Breakfast seminar
Breakfast seminar this morning for my Wolfson Press Fellows given by Bob Satchwell (centre right), Director of the Society of Editors.
We had a lively discussion about, among other things, super-injunctions, during which Bob reminded me of something that the eminent judge Lord Woolf once said (I think in a House of Lords debate). The context was an assertion (by me) that there was no ‘public interest’ defence for tabloid coverage of the sex lives of footballers, but Woolf said that there was also a wider public interest in having newspapers that were commercially successful. Given that the public apparently craves news of footballers’ sex lives, and that tabloids pander to that craving, perhaps the public interest issue is more complex than I had thought.
Discuss, as they say in philosophy exams.
Serried glassware
Lined up awaiting guests to the launch party for Nicci and Sean’s new book.
Just in case…
29 WAYS TO STAY CREATIVE from TO-FU on Vimeo.
I know you don’t need these tips, but just in case…
Vive la France!
This morning’s Observer column.
A spokeswoman for the CSA explained the thinking behind the ban. “Why give preference to Facebook, which is worth billions of dollars,” she asked, “when there are many other social networks that are struggling for recognition? This would be a distortion of competition. If we allow Facebook and Twitter to be cited on air, it’s opening a Pandora’s Box – other social networks will complain to us saying, ‘Why not us?’ ”
Quite. You can imagine the derisive reaction to this in the Anglo-American media, old and new. The broadcasting ruling was linked with President Sarkozy’s clueless remarks at the G8 summit about “civilising” the internet, and interpreted as a sign of cultural resentment at American dominance in cyberspace. “Poor old Frenchies,” was the general tenor of the commentary, “they just don’t get it.”
Actually, the joke's on us. As it happens, the French do ‘get’ it. To appreciate that, just do a simple thought-experiment. Suppose, for a moment, that BBC News started to use “Dyson” instead of “vacuum cleaner” in its reports of dust-mite infestations, or “Bollinger” instead of “champagne” in its coverage of the drinks industry. We'd be outraged. Yet that is effectively what we are thoughtlessly doing when it comes to dealing with phenomena like social networking: taking the dominant commercial brand and pretending that it’s generic…
My personal statement
Er, here it is:
My work explores the relationship between the tyranny of ageing and life as performance. With influences as diverse as Blake and Andy Warhol, new synergies are generated from both traditional and modern meanings. Ever since I was a teenager I have been fascinated by the traditional understanding of meaning. What starts out as hope soon becomes corroded into a dialectic of temptation, leaving only a sense of decadence and the possibility of a new beginning. As spatial phenomena become transformed through diligent and critical practice, the viewer is left with a statement of the possibilities of our world.
Impressive, isn’t it? Alas I didn’t compose it but simply clicked on the Arty Bollocks Generator.
BlackBerry: a smouldering platform
Not quite burning yet. But emitting smoke. Sobering assessment of what RIM’s latest results tell us. Excerpt:
When reporting its fourth quarter in March, RIM had forecast revenues in the range of $5.2-$5.6bn and profits of between $770-812m.
Instead, they both came in lower. Now, you might look at that and say that revenues are up, and shipments are up – so what’s the worry?
First, it’s in the gap between those two – which led to the fall in profits. Basically, you can see clearly from those numbers that RIM must be getting less money per phone. Quite substantially less, if you take into account the average cost of a PlayBook (which is going to be a lot more than a BlackBerry).
We would have been able to tell you exactly how much it was getting per handset – but following its results last time, RIM said it would stop giving out both average selling prices (ASPs) for handsets and the total number of BlackBerry subscribers, which it had been doing since the beginning of 2002. And another financial point: the company is to buy back 5% of the outstanding shares. I won’t go into the mechanics of why share buybacks are bad (two quick reasons: the company should have better things to spend its cash on, such as R&D, and buybacks featherbed executive share options). But when a company circles the wagons by reducing the amount of data it gives out and does a buyback, something is wrong.
Here’s what’s wrong: RIM’s platform is burning. Except that this isn’t the fully-fledged conflagration that Stephen Elop perceived at Nokia. It’s more of a smouldering. But it’s happening nonetheless, and it’s been happening for a long time: RIM hasn’t released a major new phone since August 2010. (Yes, that’s nearly as long as Apple.) It sort-of showed off a new version of the Torch in May; that will actually be released in September. (Way to kill the sales, people.)
RIM’s management knows it has a problem, but doesn’t seem to be able to make the shift – the very difficult shift, it should be noted – from the old BlackBerry OS to the new QNX platform that is going to power forthcoming BlackBerrys (and already powers the PlayBook).
QNX-based phones have been much promised; RIM hasn’t however delivered.
That figures. I’ve noticed how almost all my corporate contacts — the people who once had BlackBerrys to a man or woman — now have iPhones.
Spear phishing
I’ve been wondering about the implications of LinkedIn (which one of my mates calls “Facebook for job-seeking suits”), and then came on this in an excellent piece by Patrick Kingsley in today’s Guardian.
“One of the first places a hacker will visit is LinkedIn,” says [Rik] Ferguson. [Director of security research at computer protection firm, TrendMicro.] “What do we do on there? We make our entire CV available for the world to see. You can see everywhere I’ve worked in the past. You can see all my connections, see everyone I’ve worked with, everyone I know. So a hacker can assume one of those people’s identities and reference things that have happened in my professional life. And I’m far more likely to open an attachment from your email, because it’s far more credible.”
Spot on. Wonder if all the people who stampeded to get in on the LinkedIn IPO thought about that.
Bubble wisdom
Lovely, lovely essay by Tim Worstall, which starts out with the usual speculation about Facebook valuations and winds up in a really interesting place, summarised thus:
And that’s the little secret about infrastructure that is so little understood. It is not true that having infrastructure makes us or the society richer. It is rather that using it does. And we usually don’t know how to use it until someone has gone and built a lot of it, people do that curious shaved monkey thing of experimenting with it and then we all find out. This is true of most inventions: it has been said that the biggest social change that the Model T brought was that women were less likely to be virgins at marriage. People worked out what to use the back seats for pretty quickly. The bicycle has been called the greatest contribution to the health of the working classes ever: it allowed courting outside the home village for the first time (amazing how inventions and sex seem to go together, eh? The first social network, Friends Reunited, is said to have caused a bubble in the divorce rate) to the benefit of the next generations’ genes.
So these bubbles, they’re not all bad. They provide an excess of whatever it is, which we then play with until we’ve worked out what to do with it. What we do with it is what allows the advance in wealth, even if those who built it for us have gone bust.
Chromebook: Pogue’s verdict
Good review of the Chromebook by David Pogue. His conclusion:
Maybe the Chromebook concept would fly if it cost $180 instead of $500. Maybe it makes more sense if you rent it (students and corporations can lease Chromebooks for $20 to $30 a month). Maybe it will fly once this country gets free coast-to-coast 4G cellular Internet, which should be just after hell freezes over.
For now, though, you should praise Google for its noble experiment. You should thrill to the possibilities of the online future. You should exult that somebody’s trying to shake up the operating system wars.
But unless you’re an early-adopter masochist with money to burn, you probably shouldn’t buy a Chromebook.
His main complaint is that the assumption of ubiquitous Internet connectivity on which the Chromebook depends simply doesn’t correspond with everyday reality. Sad but true.
On the other hand, some of his criticisms of the device in its first-release state could also have been levelled at Apple’s iPad when it first appeared (and indeed were levelled by me). But the avalanche of useful Apps that subsequently arrived had the effect of offsetting many of the device’s original limitations. This will also happen with the Chromebook.