Whatever...

Microsoft struck down by foot in mouth disease

By Claire Ayles

Microsoft admitting there are flaws in its software isn't really a big deal anymore.  In fact, the company has been praised in the last year or two for its glasnost PR approach - being open about the problems, rather than trying to hide them.  Because let's face it, we all use Microsoft software so we all know it isn't perfect.

However, one has to feel for the poor PR charged with convincing the world that Microsoft is a serious and dependable security player, when the people actually responsible for developing its flagship consumer security product – the amusingly named OneCare - are all too eager to point out its failings. 

For example, at this month's German techfest, CeBIT, no lesser figure than Microsoft's European security product manager confessed that its security software has "bits and pieces missing".  And just in case anyone was in doubt about this, a blogger from the anti-malware engineering team confirmed that detection rates need to "gradually and steadily increase until they are on par with the other majors in this arena". 

It's hard to work out where exactly these comments fit into Microsoft's strategy to achieve worldwide domination of the consumer security market. 

However, what's interesting here is the play-off between a 21st century corporation's desire to be touchy-feely - spearheaded by the growth of company blogs and the like - and the need to actually grow market share.  Personally, I'm surprised that, given Microsoft's poor reputation for security and the vast investment it's made into cracking this market, OneCare has been fumbled so badly by the Redmond spin machine. 

Of course, lying that your product works when it doesn't would also be a very bad thing - but that's no reason for Microsoft to shout from the rooftops that its product has shortcomings…

Don't watch that, watch this! Or, preferably, nothing...

By Dominic Walsh

It seems that governments worldwide are finally catching on to the fact that the internet has a lot more on it these days than pictures of dogs dressed as bees and innumerable football discussion forums.  With sites such as YouTube and Google Video now delivering a seemingly unstoppable stream of video content, even Gordon Brown has joined the party, and only a couple of years late.

The first response to the Chancellor’s proposal for a new media ratings system is, do we really need this?  Is he suggesting that the current age rating used on cinema releases, DVDs and games, the watershed on TV and radio and the advisories of explicit lyrics in music are somehow too arcane for the average member of society?

The second response, especially regarding ratings on websites, is how will it be enforced?  Will ISPs in the UK be required to flag up all inappropriate content a user tries to access, or will the websites themselves be asked to supply age ratings?  What effect will this have on those sites based outside the country, such as YouTube?  Of course, we could also bear in mind that this is a politician looking for party leadership tackling “family values” and engage all relevant cynicism.

The same questions are likely to be asked in France, where laws are making it illegal for non-journalists to film or broadcast violent events in the country.  But if a YouTube user uploads a video of, for example, rioting in Paris, what authority will the French have to order its removal from the site or to obtain the identity of the person who originally uploaded it?

Of course, there is always the option taken by China and, more recently, Turkey, of simply denying access to any content that doesn’t take the government’s fancy.  With luck, actions taken by repressive regimes and countries that evidently aren’t that desperate to join the EU won’t be repeated over here – but you never know.  In the future, exactly how much control will governments have over the content their citizens can access?

Right now (well, not right now, as I respect the company internet policy!) I could access any number of images, documents, videos or sounds that would offend and disturb me and, perhaps more importantly, the government.  How much power should they have to protect us and themselves?  Is it a proportionate response to a minor national insult to deny access to a site such as YouTube that, when it’s not showing dangerous videos of William Shatner singing Rocket Man, provides an invaluable service to immigrants looking to stay in touch with their home country, friends and family (I speak from experience here)? 

Whether the access granted by the web can draw communities further together or push them further apart, isn’t that a choice to be made by the communities themselves?

Wikipedia's fallibility could undermine Blogosphere dogma

By Tom Kirkham

It seems that every week another collaborative online project makes the headlines, 'A Million Penguins' being just the latest example of joined-up Web 2.0 user-generated content in action.  Whether it's for the purposes of creating fiction, entertaining others, or just expressing opinions and starting debate, these forums for interaction are now commanding greater recognition and respect than ever before.

However, the actual value of user-generated content has been subject to considerable scrutiny, and this has recently been brought into focus by the discovery of a worm in the online apple of knowledge that is Wikipedia.  The recent revelation that an editor working on the world's biggest collaborative encyclopaedia was not in fact the professor of religion he claimed to be has reignited the debate as to just how much user-generated content can really be trusted.

Until a few days ago, Ryan Jordan had the power to edit Wikipedia articles, arbitrate disputes between authors and verify ‘facts’ (or not, as the case may be), and his exposure as a fraud is likely to infuriate and upset a great many readers and contributors, not to mention other Wikipedia editors who could well find their own legitimate credentials being called into question.

While paid up members of the Blogosphere march under a puritanical 'power to the people' banner, non-believers object to the simple fact that a lot of user-generated content is unmoderated, unsubstantiated and in some cases, seemingly authored by the criminally insane - and this issue is far harder to ignore when Web 2.0 figureheads like Wikipedia are also subject to such failings. 

It's not that Ryan Jordan lacked integrity - reports suggest he was genuinely trying to do the job properly, even if this involved using that definitive religious text 'Catholicism For Dummies' - but at the end of the day, he was just another self-proclaimed expert trying to pull a fast one.  It was only thanks to the anonymity of the web that he was able to mask his true identity.

Many people see the Blogosphere as the last bastion of ‘the truth’, fighting the battle against spin and big media in general.  But going forward, sites like Wikipedia need to set a better example by putting stringent peer review policies in place to stop reputation of Web 2.0 as a whole being dragged through the mud. 

There are already fears about the influence of the corporate world on the user-generated space, and if this new community doesn't learn to moderate content effectively, then the likelihood is that a handful of global corporations will step in to do the job for them... 

Is the internet dream about to turn into a nightmare?

By Joe Banks

One of my favourite moments in Father Ted – arguably the greatest sit-com ever – is in the very first episode, where Ted is patiently explaining to Dougal the difference between dreams and reality – but how ever hard Ted tries, Dougal just can’t or won’t see it...

This scene often springs to mind whenever I think about the internet and its status as the ‘information superhighway’ (or words to that affect), a much peddled utopian vision of limitless global connectivity that promises to transform the way we work, communicate and entertain ourselves, forever and ever, etc etc

Because it’s not, is it?  In fact, as a transport mechanism for the type of services that are currently being touted by telecoms operators and content providers – IPTV, video on demand, ever fancier Web 2.0 mash-ups – it’s frankly starting to look a bit ropey.  Rather than a 10-lane motorway, it increasingly resembles a tangle of narrow lanes and back roads, more suitable for horse-drawn carts than for IP juggernauts.

Everybody knows there’s a problem – even Google has admitted that the internet in its current form just won’t scale, and that YouTube in particular isn’t helping the bandwidth drain situation.  But are they going to pull the service and say ‘sorry kids, but you’re going to have to find your videos of skateboarding dogs elsewhere from now on’? Are they flip – because it’s a proven eyeball magnet, and it’s surely not long before they find a way of making some serious money from it.

And that’s the crux of it – everybody wants a piece of the latest internet goldrush, even if the infrastructure itself is already starting to buckle under the strain.  Because dreams (particularly those that involve dollar signs) beat reality anyday.

Without wanting to get too dramatic here, I can’t help but think that there’s a parallel between this slash and burn mentality to the internet and the global warming crisis that we all now face – both illustrate a tendency to assume that we can go on proliferating and expanding indefinitely without any knock on effect to the environment around us, whether natural or virtual.  But are we really going to have to wait until there’s a net equivalent of the Stern Report before we act to avert online gridlock?

I really don’t know what the answer is, particularly as there seems to be such a disconnect between the content evangelists and the infrastructure providers – not to mention the fact that while governments might like to brag about the size of their broadband, they seem less keen on getting involved in regulating the global backbone network and ensuring that a quality internet service is available for all…

Let the format wars begin – Blu-ray vs HD DVD

By Audrey Sternberg

The PS3 will finally arrive in Europe in March! 

It will ship with a 2x Blu-ray disc drive, read-only as is the case with most game console optical drives.  However, given the high price at which it will be sold, you would have thought that this brand new Blu-ray technology would have a recorder included… but as we all know, you can never assume anything!

Blu-ray has been touted as the successor to DVD.  It can store more information on the same surface thanks to a new type of blue-violet laser.  Blu-Ray can hold 50Gb in its double layer version versus 8Gb for a standard DVD double layer. 

Then Toshiba announced at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas its new 51Gb HD DVD-ROM triple layer, which allows 7 hours of HD video.

Upping the ante, TDK responded with a 200Gb Blu-ray (6 layers on 33.3Gb) allowing 18 hours of HD video – enough to store every season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer on it! ;-)

Clearly, war between these technologies has been declared!

With all these new announcements, maybe we should bide our time before choosing one drive over another.  Although we’ll probably have to do as we have always done with games for consoles: buy the one that fits the player we own.  Unfortunately, format convergence still looks to be a long way off...

And sometimes there are forces at work that us poor punters only find out about after the fact…  For instance, this is what UK gossip service Popbitch had to say about this particular war:

“Back in the 80s when there were two competing video technologies, VHS triumphed over Betamax largely because Sony, who owned Betamax, refused to allow their format to be used by the porn industry.  Hence VHS became the industry standard.

There's a TV format war brewing again - HD DVDs versus Blu-ray.  Sony own Blu-ray and, guess what, they don't seem to want porn on this system either, having backed out of a deal with adult film studio Digital Playground.  HD-DVD is easier to produce anyway, so the porn industry is 100% behind this format.  PS3 uses Blu-ray, so there is some hope for Sony, but we're still sticking our money on HD-DVD.”

Still, for me, the fact remains that if the PS3 had a Blu-ray recorder inside, I wouldn’t think twice about buying it as soon as it is available in France.

(Though of course, hackers have already succeeded in cracking both Blu-ray and HD DVD copyright protection.  C’est la vie…!)

Guest blog - Does your news punch above its weight?

As well as being a platform for JKers to rant, ruminate and reflect on the worlds of technology and PR, 'Whatever...' will periodically be running guest blogs from friends who live beyond the (fire)walls of Johnson King Towers.

Here's Carole Theriault, senior security consultant at Sophos, on the humble press release…

So, you are a company with something to say, and you think the best way to spread the word is through a press release… 

Now, in my job, I get to see quite a few press releases from a variety of sources, and the difference in quality can be quite simply astounding.  It makes me feel for the journalists who have to scour through these things each and every day searching for something worthy of a story.

How can you tell if your release is going to cut the mustard? Here are some questions you can ask yourself:

Is it really news?

Forgive me if this sounds like an obvious question, but considering the number of releases that seemed best designed to inspire the widest and deepest of yawns, it seems this question is not being asked enough.  In the word 'news', you can clearly see the word "new" - that means that something is happening or is about to happen, or that you have a fresh viewpoint on something that has very recently happened. 

The point here is that timeliness is everything, so don’t waste effort on something that’s already past its sell-by date.

It's news, but will anyone care?

Of course, inside your company, everyone might be thrilled to bits about the latest upgrade or version of your product, but the point of a release is to try and appeal to a wider audience.  Answer the question in the first paragraph of why the journalist should give two hoots about the subject matter.  Back it up with independent views as to why this is important information.  Offer proof that this has a significant impact on your potential readership. 

By pretending to be the recipient of the release, you stand a better chance of writing a story worth publishing.  And bear in mind that some news is best kept for the internal company newsletter…

Is the piece punchy?

The point of a release is that journalists can read it and grab the info they need for a good story, but that doesn't mean that you should clutter it with tidbits of unnecessary peripheral information that complicates the release and confuses the reader.  The KISS rule - yes, that old chestnut - is invaluable here.  One main point and a maximum of three supporting points is good advice to follow. 

Another thing to remember is to be clear in your sentence construction.  I cannot tell you how many releases I have seen with loooooooong, convoluted sentences that take me back to my days of studying Latin.  Press releases shouldn’t be littered with modifiers and marketing speak.  Just say what you want to say.  A good trick here is to read it out loud.  Does it sound interesting and, well, punchy?

Don't talk, just kiss

By Tom Kirkham

Surprise surprise - according to research from Dial-A-Phone, Brits are now totally addicted to mobiles, to the extent that more than 70 percent of people will never, ever turn them off, irrespective of location, time of day or night, who they're with or what they're doing.  As Telecom TV puts it, mobile phone etiquette is dead - the urge to communicate is just too great to resist.

Now I'm not currently addicted to mobile phones (though I appear to be addicted to blogging about them, which is possibly more disturbing), but I know what a blight they can be on your everyday life… 

You know you're getting a call - you can feel the vibration - but you're reeeeally not supposed to take it, because you're in the middle of breaking up with your girlfriend, or you're receiving disciplinary action at work (perhaps for spending too much time on your phone), or you're about to assassinate a world leader and only have a five second window in which to pull the trigger.

I think most people would recognise that on balance, mobile phones are a good thing, but it's slightly concerning that they're invading so many different areas of life.  I mean, have you ever received a phone call from someone on the toilet?  Sadly I have, and it should be noted that everything the person said was rendered completely irrelevant by the distracting trickle I could hear in the background.  Yet according to Dial-A-Phone, 57 percent of men are perfectly comfortable with using both hands in this way. 

What's more, 46 percent of women would happily answer the phone while having sex.  Surely this is going to lead to a major argument... unless of course their partner is already taking a call of their own.

So how do we prevent these rapidly eroding standards of decency from further decay?  Well, operators could ramp up their voice tariffs and start subsidising video calling, which would presumably alter the percentages somewhat.  Staff at theatres, hospital wards and the like could start physically ejecting anyone caught using their phone.  And of course, the outraged minority could start refusing to communicate with anyone engaging in inappropriate mobile behaviour - if you hear that trickle, or suspiciously heavy breathing, then you hang up immediately and don't speak to the person ever again.

But seriously, this whole problem is symptomatic of the fact that when it comes to technology, we often take things too far.  There are problems, and we solve them, but then we go beyond solving them to the point where it becomes ridiculous - where people start using sat-nav to go to their local cornershop, or worse - using the Microsoft Office Assistant...

And so I end this blog with a plea to anyone currently considering making or taking a call at an inappropriate moment - in the words of Right Said Fred, "don't talk, just kiss" (or go to the bathroom without your phone).

Big Brother – you ain’t seen nothing yet!

By Ryan Whelan

Each year, millions of us in the UK tune in to watch the latest series of Big Brother, but what many people don’t realise is everyday we’re increasingly taking part in a similar series ourselves.  With CCTV everywhere, biometrics in passports, fingerprint scanning to enter the US and more on the way, the surveillance society of Orwell’s 1984 seems closer than ever. 

With more than four million cameras, Britain is already the CCTV capital of the world and there are now plans to introduce road pricing, which will mean purchasing a tracking device to fit in your car.  This device will monitor your every movement via road, pretty much the same as an oyster card does.  If these plans come to fruition, we will no longer be able to travel unmonitored, unless we walk everywhere - and even then, most of us have mobile phones that are capable of pinpointing our location.

The latest example of ‘Enemy of the State’ Britain was splashed all over the front page of the Metro the day after I decided to write this blog: a story about the government’s plans to unleash a ‘super-database’ of our personal details, apparently in a bid to ‘improve public services’.  It just gets better, doesn’t it? 

OK, so what ‘improvements’ are the Government actually talking about?  There are two main reasons why it wants to introduce all this big brother technology. 

Firstly, to save itself the embarrassment of making stupid mistakes like contacting one family 44 times in a six-month period to confirm details of a fatal accident.  But secondly, and more pertinently, because the Government has a real problem dealing with criminal and terrorist activity in an intelligent way. 

So, as a result of its inability to find the real criminals, we’ll all be treated like one, just in case.  And this is despite the fact that the government itself has admitted that approximately one third of people whose DNA records are held on police files have not been found guilty of any crime. 

The madness doesn’t stop there.  Just when I thought it was safe to leave the country to escape from the all seeing eye, I read about a system that the US government has been quietly operating for years – the Automated Targeting System.

Many of you reading this will have visited the states in recent years and have had your fingerprint scanned – but what you probably don’t know is that you will have been investigated and assigned a score before you even leave for home.  The score is supposed to represent the terrorist threat you present, but you are not allowed to see the score, find out what information was used or challenge the score.  What’s more, it is kept on a database for 40 years.  This is technically illegal as it appears to contravene restrictions that forbid assigning risk scores to people who aren’t on a ‘watch list’…

We live in a world where presidents and prime ministers talk about removing dictators and introducing democracy.  However, in their own countries, they plan to use technology to do the opposite, by making it compulsory to hand over biometric info and install in-car tracking devices (although we can try to fight this one by signing this petition).

This all underlines the fact that governments habitually abuse advances in technology for their own benefit – I don’t know about you, but this isn’t exactly my vision of e-Government…

(and if all this isn't worrying enough, just check out some of the other ideas currently under review by the Government)

Pardon my English!

By Marjorie Meyer

So, here I am, writing a post for Johnson King’s blog…  Oh, but pardon my French!  From now on, we French are meant to erase the popular and well established word “blog” and swap it for “bloc-note”.  However, I’m sure this term is never ever going to be used by any French person over here!

This article on Silicon.fr made me gently smile.  In 2005, the same journalist reported the following: we should say “arroseur” (arroseur means waterer) instead of spammer and ASFI instead of Wi-Fi.  Well, I have never read this anywhere nor heard someone say that and we are now in 2007!

But do we really have to fear that Shakespeare’s language will crush Molière’s langue?  It reminds me of a conversation I had with a journalist who was pretending not to understand me when I said “set-top-box”. “Could you please speak French” was the answer I was given. I thought this was a joke given that she was a journalist supposed to be specialised in new technologies – but no.  So, next time I call her, I promise to say “décodeur numérique” to be sure she lends me an ear.

Isn’t it a bit ridiculous to turn English words into French when they have been used in the everyday language for a while?  We use loads of English terms, especially in the IT sector, and it is probably because most of them are easier to say, shorter and less pompous than they would be in French...

iPhone, but will wePhone?

By Tom Kirkham

As industry trade shows go, Macworld Expo must surely have the edge over the likes of Storage Expo and Aircraft Interiors Expo in the coolness stakes (though feel free to email if you wish to dispute this).  This year, the event has made the national front pages, largely thanks to Apple's most anticipated launch since the iPod: the iPhone.  But while it's slim and it's sexy, and I'm admittedly feeling a little seduced, this time I'm not sure if the world is going to fall in love.

Steve Jobs claims, "the iPod changed everything in 2001", and he's absolutely right - it completely revolutionised the music industry and has gone a long way towards killing the CD. However, the iPod was essentially a brand new device.  Yes, there were a couple of MP3 players floating around, but the iPod’s design and capacity made the format mass-market and - through close integration with home computers and the internet - has transformed the way people purchase music.

Now the iPhone is certainly as visually appealing as the iPod, but for all of its touch-screen-based ergonomically advanced aesthetically pleasing lovely-rita-meter-maid-playing features, it's still a mobile phone - not a new class of device - and one with an established set of criteria.  For instance, handset manufacturers continue to put number keys on their phones because the market has (so far) refused to accept anything more advanced.

Apple isn't creating the market this time around, it's entering an existing one in which handsets are heavily subsidised, churn is massive, and operator tariffs play a huge part in determining which handsets people choose.  As The Register has pointed out, Apple's primary focus should be on bigging up the iPhone to operators rather than customers.  Given the huge investment made in 3G in Europe, and the emergence of technologies like HSDPA, trying to sell in a GSM handset over here also represents a potential stumbling block.

It would be foolish to predict out-and-out failure for the iPhone given the colossal strength of the Apple brand, and the company's unerring ability to make grown men drool.  But the mass-market will surely need a lot of convincing if it is to embrace such a radical new design, especially since some people have owned bog-standard mobiles for years and still haven't figured out how to send a text properly. 

It's a tough one to call, and should it succeed or fail, Apple surely deserves credit for the scope of its ambition and sheer audacity.  What's more, there are only a handful of companies that have ever managed to create such mass obsession with a single product - and this despite the fact that iPods usually break after about twelve months!  It's a company with a blueprint for success, and who knows... if there are enough gadget freaks that get genuinely turned on by hi-tech toys (I'm thinking there are a fair few in the JK office), the iPhone could just push the Apple brand even further into the stratosphere.