too, mainly Christian, although some Buddhism and general Eastern philosophy too. To name a few: Zion, Judas Iscariot (Cypher), The Nebuchadnezzar, (Holy) Trinity, Neo rising from the dead and 'Spoon Boy'. Much of this seems incidental, but it's clear that the brothers have an interest in (and significant knowledge of) Christianity.
The most overt literary influence is Alice in Wonderland, which plays such a large part in the story. Neo follows the white rabbit, Morpheus asks him if he want to find out "how far the rabbit-hole goes" and Neo takes a pill in order to alter reality.
There's a lot of influence from classical literature too. The use of oracles and prophecies borrows from everything from Macbeth to Oedipus. There's also philosophy mixed in too. These elements are used as devices to explore the nature of destiny and free will. Neo is clearly a strong voice for Libertarianism, whilst Morpheus and The Oracle offer a more Compatibilist viewpoint.
However, simply listing everything that The Matrix has stolen from does not give the film-making duo the credit they deserve. Much of the content is entirely original. Who can forget the feeling when they first saw bullet-time, or the lobby-scene or even the crazy one-armed fight with Agent Smith at the film's climax? This was ground-breaking stuff!
All of these styles are layered over each other to form a hybrid that works exceptionally well. The Wachowski Brothers took influence from many other works and fused it with their own innovation and creativity to create one of the greatest and most influential films of our generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)