Latest Posts


Blog Image

People are increasingly looking to the media in all its forms and pointing the blame for society's evils. One concern people have is that children copy crimes they have seen from a gory film, a questionable web campaign or more recently a video game.

I have always been skeptical of this blame culture, why is it always somebody else's fault? The vast majority of children know at an early age what is right and what is wrong.

One franchise that has caused much controversy is Take Two's Grand Theft Auto. If you have been following the stories surrounding the latest game in the series you will be familiar with Jack Thompson, a man extremely loquacious on this subject.  Thompson, a lawyer, is obsessed with Take Two and threatens court action against them every other week it seems. 

It is a shame he conducts himself in the manner in which he does, as amongst the rhetoric and hyperbole he loses his core question, which is worthy of contemplation: should games that feature questionable content be allowed?

I believe they are perfectly fine as long as they are marketed to adults and carry an appropriate age rating. If children, in particular, copy what they have seen in a game, it is of course unfortunate but games are a form of entertainment in which developers should have free creative license. It is up to responsible advertisers and parents to ensure children can't access these games.

Speaking at the Internet World Exhibition in London, Mozilla's Tristan Nitot expressed concerns over media plugins for your browser. Applications such as Flash from Adobe and Microsoft's Silverlight were called into question. Nitot explains: "You are producing content for your users and there is someone in the middle deciding whether users should be able to see your content".

I have never thought of Flash, in particular, as threatening the openness of the web as so many users have it installed but Nitot claimed that both Adobe and Microsoft have a history of poor support for 3rd party browsers. To support his claim Nitot cited the lack of Internet Explorer on Mac/Unix systems and Adobe's slowness in it's attempts to update its Linux version of Flash.

Nitot: "If you consider proprietary technologies, think hard; are you really trading convenience in the short term with independence in the long term?". Something we should all be thinking about really. However with the advancements in the JavaScript field, spearheaded by Google, and the Web 2.0 movement there is emerging a real alternative to using Flash for websites that require lots of user interaction.

It seems Microsoft have abandoned their attempt to purchase Yahoo... for the time being at least. I took an interest in this story as on the face of it, it seems a strange move from Microsoft. Both Microsoft and Yahoo have struggled to gain market share on Google for a variety of reasons but at a base level it is because they both have inferior search algorithms. Even working together their market share would be a distant second to Google.

It seems the directors at Yahoo were just playing hardball and had no intention of selling to Microsoft, no matter what the offer was. Their shareholders must be extremely annoyed as the price offered, for a fading brand, was extremely generous. Very few companies will be able to match it, and none probably will.

I am slightly disappointed that it didn't work out as a Microsoft-Yahoo success story could have provided a real alternative to Google. It is always good to have choice and it would have kept Google on their toes. It is not surprising that Google tried to sabotage the deal and tell everyone that would listen that it was bad for the industry - they were hardly going to rejoice from the rooftops.

With the dividing line between application and web service becoming more blurred by the day there will be many more Microsoft (king of the desktop) vs Google (king of the web) battles I'm sure.

Featured work


My archive