The future is slow
I couldn’t sleep last night and so spent some time reading my favorite economic blogs and news sites. I realized a while ago that there are a number of the regular sites that I visit which are run by glodbugs; that is, individuals who are into investing in gold as a hedge against economic uncertaintly or just as a way of parking financial capital hoping that it will not suffer (or suffer less) from inflation. Consequently, I have to remind myself that these people will have a tendency to look at the world as ‘half empty’ because they have an economic incentive to do so.
Still, this perspective also makes these people more likely to not ignore the realities around them (i.e. wearing rose coloured glasses) and often I find these sites to have some of the most interesting information that the mainstream simply ignores or is incapable of understanding.
For example, this article caught my eye, not because it is really anything new but because it has some interesting data to ponder:
Of real interest to me was the following graph showing U.S. nominal GDP growth over the last 60 years. Usually, GDP statistics are criticized for being overly rosey (i.e. the economic costs of cleaning up after a natural or man-made disaster is only seen as positive economically). But, when taken long term it is hard to view the graph as something positive.
Now trends are just trends and they should never be taken as gospel but when taken in context with everything that is going on today (just look at another graph in the article which shows U.S. industrial output) it doesn’t look very good. The article makes some pressing points about what might be expected to happen in the future: slower overall growth, sticky unemployment, and high volatility. Of course, the article is directed at investors and not the average man or woman in the street (who will more than likely be a part of the higher structural unemployment) and it would be the investor class who will weather the future better than lower socio-economic classes simply because they tend to have more and highly liquid resources that can be shifted and protected, often with the aid of politicians through tax cuts and other loopholes.
More generally, however, it is likely that we will see the retirement savings for the masses wiped out, the shrinking of the middle class (and remember that the 20th century economic boom in the U.S. was built upon an ever-expanding and increasingly affluent middle class), and conspicuous consumption reverting back to where it origininated: in the upper classes.
Personally, I see this all as a consequence of two inter-connected things: the decline of the U.S. as a neo-imperial hyperpower (evident from the graph above) and the end of the era of cheap energy. Another question would be wheterh there is another nation or region that could take the place of the U.S. and from what I have read, China does not have the needed access to energy today (and is a big financial bubble ready to burst), India seems more stable but still does not possess domestic energy sources on a grand scale, and many Western nations are deeply in debt, with few having domestic energy that is both easily accessible and cheap to produce. The only country that seems to be in a good place is, interestingly, Russia.
I am sure Ronnie Reagan will soon be turning sommersaults in his grave.
.
Apple as technology, Apple as Brand
Or, Why I hate Apple in 2000 words of less.
I often encourage my students to think about companies in an objective/realistic way, rather than in a branded way. Modern branding is often based on emotions (and very often is far removed from reality). But trying to think objectively (which also requires some much empirical investigation) can be useful since it allows us to see these companies more clearly and will help us understand why corporations make certain decisions and develop certain products. Looking objectively at Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo (and temporarily putting out of our minds such emotional attachments as nostalgia or genre preference) will reveal that these are three very different companies even though they compete against one another in the international videogame market.
For example, Sony released the PS3 in part to nudge the industry in favour of its high definition format for the movie and computer markets. Microsoft has sunk money in its historically less-than-lucrative games division because it provides badly needed branding amongst the ‘hardcore’ tech crowd and the larger videogame/entertainment consumer market. Nintendo has focused on maintaining a firm grip on the large and lucrative family market. Knowing this helps explain why Sony would sink a gazillion dollars into the development of the PS3 (all-the-while knowing it could bank on profits still coming from the PS2, which is now obscenely inexpensive to produce and therefore very profitable) and why Nintendo for the most part ignores the self-described ‘hardcore’ crowd (and is immensely successful because of it). (Of course, leaving out the branding process entirely is not a good idea either since we might miss why Microsoft was so very unsuccessful with the original Xbox in Japan: they tried to bring in high-concept branding designed for a North American ‘hardcore’ enthusiast to a very different culture… look up ‘the Duke’ controller as a blatant example… but also why they are making inroads by encouraging the release of old and new 2D shooters in Japan.)
And this brings me to why I hate Apple… it’s sort of complex so bear with me.
Many people misunderstand my general opposition to the company and my thoughts on their products. For me, it is important to separate the two. I am often very critical of the introduction of Apple products at the place where I work (a small, liberal arts, research and teaching university in Canada). But I am not completely against their products either. I do not own an Apple computer at the moment but I do use them occasionally where I work (and have in the past), and I might even buy one sometime in the future. I am opposed to their use in very specific ways and this is simply because I work at a public university and we receive a lot of public funding (for the record, we also receive a lot of private funding too, from both corporations and individuals). And because we are supported by tax dollars, we should be as prudent as possible with that money and not indulge in what are brand preferences with respect to an expensive ’boutique’ brand.
While there was a time (many years ago when the ‘big brother’ that Apple ads implicitly referred to was more about IBM than Microsoft), when an Apple computer tended to be quite different from the many other kinds of PCs, but those days are effectively over. Today, the OS for Macs is based off Unix and the hardware is manufactured by many companies that produce PC components. In fact, now that Apple has moved away from the PowerPC architecture and moved to the x86, Apple uses the very same Intel processors that show up in a large portion of the home PC market and the very same architecture used for virtually all consumer PCs. Increasingly, software is available for Mac OS, Windows, or Linux-based operating systems and each has a stable set of drivers available to it.
When it comes to the differences between operating systems, all I can say is that after seeing technicians where I work deal with all manner of different builds and OSs, Macs are no more or no less trouble free than machines running Windows or Linux-based OSs. The one area where I would definitely give a nod to Mac OS and Linux is in the security department (and that is no doubt important but it can be effectively managed in Windows too). So, when it comes to PCs, I see relative advantages and disadvantages to using each of the many types and OSs.
But here is where we need to be specific. When it comes to things like price, maintenance and reliability, then I think that there can be major disadvantages with Macs. They are expensive (as boutique brands are) and in many important ways, more difficult to maintain. There is no argument about the price, I recently priced out low level workstations and building my own machine cost me approx. $2000 less than buying a Mac (and about $1000 less than a Dell) with identical hardware specifications. From an institutional and even an individual perspective, that extra money can buy a lot of software (or tuition or rent and groceries) or other hardware.
The whole issue of quality or ‘ease of use’ really depends on personal preferences and levels of proficiency. One reason that Macs are considered easy to use is that the computer hardware and software is highly controlled. But while such rigidity is good for tech-newbies or those that just don’t want to spend too much time maintaining a computer, it also presents many issues, especially in terms of flexibility, repair and even maintenance. In addition, proprietary interfaces (which Apple is famous for) adds unnecessary complexity and cost, as does the fact that many models are made so that if one component fails, the whole machine has to be sent for repair. (And yes, Apple hardware does fail, it is made at the same Chinese factories that produce parts for all kinds of other PC vendors.)
So, while I recognize that Macs are great for people who don’t mind spending more on a computer, I am against them being used more and more in public institutions.
And it is here where I really begin to hate Apple. For it is their marketing (which is amazingly effective but which also adds to the hefty price tag) that has really changed things. Apple marketing has convinced many that Macs are not PCs (essentially making it a false choice between Apple and that-which-is-not-Apple) and, especially annoying and dangerous, that Macs are superior computers for every individual and in every situation. I see this all the time where I work. Now that technology is becoming’ mass-consumerified’, I increasingly see upper management types using Macs and then making the above assumptions and more. Of course, in the privileged halls of academia, this technology is all free (bought with tax-payer money) and supported by an army of technicians. Combine that with the fact that most administrators (and many faculty and staff) are extreme newbies or, worse, they think they know more about computer-based technology and the computer market than they actually do, then that is when it starts to become (budgetarily) dangerous.
I came across a post from what I would call a realistic Apple fan who has put this phenomenon very well:
I have already mentioned before what I love about Apple – their hardware design is phenomenal.
Now I would like to point out what I truly loathe about Apple.
I usually call it “look-it-has-wheels” syndrome. This comes from my allegory that Apple acts like a car company advertising things like “Our cars have wheels!”. The stereotypical computer-inept Mac disciple, will then misunderstand this and think that everyone elses cars have no wheels. Or that they do, but that Apple Cars innovated The Wheel. Fortunately, the unix based Mac OS X have attracted a good deal of real computer nerds, diluting the stupid-pool a bit, but there are still more of them than I would care for (I would care for none at all). This is one of the reasons why I took the plunge and bought a PowerBook.
Now if you take that attitude and combine it the context where I work (a public institution where those who work there don’t have to pay for the hardware/software they use and, especially when it comes to administrators, have many technicians at their beck and call ensuring that those Macs ‘just work’… and those technicians are badly needed let me tell you), then you know where I am coming from and why I loath Apple marketing.
If a person wants to buy a Mac or some other boutique PC like Alienware, then that is fine by me. If they like their machine and are developing a healthy interest in computer technology, that is great. They can brag about it too, I don’t mind. (Although, morally I think there is a very good case to be made about using open source such as Linux-based OSs.)
But when it comes to spending public money, I think it is highly unethical to buy Apple computers when equally good (often more flexible) and far cheaper alternatives exist. It really galls me when I see someone demand to have a Mac to do little more than word processing, normal video editing, some work in spreadsheets and “some photoshop” but assume they need to have a $3000 Mac that in reality only has $1000 worth of specifications.
The fanboys and girls will no doubt argue with me but again, that is primarily the emotional ‘branded’ sides of our brains talking. I can understand that too as I have ‘branded’ preferences of my own: for instance, I discriminate against some of the many ‘distros’ of Linux-based operating systems and these preferences are often made on ultimately-meaningless-but-oh-so-meaningful characteristics such as the time it takes to boot or whether its aesthetic appearance matches my particular sensibilities.
And sure, the lower end models indeed are really good computers for newbies (essentially those who want a computer to ‘just work’). But if you were to supply them with a Mac, you pay a hefty price for that, it reduces flexibility (which is bad for an institution) and there is a great deal of technical support provided at universities so newbie users don’t worry about this anyway. Besides, any operating system is ‘easy’ if you spend enough time with it and there are a few Linux-based distributions that are coming extremely close to becoming suitable for the casual and/or newbie market. I don’t even buy the argument that Macs are better for higher end applications unless a piece of software or hardware is absolutely not available on another platform (and, increasingly, that is becoming less common too).
The insidious nature of Apple marketing is that it is for a boutique brand which, for now, has a successful branded image. In this era of badly needed fiscal responsibility, there is the added ethical dilemma of wants and needs to think about, and how to separate the genuine need for technology from the desire for fashion and trends. I don’t even really blame the people I work with because it does take a fair amount of technical knowledge to see through the marketing BS. Again, that is testament to the success of that marketing since these people are often very surprised to learn that Apple still has only 9-ish% percent of the PC market (it fluctuates) and that for many people, they do not want or simply can’t spend a great deal of money on a personal computer… or, that in many cases the inflexibility of a Mac (high end or low end) simply does not allow them to make that choice. They simply look at the ubiquity of Apple marketing and look at many people around them (who, of course, tend to be in higher socio-economic brackets) using Apple gadgets and assume that is the way for everybody… and that everyone’s computing needs are as simple or streamlined as their needs.
At any rate, that is why I hate Apple (or, at least, some of its effects), but not really Apple products.
.
PS. I updated this post to fix many stream-of-consciousness grammatical and spelling mistakes (I doubt I fixed them all) but also to add this final thought. Today, while interviewing candidates for a ‘techie’ position, I was reminded of another ‘Apple effect’ and that is the tendency to censor comments. I noticed this recently when Jon Stewart critiqued Apple and even its products while excessively pandering to Apple users (at the end of the Daily Show piece, Stewart acknowledged the ‘heresy’ of being critical about the company since his main demographic tends to be fans and users). Today, I noticed that when candidates made reference, from a technical and budgetary standpoint, to the unsuitability of Macs in an institutional setting (basically the points I am making here), they would do the same thing as Jon Stewart and make another pandering or positive remark (of course, there were Apple products on the table which were owned by some of the interviewers… so go figure.) It is interesting too since I think another feature of this many assume that the Apple vs. PC debate also includes non-computer-related Apple products like the iPod and iPad.* At any rate, that is another ‘Apple effect’ too.
*And, yes people, the iPad is not a full computer or tablet… in the previous sense of that term. Sure, it is a very cool device but it is not a computer… it is more like a well-designed media consumption device or, as I like to think of it, a direct link between your bank account and iTunes 
.
Moblin 2.1 on an inherited Dell netbook
A little while ago, I inherited a little Dell netbook (an early netbook as it is more like a tiny laptop) from my sister. The battery does not hold a charge very long and it was running kind of slow. It had Windows XP, SP2 for the OS and was used a lot over a few years. I thought I would use it to experiment with and so I accepted the gracious gift.
I instantly knew what I was going to do wit it… install Google Chrome and Moblin 2.1 that I had on a DVD (which I acquired from a DVD insert in either Linux Journal or Linux User). Perhaps Chrome had some problems negotiating older hardware or the version I had to install was intended for different hardware, but it was a glitchy install and basically unusable (I might give it another try again soon as I am sure it is my mistake). Next, I tried Moblin 2.1, a Linux distribution that is being supported by Intel. It is being developed for netbooks, handhelds and other mobile devices.
So far, it is an interesting operating system and I might just keep it for a while. I suspect that the hardware I am using (Dell Latitude D430) might be a little slow for its needs, but it seems like an interesting operating system if you only want to use your netbook as a surfing device. It is clunky when trying to use files (pdfs, text docs, or images) as it is really designed to work with the limitations of small screens. But it recognized the hardware instantly, connected to my wireless, and basically worked right off the bat. For surfing, it is very quick. It loads quickly and recovers from hibernation quickly too. Once you get used to the interface and figure out where and how to access needed resources, it is nice to use.
It is rather clunky when it comes to working with files since you navigate between open applications by using ‘zones.’ I saved some screenshots (which in Linux-based distributions like Moblin is very quick and easy) and moved them via a USB flash drive to a different computer in a normal fashion (I had read of some problems with USB drives if I remember correctly) and of course moving files over the network is fine. By the way, if you press ALT and <– (left arrow) or ALT and –> (right arrow) you access some kind of run-time debugging interface or something and so can see what is going on internally as you are working (this was interesting to view when I connected the USB drive as I could see it was reading the FAT file system). (To get back to a ‘normal’ view just use the key combination to go into the other direction.)
It is based on Linux so it will be basically familiar if you use some Linux-based distribution. After an update, I keep getting warning messages about the kernel failing to load properly but it seems to correct itself. Of course, the OS is still under active development and I don’t think I am really using it on hardware envisioned by the developers, so any glitches are to be expected.
The OS has a nice, clean (and slightly quirky) aesthetic too. It will be interesting to see where they take this but as I said, I think I will keep this on the Dell laptop for a while and just use it. This afternoon, I took it out with me to sit and read in my backyard. I was surprised and the quality of the Dell laptop to pick up signals in the neighborhood. It picked up the signal from my old wirless router at high strength and it was quick with accessing the web. So, if you are looking for a quick-but-still-in-development OS to try, Moblin 2.1 is interesting.
Discourse, Democracy and the Internet
While working in my back yard on this very beautiful Sunday, I listened to most of Spark on CBC radio one. It is an interesting program about society and technology. I do not listen to it very often as it, like most of mainstream media, is often overly obsessed with fashionable trends and techie mass-consumerism (Apple products, celebrities on Facebook, and whatever is ‘trending’ on Twitter). However, today, the program covered upcoming Canadian copyright legislation (basically repeating the message track of the government, in my humble opinion) but also had an interesting piece on internet media and user comments. The piece followed some recent changes made at various media outlets to how they deal with user comments… especially the more negative or vulgar comments which, of course, often show up.
The range of methods to deal with these problems was interesting and so was the commentary. Of course, the methodology basically intended to ‘improve’ the comments and remove (or prevent) the more negative, obscene or vulgar discourse which the internet has become famous for (personally, I can’t believe the low level that YouTube reaches in particular). This is a subject that I can relate to since I disable the comments on this blog, but also because I often leave a lot of comments on various news sites and blogs (even the ‘negative’ kind). In the case of my blog, it is more a question of time since I just don’t want to deal with the comment approval process. By accident, I left the ability to comment on for one post and I am surprised at the number of spam messages I receive just from this one page (this mostly consists of comments that try plant links so that the site being linked to will show up in page ranks for search engines, like Google, which rank their search results by the number of links to a website). I am sometimes saddened that I might prevent interesting comments from being left but I doubt this blog has any regular readers and is probably visited most often by people looking for specific information. Hence, I doubt if many (actual) people really would want to comment here.
Even though I really do sympathise with news sites with regard to this issue, especially given the level of vitriol sometimes out there and, more of a problem I think, the planting/spamming of comments by activists across the political and religious spectrum, I wonder about the effect of limiting the ‘negative’ commentary as described in the Spark piece. What might we lose? Well, to me it is interesting to see the range of opinion (and intelligence) out there and that is something kind of new I think. Traditionally, the media have been the domain of a very small range of society (those in power, various elites, the upper classes, etc.) and so it is interesting to see both the general level of (mis)understanding out there and the range of political ideology. (As I always remind my students, the internet is not representative of all of society or the world so we always have to be aware of that.)
I also think that if we actively limit ‘the negative’ we also might lose what was becoming a very democratic part of internet-enabled discourse: speaking truth to power.
Case in point: Recently, Britain’s former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, wrote a guest article for The Globe and Mail. What was fascinating to me was not what he had written (a call to do more for Africa) but the comments… and, specifically, the negative comments. Most commentators passed over Blair’s argument to call him out (and call him names) due to his role in the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Some readers called him a war criminal and many basically told him to just ‘fuck off.’ I was really surprised at not only the negativity but also the number of other readers that apparently were in agreement. I could imagine that most informed readers of Blair’s essay also, while at home in front of an actual newspaper or a computer screen, were doing the same… but a few people were actually, and vociferously, speaking out on the Globe and Mail’s website. To me, this was a very interesting example of how modern forms of communication can really be politically important.
(Click on the image below to see a few of the comments… this is screenshot I took when I first read the article.)
This is essentially an example of how powerful interests in society align. Blair, the representation of a political ideology and class, gets a chance to address the public in a high-profile publication; in part to rehabilitate his image by posing as interested in helping Africa (in terms of real politik, he is probably working on behalf of British political, economic and corporate interests in the region). The Globe and Mail, a national Canadian newspaper (and arguably one of the most successful media outlets in Canada) gets a former head of state (even if it’s Tony Blair) to author an article for its pages, something of a trend since they just had Bono and Bob Geldof as guest editors recently. It’s ‘win-win’ as both will benefit: Blair gets to enter ‘the public record’ and the Globe gets content to attract lots of eyeballs.
Historically in such situations we might get to see a couple of polite letters to the editor, but nothing like what happened on the Globe and Mail website. Here, people completely and utterly challenged a public/historical figure for his immoral and unethical actions (par for the course with public/historical figures), reminding every other reader (and Blair himself) that the deaths of many, many innocent Iraqis and his role in those deaths has indeed not been forgotten. This is something quite new historically in terms of media history. But, of course, most of these ‘negative’ comments were eventually erased by the moderators… leaving the public record in a highly sanitized state.
So, in this case, the desire to have ‘proper’ or ‘constructive’ discourse meant that speaking truth to power has been effectively eliminated. Without the calls of ‘war criminal!’ and ‘Fuck You Tony Blair!,’ there is nothing to remind readers of Blair’s past actions and the Globe and Mail can go back to doing what media has traditionally done… protect the reputations of the powerful and whitewash their actions and the actions of other powerful men (and it is usually men).
So, is the internet an inherently democratic medium simply because it is interactive? Are we losing something important when we insist that online discourse has to always be polite, constructive and coordinated by a select few?
I wonder.
.