Volcanic exile

Wonderful FT.com column by Gideon Rachman, who found himself marooned in Tel Aviv.

My reaction to volcanic exile has been a bit like the bereavement cycle – grief, anger, denial, acceptance. The only time I succumbed to incredulous rage was on the flight home to London on Thursday, the first day of the crisis, when the pilot announced that we were turning back to Tel Aviv. Volcanic ash? What an absurd excuse. Surely, this couldn’t be happening? I had meetings to go to in London; articles to write; family coming to dinner that night. I had heard of the right of return to the Holy Land, but I had no wish to exercise it myself. The situation must be fixable. As soon as we got off the aircraft a colleague rang a travel agent in London and grabbed the few remaining seats on the next British Airways flight out of Israel. We congratulated ourselves on our quick reactions, went out to dinner and prepared to leave the following morning. But the following morning, the cloud hadn’t moved. It was getting worse.

After a while it began to occur to me that my gathering gloom might have less to do with missing my family and several appointments, than with the unfamiliar sensation of being thwarted. Wealth and privilege has made babies of us all. Of course I should be able to get anywhere in the world in 24 hours! There is always a flight out. There is no logistical problem that cannot be solved with a mixture of ingenuity and money. Yet the volcano seemed strangely indifferent to the fact that I have a large credit limit on my Visa card. Its effects are surprisingly democratic. The cloud of ash would not even part for Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, stuck in Portugal – who had to fly to Rome and drive.

What’s most interesting about the #ashtag crisis is what it reveals about our technological arrogance. We’re so accustomed to being in control that we cannot comprehend not being able to change things. As Rachman says, wealth and privilege — and, I would add, technology — has made babies of us all. Gratification has to be instant. Why not go to New York for a weekend’s shopping? (I’ve never done it, but I know people who have.) A few days in Donegal? Or Nice? A weekend in Amsterdam? (I’ve done those.)

The ash cloud is instructive not just because it reveals our naive dependence on technology, but also because it’s a dry-run for global warming. If you take James Lovelock’s view of this as expressed in Gaia’s Revenge then this is what it’ll be like. The earth is a self-regulating system, and it is going to self-regulate global warming. In doing so it isn’t going to pay any attention to our special needs. And there will be nothing, just nothing, that we can do to stop it. We just have to try and adjust to the catastrophe. Which is what Mr Rachman and thousands of other stranded travellers are having to do.

The United States of Apple

21.6% of US adults own or use an iPod, iPhone or Mac computer. That’s right, one-fifth of Americans own some type of Apple hardware. What’s more is that 21.6% doesn’t included under-18s — and how many teens have you seen without an iPod?

It’s funny how the image of Apple as a plucky underdog still persists.

[Source.]

The war against Flash

This morning’s Observer column.

Last weeks announcement by Apple that the UK launch of the iPad will be delayed by a month was the headline news for consumers, but for geeks a more significant development came on Thursday with some changes in the 21,000-word ‘agreement’ that you have to sign if you are going to develop applications for Apple’s iDevices…

The Clegg effect

Nice post on Tom Watson’s blog.

Nick Clegg’s success in the TV debates on Thursday has already had a positive effect in West Bromwich East. People are now talking about the election, and it’s wonderful.

In the last 48 hours I’ve taken phone calls and emails from people wanting to know about my detailed stance on dozens of policy positions – from child care and schools to international aid, tax, euthanasia, drugs, immigration, crime, litter and trains.

And if we can get this election re-calibrated, to end silly media and advertising stunts and talk about policy then all the better.

I’ve been on a journey these last nine years, so a debate about how we can build a progressive future is to be welcomed.

There are still issues on which Labour and the Lib Dems profoundly disagree. No doubt they’ll come out in the next few weeks. There’s no point in being churlish though. Nick Clegg has opened up this election.

Tom Watson is one of the best labour MPs. Hope he gets re-elected.

US government finally admits most piracy estimates are bogus

Well, well. Sanity begins to dawn. This from ArsTechnica.

We’ve all seen the studies trumpeting massive losses to the US economy from piracy. One famous figure, used literally for decades by rightsholders and the government, said that 750,000 jobs and up to $250 billion a year could be lost in the US economy thanks to IP infringement. A couple years ago, we thoroughly debunked that figure. For years, Business Software Alliance reports on software piracy assumed that each illicit copy was a lost sale. And the MPAA’s own commissioned study on movie piracy turned out to overstate collegiate downloading by a factor of three.

Can we trust any of these claims about piracy?

The US doesn’t think so. In a new report out yesterday, the government’s own internal watchdog took a close look at “efforts to quantify the economic effects of counterfeit and pirated goods.” After examining all the data and consulting with numerous experts inside and outside of government, the Government Accountability Office concluded that it is “difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts.”

Yep. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t losses due to piracy, just that the numbers produced by industry lobbyists to scare legislators on both sides of the Atlantic are, well, mostly hogwash. If we had had evidence-based policymaking in relation to the Digital Economy Bill, then Parliament would have commissioned the same kind of critical report as the one produced by the US GAO. Instead, MPs were moved by the bleatings of Cliff Richard & Co.

GAO Report (pdf) can be downloaded from here. It makes for interesting reading.

So why are newspapers like the NYT sucking up to Apple?

Hmmm… I’ve been wondering about this, ever since noticing that many of the publicity pics for the iPad (see above, from the back cover of the current New Yorker) feature the NYT. But Dan Gillmor nails it, as usual.

It’s been more than a week since I asked a number of news organizations, chiefly the New York Times, to answer a few questions about their relationships with Apple. Specifically, I asked the Times to discuss what has become at least the appearance of a conflict of interest: Apple’s incessant promotion of the newspaper in pictures of its new iPad and highlighting of the Times’ plans to make the iPad a key platform for the news organization’s journalism, combined with the paper’s relentlessly positive coverage of the device in news columns.

In addition, I asked the Times, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today — following up on a February posting when I asked why news organizations were running into the arms of a control-freakish company — to respond to a simple question: Can Apple unilaterally disable their iPad apps if Apple decides, for any reason, that it doesn’t like the content they’re distributing? Apple has done this with many other companies’ apps and holds absolute power over what appears and doesn’t appear via its app system.

Who responded? No one. Not even a “No comment.” This is disappointing if (sadly) unsurprising, but in light of other news this week it’s downright wrong.

Crowdsourcing, open source and sloppy terminology

It’s funny how often terms like ‘open source’ and ‘crowdsourcing’ find their way into everyday discourse, where they are used casually to mean anything that involves lots of people. This diagram comes from a thoughtful post by Chris Grams. It begins:

It finally hit me the other day just why the open source way seems so much more elegantly designed (and less wasteful) to me than what I’ll call “the crowdsourcing way”.

1. Typical projects run the open source way have many contributors and many beneficiaries.

2. Typical projects run the crowdsourcing way have many contributors and few beneficiaries.

Worth reading in full. Thanks to Glyn Moody for spotting it.

Apple bans Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist from iPhone

From The Register.

This week, a California political cartoonist was awarded the prestigious Pulitzer Prize. Last December, Apple’s App Store police barred his work from its hallowed online halls.

As reported Thursday by Harvard University's Nieman Journalism Lab, Pulitzer Prize–winning cartoonist Mark Fiore submitted his cartoon app NewsToons to the App Store Police, only to have it rejected.

Fiore’s sin: violation of the sacred section 3.3.14 of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, which reads:

Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users.

We’ll gloss over that risible ‘reasonable judgement’ bit and instead pose a simple question: Keeping in mind that Fiore is a political cartoonist, might that “offensive or defamatory” judgment be solely in the eyes of the beholder?

Meaning, are the App Store police censoring commentary based upon their own tastes? Well, of course they are.

LATER: It seems that the ban has been rescinded. Amazing what a firestorm of bad publicity can achieve.

Ning’s Bubble Bursts: No More Free Networks

I’m not surprised. Here’s the TechCrunch report.

One month after long-time Ning CEO Gina Bianchini was replaced by COO Jason Rosenthal, the company is making some major changes: It has just announced that it is killing off its free product, forcing existing free networks to either make the change to premium accounts or migrate their networks elsewhere. Rosenthal has also just announced that the company has cut nearly 70 people — over 40% of its staff.