The Linux Foundation will host the Tizen project, and Intel and Samsung will lead the development. Also joining the effort is the LiMo Foundation, a dedicated consortium with shared leadership and decision making consisting of ACCESS, Panasonic Mobile, NEC Casio, NTT DoCoMo, Samsung, SK Telecom, Telefonica, and Vodafone. Tizen will emphasize HTML5 apps and support multiple device categories including tablets, handsets, smart TVs and in-vehicle entertainment.
As Jay Montano at My Nokia Blog puts it, “All the work making MeeGo Qt will be flushed away.”
The little-known punchline: Nokia had an absolutely terrific HTML5 framework being developed in house that I worked with for a short time; even in its unfinished form it easily rivaled well-known web app frameworks like SproutCore and Cappuccino. Did the announced Nokia move to Windows Phone kill it? No: toward the end of last year, Nokia dumped all internal development platforms for smartphones other than Qt, anointing it the One True Way for all of Nokia going forward. For three months.
(Interestingly, the name of Nokia’s defunct web app system, “AppX,” is now used by Microsoft for Windows 8 as a new type of application package. As far as I know the two aren’t connected.)
Amazon’s $199 iPad-killer is a 7-inch Fire tablet with no cameras, mic or 3G access
Why, it’s like something sold for $200 will have to have a different and smaller feature set than something sold for $500!
I’m sure this headline is leading a pack of “Amazon’s iPad-killer” heads out there—the 9to5 piece quotes a Bloomberg piece that starts, “Chief Executive Office Jeff Bezos is betting he can leverage Amazon’s dominance in e-commerce to pose a real challenge to Apple’s iPad after tablets from rivals have fallen short.”
No, he isn’t, you blithering morons. The Fire is not directly competing with the iPad. It’s directly competing with the Nook Color.
I’m sorry that “Amazon’s Nook Color-killer” isn’t the same caliber of link bait, but c’mon. Amazon has a blades-not-razors business model, and the real competitive threats to them are tablets and e-readers they can’t sell books on. Kindle hardware doesn’t need to do more than break even (and probably, in fact, doesn’t do much more than break even). Amazon would likely rather you buy a Kindle than an iPad, but they’d rather you buy an iPad than a Nook.
Hewitt’s post is worth reading if you’re a web nerd, and it’s interesting from a more abstract sociopolitical aspect about anarchy vs. binding leadership and the drawbacks and benefits of each.
My prediction is that, unless the leadership vacuum is filled, the Web is going to retreat back to its origins as a network of hyperlinked documents. The Web will be just another app that you use when you want to find some information, like Wikipedia, but it will no longer be your primary window. The Web will no longer be the place for social networks, games, forums, photo sharing, music players, video players, word processors, calendaring, or anything interactive. Newspapers and blogs will be replaced by Facebook and Twitter and you will access them only through native apps. HTTP will live on as the data backbone used by native applications, but it will no longer serve those applications through HTML. Freedom of information may be restricted to whatever our information overlords see fit to feature on their App Market Stores.
The problem with Hewitt’s argument—setting aside the draconian overlord schtick, which is getting tiresome—is that it’s assuming this shift is bad.
Let’s be frank. (Frank is a good guy.) We don’t know what the “dominant platform” is going to be twenty years from now, but we can make some educated guesses about the shape of the computing landscape: most computing devices are not going to be what we think of as “personal computers.” They may not be phones or tablets, either. But they are going to be inexpensive, ubiquitous and highly interconnected.
That last part doesn’t require any “dominant platform”; it just requires open data standards. It doesn’t matter what kind of device or what kind of operating system you use when you access email, read RSS feeds, visit web pages, and—with one big caveat—play video, audio or read e-books. The big caveat is, of course, platform-specific DRM. In the long term DRM is going to have to go away, and it will; if the music industry has largely given up on it (and they have), other industries will come around (or be dragged).
It’s quite possible we’ll access data more through applications than a general-purpose web browser in the future, but for the love of Godwin can we stop pretending that this is a door to a fascist dystopia? Damned if I can’t use an iPhone—and, I trust, an Android phone—to browse to any web page, read any Twitter feed, subscribe to any RSS feed, get email from anywhere, and get DRM-free music, video and e-books from anywhere. As long as that continues to hold true—and there are no signs that suggest any of the ostensibly controlling parties want to change this—then it doesn’t matter whether we’re accessing our data through a web browser or not.
But “The Web” isn’t a platform any more than Gopher was a platform. It’s become much more popular, to be sure, and I doubt it’s going away in the foreseeable future. But it will go away, almost certainly within my lifetime—or at the very least mutate into something that barely resembles the Web of 2011. This is just the way of computers. Hewitt thinks this is reason to mourn—I think it’s reason to be excited.
Ben Brooks thinks appointing her is a terrible move, writing “She wouldn’t be my pick to run any company”:
From everything I have read about Whitman, she is not the one to run HP—even on an interim basis. Again from what I know she is the ‘adult supervision’ type, not the innovative turn this ship around type.
No, she isn’t. But is that what the HP board wants? The New York Times:
While they said the board still endorsed the strategy change — including a possible spinoff of its personal computer business, the shuttering of a line of mobile devices and the $11.7 billion acquisition of the software maker Autonomy — its members felt that Mr. Apotheker had bungled communicating the plans to H.P. employees and outsiders.
While the board liked his plan to move H.P. to a business with more software and services, H.P.’s poor earnings and unhappiness with Mr. Apotheker by some members of the company’s powerful executive committee ultimately spelled his downfall, the person close to the board said.
Mr. Apotheker made a series of announcements last month that had the board’s blessing, but surprised and upset investors.
So what does Meg Whitman change for HP? Absolutely nothing.
We out here in technology land have watched in horrified fascination as Apotheker made what seemed to us to be mind-boggling huge mistakes: canning the Touchpad after only six weeks, contemplating selling the personal computing division, and refashioning themselves the way IBM did fifteen years ago. So when news of booting Apotheker started making the rounds, we’ve been making the tacit assumption that the board didn’t like his new direction. But that’s not true at all. They think this is all a PR problem and that their CEO just failed to communicate the genius of the Most Visionary Corporate Board in Silicon Valley.
Whitman is being brought in because she’s good at communicating with customers and Apotheker wasn’t. Period. HP doesn’t want to turn the ship around. They’re aiming for that iceberg on purpose.
I have discovered some new methods to make your applications more visible on the Android Market and have updated my “Make Money on Android” eBook with this tips – my income has been much higher than on my last month averages! So both my Android ads revenue and eBook sales have been pretty well in last month.
So what’s his breakdown of revenue?
$155.37 from the Amazon Affiliate program. AFAIK, nothing to do with Android.
$158.00 (117.77 €) from Google AdSense. Again, AFAIK, nothing to do with Android.
$265.27 from iStockPhoto. Um.
$1,985.89 from ads in Android applications. There we go!
$1,179.41 from selling “Make Money on Android” eBook.
I’m not knocking the money he’s getting from ads in Android applications here, nor the “passive income streams,” in the solid value sense. But it’s interesting that a big chunk—nearly a third—of his income comes from the book. Let’s see what his applications actually are:
Virtual Drums (A drum kit, but a toy, not a real music app, with a resounding 2.3 rating on the Marketplace)
Don’t Push It, which is—yes—a big red button marked “Don’t Push It.” That’s it. (And there’s an ad bar under it.) Incredibly, this has a slightly higher rating than Virtual Drums.
This is shovelware of the worst sort — a mix of “program this on a weekend” stuff and a couple RSS readers. And, yes, while he doesn’t link it from his web site anymore, the Android Market shows that he actually made a goddamn fart app.
My annoyance with this is based on the fact that this bubbled up on TechMeme, which means there are people listening to this guy. And I have to wonder whether it’s significant that his book is all about making money through ad-based shovelware specifically on Android; my instinct says yes. Android lies at a unique point in the mobile marketplace. It’s as powerful as any other smartphone platform, it’s got massive adoption, and unlike other major platforms its main source of applications is essentially uncurated. Google’s application ecosystem is uniquely designed to encourage this kind of abuse.
On the flip side, there is a positive spin: the fact that it’s possible for hacks like KreCi to make a fairly good living this way is certainly a measure of Android’s success.
Mike Elgan, with a headline assertive enough to avoid Betteridge:
All this copying of Google+ and integration with third-party services smacks of desperation and lack of vision. All these scattershot changes erode Facebook’s identity, and make the service even more complex and confusing.
Facebook appears to be very worried about its own decline. And it should be. While Facebook is still gaining members, a careful look at its growth reveals that the leading countries — the ones that were first to jump on the Facebook bandwagon — are actually abandoning Facebook.
The two comments on this article right now are “this is spot on” and “this is completely wrong-headed,” both of which which Elgan’s writing often invokes, although it’s a neat trick to get them simultaneously. While I don’t know if it’s “spot on,” Facebook is—like Yahoo—curiously vision-free. They’ve produced some neat technologies (and to their credit, often open-sourced them), but their business model seems to basically be, “Let’s keep users on Facebook as much as possible.” The Yahoo comparison makes sense the way Elgan constructs it, but I think it’s more apt to say that Facebook’s goal has been to be the new AOL. “Walled garden” is a phrase that gets batted about a lot with regard to the Big Fruit, but Apple rarely builds services that you’re forced to use in lieu of interoperable standards. Facebook has little interest in building anything but.
Over the last few weeks we’ve heard two dueling narratives about Michael Arrington—about how he’s an asshole who threatens companies with no coverage if they don’t play along with him, promises companies that suck up to him preferential treatment, and conversely how he lets his writers what they want with no editorial interference and how, if anything, he’s especially tough on companies he’s got a financial relationship with because he feels like he has to prove that he’s not biased toward them.
And the crazy thing is, there’s good evidence for both those views of him.
Of course, “no editorial interference” is not necessarily the hallmark of a good editor. MG Siegler’s defense of Arrington a week or so ago reveals:
First and foremost, the concept of an “editor” at TechCrunch is essentially just a title and nothing more. With a few exceptions (mainly for newer writers), no one person even reads posts by any other author before they are posted. Traditional journalists may be appalled to learn this. But this is a big key of why TechCrunch kicks their ass in tech coverage. We’re fast and furious in ways they can’t be, because they’re adhering to the old rules. Are there benefits to those old rules? Sure. But in my opinion, the benefits of the way we work far outweighs the benefits of the way they work.
If you want a more objective take, simply look at the number of tech stories we’ve broken over the years versus the number any old school publication has. Our system works.
Great, except for two points.
One; TechCrunch doesn’t “break stories” the way an “old school publication” does, i.e., through reporting work. They break stories because lots of Internet-focused stories call and email them to get stories written. The current list of headlines as I write this, which is hardly different from what you’d have seen last month:
Live Streaming Video Platform IntercastNetwork Brings Real-Time Feedback to Online Broadcasters
Klout Adds Topic Pages to Give Users More Context Around a Subject and its Influencers
ThingLink Adds Rich Media Tags to Online Images
Fanzilla Upgrades Facebook Pages with Apps for Blogs, Forums, Contests and More
AmazonLocal Brings Daily Deals to a Kindle Near You
Populis Acquires Germany’s Largest Blog Network, mokono, for $11.4M
Only the last one is actually a business story. The others are essentially rewritten press releases. With relatively few exceptions that’s what TechCrunch—and a lot of “new media” sites—do for the bulk of their content: they rewrite other people’s work. Political sites across the spectrum, from the paleoconservative to the neo-Marxist, would have very little to write about if the “old” media wasn’t providing stories. (More than once I’ve seen some politically charged site link a story and huff about the mainstream media’s lack of coverage, even as the very story they’re linking to carries a New York Times byline.) Tech sites “break” stories because PR firms—and small companies—know they’re far more likely to get coverage from them.
Two: if Arrington was editor in title only and his actual role at TechCrunch was basically just to jump around in public attracting attention, then going forward, maybe they could just go with a guy in a bulldog suit. (Arianna: I know some great costume makers if you’re interested. Maybe they could send you a few press releases.)
What MG is worried about is the possibility that AOL will actually try to put a real editor in place—someone who actually does want to see stories before they’re posted and asks questions like, “Is this basically a regurgitated press release?” and “Point X here is an easily checked fact; did you bother to check it?” Judging by the (ahem) quality of what’s now AOL’s flagship site, the Huffington Post, I’d say that the only thing Siegler really has to worry about is whether they’ll try to find someone who would look at that list of six stories above and say, “I’m not sure about this last one.”
When using the browser’s Metro interface, IE 10 will be completely plug-in free, says Microsoft’s Dean Hachamovitch. […] This decision will most prominently affect Adobe’s Flash.
I can’t wait for Adobe’s John Dowdell to find a way to blame Apple for this!
(AnandTech goes on to note “the non-Metro desktop version of IE 10 will still support plug-ins just as the browser currently does. This is consistent with Windows 8’s ‘no-decision’ design philosophy.” Excuse me: no-compromise design philosophy.)
The best bookstores have a certain feel, a certain comfort to them. They’re stately but not forbidding. The employees are a mix of the young and the eccentric, college students and lifers. The front of the store features their recommendations, a little offbeat, a little intriguing. If you’re looking for something specific, they know where to find it; if you don’t know what you’re looking for, they can be your Virgil and Beatrice, guiding you through the world.
It is a place with a soul.
For much of its 40-year history, that was Borders. Though it was a chain, with hundreds of locations around the world, during its best years it maintained the feel of a great, expansive local bookstore, the 800-foot space multiplied by 10 or 20 (and much better organized). The choices were manifold, the employees passionate, the adventure always beginning.
I don’t think of CNN as a place for good (and fairly long-form) writing, but this is a damn good piece. For all of the ’90s, Borders was “my” bookstore, the only place in Tampa guaranteed to not only have a solid selection of nerdy tech books but an expansive and often surprisingly eclectic science fiction and fantasy section. There are a myriad of good guesses as to what did Borders in, but this article reminded me of why I liked them long into the Amazon era.
Apple bloggers were apparently so flustered by the platform that they resorted to bombarding Twitter with jokes about cooling fans and Silverlight instead of stopping for a moment to realize that Microsoft is showing us the future of computing. The PC was the future, and it let people perform functions they never thought possible. Then the tablet was the future, and it let people interact with content in ways they never thought possible. Now, the future means all things to all people.
(Am I the only one who’s led by the name “Boy Genius Report” to picture Zach Epstein as an eleven-year-old kid in a cap, standing on a street corner holding up a paper and yelling “Extra! Extra! My pants are on fire! Read all about it!”? Probably.)
Well, first, as other people have pointed out, a tablet that requires cooling fans is a crappy tablet. Apple bloggers—and all other kinds of bloggers—are perfectly within their rights to make fun of that.
More on point, though, what those who are not giddy with incredible excitement over Windows 8 are scratching their heads over is that Microsoft appears to be doing just what us crazy Apple bloggers were afraid they were going to do: overlay a really cool UI they’ve brought from Windows Phone on top of Windows and said, “Voila! Tablet!” Applications that are designed for Windows 8 will get to take advantage of the new Metro UI, but it’ll still run applications from the last decade or so of Windows operating systems, and all those application will present the same challenge on a Windows 8 tablet that they did on Windows XP tablets (i.e., the user experience will suck rancid soybeans).
And for applications that are designed for Windows 8, how do they differ on a tablet you’re interacting with directly by touch and on a PC with a mouse, a laptop with one of those weird little eraser-head pointing devices—or for that matter, even a trackpad? Apple has suggested an answer to that with OS X Lion, but despite the occasional “iOS is merging with OS X” hysteria, they’re still different operating systems for different form factors running different applications. As Harry McCracken points out,
To be really interesting, computers will need to be designed to run Windows 8 in a way that’s new–there was no such thing as a “Windows Vista PC” or a “Windows 7 PC.” We don’t know how thin and light they could end up being; whether battery life will be any good; whether PC makers will figure out elegant ways to incorporate touch into devices which largely resemble traditional desktops and laptops.
Do you really expect the 2012 line of Dell computers to get this right? Most Windows laptop makers haven’t gotten their current trackpads not to suck compared to Apple’s. (Which is not to say that Apple’s are complaint-free utopias, either.)
I think Epstein is right with respect to capturing Microsoft’s hopes for the future of computing, and Paul Thurrott is no doubt peeing himself in anticipation. Microsoft wants Windows 8 to be “all things to all people.” But Epstein writes about this as if it’s astounding disruptive technology. By design, it’s virtually the opposite of disruption. “Whatever you want us to be, we’ll be it! We can do it! Oh God please love us!” That’s not a business plan—it’s a pathology.
If a new paradigm of computing really takes hold over the next few years (and both Google and Apple are clearly betting on this), Microsoft understands that they’re the incumbent who’s going to be disrupted. The Apple approach to that problem would be to say, “Then you’ve got to be the one who disrupts yourself”; the Google approach would be to say, “Then you’ve got to be fast enough to follow the market.” The Microsoft of a quarter-century ago could probably have done either of those—arguably, they did, in the transition from DOS to Windows. But the Microsoft of today, for all the breathless wondrous coverage they’re able to wring out of the BGRs of the tech world is terrified of disruption. When I look at Windows 8, I don’t see a bold new vision for the future of computing. I see Steve Ballmer standing athwart history yelling “stop.”
GeekWire took the following quote from HTC president Martin Fichter and translated it in their article title as “HTC boss on why iPhones aren’t cool anymore,” which is not exactly what he said:
Apple is innovating. Samsung is innovating. We are innovating. Everybody is innovating. And everybody is doing different things for the end consumers. I brought my daughter back to college — she’s down in Portland at Reed — and I talked to a few of the kids on her floor. And none of them has an iPhone because they told me: ‘My dad has an iPhone.’ There’s an interesting thing that’s going on in the market. The iPhone becomes a little less cool than it was. They were carrying HTCs. They were carrying Samsungs. They were even carrying some Chinese manufacture’s devices. If you look at a college campus, Mac Book Airs are cool. iPhones are not that cool anymore. We here are using iPhones, but our kids don’t find them that cool anymore.
Fichter was suggesting that all mobile phones are “for status” when you’re college age. The iPhone is “less cool” in part because other phones have caught up.
Obviously, you can choose technology based on its perceived status; that’s one of three basic factors, along with the technology itself and the price. But what kinds of technology is this really true for? Apple critics have claimed for years that Mac buyers only buy Macs because we want pretty logos, but c’mon. That’s not what builds brand loyalty in electronics—it’s the perception, however subjective it may be, of being worth the price. I’m fairly confident nobody ever took someone home from a bar to hear them say, “I wasn’t really going to sleep with you, but now that I see you own a Macintosh IIfx, take me now!”
If you’re buying something for brand status, it has to be something that you show off, which means something you carry or wear. Dresses, handbags, watches—and yes, now, mobile phones. However, most people still choose a phone based on what it does, not merely how it looks. This changes only when money is no object—or when the brand you want isn’t appreciably more expensive than its competitors.
If money is no object, you don’t buy an iPhone or a Droid, you buy a Vertu. The fact that iPhones can be bought by middle-class college students is actually at direct odds with the notion notion that Apple is a luxury brand—you’re not going to be paying appreciably more for an iPhone than you are for any other comparable smartphone. So if you care about software technology, you’re going to choose primarily between Android and iOS. If you’re a big phone typist you may demand a hardware keyboard. Looks and brand appeal can come into play, but not because Apple is a boutique luxury product maker; they come into play because Apple is just as mainstream as their competition.
A minor note to people who are writing BBEdit 10 color schemes
BBEdit does not have a wide range of things you need to provide colors for—only seven kinds of recognized syntax in source code, six in markup, and a handful of defaults. One of the seven source code types is “ctags symbols.”
It is remarkable how many color schemes I’ve come across that change all the colors except those. Those, they leave at their defaults. If you are making a BBEdit 10 color scheme, especially if it’s using a dark background, DO NOT DO THIS.
For anyone using ctags, you’re making your color scheme peculiarly ugly by not setting this to something that matches the rest of your colors. (And if you’re a developer and not using ctags, shame on you. I think I’m going to eventually have to write a post entitled something like “Why BBEdit’s ctag support is incredibly awesome and for God’s sake start using it.”)
While in general the Huffington Post gives me hives, this Mad Libs-esque poke at the rumor mill is pretty on target.
This story template has worked to generate posts for every single iPhone 5 release rumor that has broken so far. My readers will probably recognize this template, as I have used it on about 137 iPhone 5 release rumor stories in the past two weeks.
There seems to be much celebrating on Wall Street and in the tech punditry about Carol Bartz’s rather unceremonious exit from Yahoo. Are we forgetting that just two and a half years ago her appointment was cause for relief, if not wild celebration? Of course we are. Why? Because tech pundits have the attention spans of ferrets on Frappuccinos.
Bartz was a seasoned tech CEO who ran Autodesk for 14 years, and from all appearances ran it quite well. If she had a weakness specifically when it came to Yahoo, it was perhaps—as Kara Swisher noted—that she didn’t have a “deep web background.”
Or maybe not. Maybe Yahoo’s problem is that nobody has any idea what the hell they do anymore.
Way back when, their original idea was to be a “human-powered” directory of the web, but that’s long since fallen by the wayside. Yahoo Mail still has millions of users, but mostly legacy ones, and how many people do you really know—whether they’re the technorati or the technophobic—who use Yahoo Travel or Yahoo Maps or Yahoo Search (Bing with a different skin)? Yahoo Finance is still big, but it doesn’t offer anything you can’t get anywhere else save for a higher number of screaming lunatics on the message boards. People still use Flickr but one gets the sense it’s out of inertia rather than excitement; nerds and serious photographers have been looking for other services for a while. And nerds are fickle. Everybody who was on Delicious—which was 99.4% nerd—is now on Pinboard.
What Yahoo calls themselves is “a premier digital media company that delivers personalized digital content and experiences, across devices and around the globe, to vast audiences. We provide engaging and innovative canvases for advertisers to connect with their target audiences…” Man, that gets the heart racing!
Yahoo makes their money through selling ads on their “properties,” and they’re making a lot: $1.2 billion-with-a-B last quarter. That’s down 23% from the same quarter a year ago, though, and they’ve been on a slow decline for years—long before Bartz’s tenure. And before Jerry Yang’s tenure. And one could argue before Terry Semel’s tenure—he came in just after the dotcom bubble, to keep them as a “destination” site.
Ironically, they’re still largely on the path that Semel set them on: the former Warner Brothers CEO was all about content; he didn’t care much about services. Yahoo’s revenue stream depends on them having content interesting enough to get you to come to them. If you compare that to Google—which is all about creating services that leverage other people’s content (and stick ads into it)—the difference is striking.
Carol Bartz’s “failure” is that she couldn’t make Yahoo interesting again. But the problem may be that nobody can make Yahoo interesting again. There is no one service they provide that can’t be obtained elsewhere. Short of a complete reinvention, the best they can do is try to provide those services in a more innovative fashion—and convince people who’ve long since moved on to other places to give them a try once more.
It remains to be seen what Apple has in store for the poor worker who allegedly lost an iPhone 5 in a Mission District bar called Cava 22, but we do know that Apple seems to have finally learned its lesson from its second missing phone prototype in a row. The company’s going hiring: Specifically, Apple listed two new job postings last Thursday for “New Product Security Managers.”
Color me surprised.
I’ve avoided sticking my nose into the media circus around this, but a friend’s comment in IM the other day—basically, “After this I’m glad I went with Android”—is sufficiently irritating for me to risk making a political point.
Yes, it really should be disturbing that, as Murphy put it, “a private Silicon Valley company” can “tap into official police resources—and so quickly—to assist with an internal investigation.” But if you don’t think that Oracle, Google, Intel, Electronic Arts, Adobe, eBay/PayPal, Netflix, Cisco, Juniper, Intuit or any other sufficiently powerful “private Silicon Valley company” could also do this, then I have only one question for you: what color is the sky on the little world you live on?
In the world we live on, the reality is that money translates into power fairly directly, and this is nowhere more true than the United States. This is both measured public opinion and courtrulings. This means corporations (and the top 1% of Americans who control over one-third of the country’s total wealth) have a lot of power. Some animals are more equal than others.
As far as “corporate citizens” go, Apple is far from the worst one can find. They haven’t dumped tens of millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico because they cut corners on building wells; they haven’t chosen to sell exploding cars after running the numbers and concluding that the lawsuits caused by the explosions would cost them less than fixing the design flaw. And as I’ve mentioned on multiple occasions, I prefer a business model like Apple’s, in which the user is the company’s customer, to a business model like Google’s, in which the user is the company’s product.
But none of this makes Apple a collection of saints. While corporations are not preordained to do unethical things, we’ve spent a century constructing a system that offers little reward for ethical corporate behavior and ample cover—if not tacit encouragement—for leveraging as much political power as you’re able to buy. What’s unique about Apple is that they have the spotlight shined on them so much more than other companies do.
So I’m a little irritated with the pious hand-wringing over this: whenever we see corporations blatantly taking advantage of government power, particularly if it’s a corporation that we love to hate, we rend our garments and wail. But when it comes to actually enacting changes that would make it more difficult for corporations to have that influence? Get outta here, dirty pinko hippie.
An iPad-only steampunk adventure game published by Bungie and developed by Harebrained Schemes, a games company founded by Jordan Weisman, whose past work game players might be familiar with—BattleTech, Shadowrun, and Crimson Skies.
I’ve always thought Apple users got cool stuff, but it’s downright weird that we can start saying that about games. Games. It’s the revenge of Pippin.