Story & Games

All the roll playing you need.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As a philosopher who teaches aesthetics and a gamer, I find questions about games and art to generally be rather interesting. As I have argued elsewhere, I take the intuitively plausible view that video games can be art. However, even if that matter is considered settled (which can be debated), there is still a rich vein of philosophical issues to mine.

One topic that I and many other gamers often find interesting is the matter of the importance of story in games. John Carmack, who knows a bit about games, said  that “story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It’s expected to be there, but it’s not that important.” Folks who delight in story driven games no doubt disagree with this view and there does seem to be an issue worth discussing here. For the sake of this discussion, I will be assuming that games (specifically video games) can be art. I have argued for this in an earlier essay and hence will not repeat my arguments here.

Obviously enough, there are games that have no story at all and are still fine games. To use the obvious examples, Tetris and Asteroids are story free, yet fine games. Naturally, these are not the sort of games that people debate about when it comes to whether or not story is important. However, it is worth noting these sorts of games because they provide a relatively pure context in which to present two relevant points.

The first is that game mechanisms (that is, the purely game aspects of the game) are reasonably seen as being distinct from the art aspects of the game (that is, the game as art).  After all, while all games are games and some games are art, not all games are art.  This can, of course, be argued against. However, it does have enough intuitive plausibility that it is well worth considering.

The second point is that even the art aspects of a game that is (or contains) art can be distinguished from each other. For example, while Tetris and Asteroid do not have plots, they do have game artwork and sounds (which might be dismissed as mere sound effects rather than having any status as art). As another example, the music and visual art of Halo can be distinguished from each other in that one is music and the other visual art. This point seems reasonable certain.

The matter of the importance of story is most interesting when it comes to games that do, in fact, feature a story. Obviously enough, the story (or plot) of games have varying degrees of integration into the game. For games that have a story, in one end of the spectrum lives the games whose story have an extremely minimal role in the game. One excellent example of this is Serious Sam: The First Encounter. The game does have a story: an evil alien threatens earth and you, as Sam, have to travel in time and kill wave after wave of monsters. That is pretty much it. Despite the rather limited story, the game works amazingly well as a game-that is, it is fun to play. On the other end of the spectrum are games that are heavily story driven, such as Knights of the Old Republic and Star Wars the Old Republic. These games are, not surprisingly, role-playing games. In these games the player takes on the role of a character and spends considerable time talking to non-player characters, making decisions and experiencing the plot unfold. As might be imagined, the story in such games seems to be rather more important than in the typical first person shooter. In the middle are games like the Halo series which have well-developed stories and unfolding plots, but do not actually have any role-playing elements. For example, in Halo your choices mainly revolve on what gun to use to kill which alien in what way.

As might be imagined, the significance of the story would seem to be proportional to its role in the game. After all, a first person shooter whose plot is rather lacking or poor would suffer less than a full blown story-driven role-playing game whose plot is lacking or badly done. That said, it could still be argued that plot is important.

It is tempting to compare a game with a story to a movie and, obviously enough, plot seems to be somewhat important to a movie (although Michael Bay, some might claim, endeavors to prove otherwise). The idea of plot being the most important aspect of poetical works (broadly and classically construed to include theater) dates back at least to Aristotle. To steal his argument regarding tragedy, the following argument can be given for the importance of plot in games that have a story element.

Games are not an imitation of humans (or elves, aliens, or dragons), ”but of an action and of life, and life consists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a quality.” It is, of course, the actions taken by people that  ”make them happy or miserable.” As such the “the incidents and the plot are the end of” the game  and “the end is the chief thing of all.” Thus the story is important, at least on the key assumptions made by Aristotle.

For Aristotle, a key part of having a good plot is ensuring “that the sequence of events, according to the law of probability or necessity permits a change from bad fortune to good or from good to bad.” In more general terms, the plot must be such that the events make sense and fit together to form a coherent whole. In my own experience as a gamer, I have consistently disliked games in which the story fails to meet that basic requirement that events play out in a way that makes sense (except, obviously enough, for games that are supposed to not make sense). After all, if you are running around in a game doing things that make no sense for no apparent reason that leads to nothing, then that will tend to be a disappointing gaming experience (although it would be a fair approximation of life).

The rather obvious reply to this is that there are games that are rather weak in the story department that seem to be great successes as games, thus helping to support Carmack’s claim. This seems to be a rather consistent aspect of the top tier first person shooters-they tend to be marked by weak, implausible or otherwise lame plots but are top-ranked for game play, especially competitive multi-player. As I once jokingly put it, “I don’t really care why I am killing, I just care about whether I’m enjoying it or not.” That, I think, nicely captures the view of most gamers.

Interestingly enough, this view often extends into games in which story would seem to be rather important, such as role-playing games. While some people do enjoy going through all the dialog and getting into the story, my general experience has been that the main focus is on the game-play rather than on the story.  This even extends to my experience in traditional role-playing games, like AD&D and Pathfinder:many players are far more into roll-playing (that is, simply killing monsters in combat) than role-playing (that is, talking to the monsters before killing them).

Getting back to the point raised earlier, namely that the game aspects of a game are not art this does seem to suggest that the story is not as important to the game as the game aspects of the game. Alternatively, it could be argued that the game aspects of the game are still art, but they are a different sort of art than a story. After all, the name of the game is, well, “game” and not “story.” In the case of a first person shooter, the game is (obviously enough) about shooting things from a first person perspective. Story is thus secondary. Even in role-playing games, such as Pathfinder, all the actual game mechanism are about rolling dice, usually while trying to kill monsters who are blatantly and shamelessly holding the loot that rightfully belongs to the party. While the game can be augmented by art (acting, beautiful maps, and well-crafted stories) the core of the game is , it can be argued, the game mechanics. As my friend Ron puts it, “if you are not rolling dice, you are not playing the game. You are just sitting around the table talking.”

The idea that a game should be focused on the game is, interestingly enough, also consistent with Aristotle’s view: “each art ought to produce, not any chance pleasure, but the pleasure proper to it.”

My Amazon Author Page

Gears of War 3: Planet of Steroids

Image by brandon shigeta via Flickr

I have been playing Gears 3 and mainly enjoying it. I can see why it has been well-rated and why it has an often vocal fan base. However, the game does annoy me in many ways which detracts from my enjoyment. I freely admit that my annoyance is based on my own views about how games should be and also based on what I enjoy. As such, I can accept that the game is regarded as great by others, yet is only good as I see it.

While games often have a distinct art style, the character style in Gears makes me laugh a bit: the main male characters are hulk-like steroid monsters with gigantic feet (or they are wearing space Ughs). To me, they look like D&D style dwarfs stretched out to human size. But, I can get over the weird feet and the fact that almost everyone seems to be on major steroids. After all, the violence is pretty awesome.

Being something of a “realist” in regards to gear, I do wonder why the guns and armor have glowing patches (aside from the fact that glowy is in). After all, the armor does not seem to have any powered aspects (shields or strength enhancement) but maybe it works like Bane’s gear: the guys are all puffed up by the armor power. In real combat, no one would want gear that glows-that makes a person an easy target. But, hey, it is a look that the kids presumably like.

Speaking of guns, the weapons in this game seem to be, well, lame. The Lancer, aside from the absurdly cool chainsaw, is a rather poor rifle design for a futuristic weapon. It seems to be on par with an AK-47 in terms of its capabilities. The shotgun is awful as a combat weapon (apparently automatic shotguns with decent range are forgotten in the future). The sniper rifle is like firing a musket in terms of its reload times, which is absurd. But, this is offset by the presence of some interesting alien weapons and the general fun of the game.

I am not a big fan of arcade style gimmicky boss fights. This is mainly because of years of being a DM have conditioned me to believe in a consistent set of game rules and to avoid mere gimmicks as a substitute for original and interesting ideas. The boss fights generally take the usual “the boss is only vulnerable in area X when Y occurs” and the boss attacks by overrun attacks. The berserker fight was, as  saw it, too much of a gimmick and a bit absurd. First, it stands up to a direct strike from a city destroying orbital weapon-but maybe the batteries were low or something. Second, it is only vulnerable when its chest pops open. Why? Third, it spends the battle leaking gallons of fluid that cover large swathes of ground-would it not eventually run dry? But, hey, some people love that stuff.

What I found most annoying was a factor that I am sure many people really like: the domination of the game by the story. While all such games have a fixed outcome and a script, Gears 3 was unable to make me feel that I was not simply following along with the script-I was painfully aware at all times that every event was set and I was just along for the ride. First, as my friend Ron and I were playing, we could predict pretty much everything that was going to happen (“okay, now we’ll just be forced to run back to the next area and defend that”) and it seemed like our actions had no effect. Obviously, games (like movies) are scripted. But a game (and a movie) has to make the audience feel that events are not pre-destined. Gears failed to do that for me. Second, the game only allows the player to make insignificant choices. For example, at a “choice point” I can go left or right-but it makes no difference since (in co-op) mode we just split up for a while and then are right back together. The vehicle combats also feel like being on an amusement park ride: I felt I was just going along for the ride towards a pre-set end. Third, while many of the cut scenes were cool, watching the game show cool things is not as cool as actually doing these things. In many cases it felt like we just fought to the climatic point and then the game resolved it for us with a pre-set cinematic. That served to take me out of the game. Fourth, the characters often made decisions that did not make much sense and went against what I would do and what they should do. For example, when Griffin demands that the player get the fuel for him and takes a hostage, it is absurd to think that the characters would just go along and not simply put a round into the back of Griffin’s head, whack his two minions and then shoot any of his scruffy followers if they got in the way. Of course, my dismay can be chalked up to the fact that the “decision” made by the game designers did not match what I would do-nor what the characters would seem to do given the setting and conditions. Some folks no doubt think that this behavior makes perfect sense and just go along with it.

Overall, Gears 3 is a good game. I don’t see it as great, but I can attribute this to my expectations and views of games.

On Being Freshly Pressed

Image via Wikipedia

Like most folks on WordPress, I see the Freshly Pressed blogs each time I log in. If a title or graphic interests me, I will go and check it out. I was recently pleased to see one of my own posts listed as Freshly Pressed.

There are two main effects of being Freshly Pressed. The first is that the hits to the blog go way up. Second, that post is flooded with comments.

In regards to the blog hits, it might interest some to know that it is a spike in two ways. First, there was a massive increased of hits from previous days. Second, the hits are a spike in that they are very large on the pressed post but there is little spread to the other posts. As such, it seems that people come to see the post and then most depart without looking around much more.

I did notice that the hits were greater on the second day of being Freshly Pressed. But this might be due to the day of the week rather than due to the second day being a spike day. I suspect that the long term impact of being pressed will be very modest or even minimal. My 15 minutes of blog fame, so to speak.

As far as the comments go, I suspect that people are mainly drawn to comment on a Freshly Pressed post out of a desire to funnel traffic to their own blogs. This is, of course, sensible and all part of the blogging game. However, some people are clearly interested in the post itself and have some interesting and relevant things to say. As with the hits, the comments also seem to be a spike. They increased dramatically and center on the post. While I did get some extra comments on my other posts, the comments are clearly focused where they can do other bloggers the most good-on the Freshly Pressed post.

I’m reasonable sure that the hits and comments will soon return to their previous quantities: good, but hardly remarkable. On one hand, I will be sorry to see my fleeting minor fame fade away. On the other hand, being Freshly Pressed is a bit like hosting a free beer keg party: people you don’t know show up, tap the kegs and leave…most likely to never be seen again now that the kegs are dry. While having such a party is fun for a while, having one everyday would get a bit tiring.

In any case, I appreciate the folks at WordPress picking my post and I am glad that so many people stopped by to read, comment, and plug their own blogs.

Kensington Expert Mouse

Image via Wikipedia

When I was a poor graduate student, I wanted to get a Kensington trackball(right) for my Mac. However, the price was way too high for my budget and I settled for a cheaper trackball. Eventually, I forgot about the Kensington when I bought a Microsoft trackball. While people are supposed to loath Microsoft, I found the trackball to be almost perfect for me. Then it finally wore out and I got another one. When that one wore out I found that Microsoft no longer made them. I looked on Amazon and saw that I could get one for a few hundred dollars. While I loved the trackball, I was not in love with it and hence decided to pass.

Looking for a good replacement, I remembered the Kensington. I saw that the Expert Mouse (which is actually a trackball and not a mouse) was on sale at Amazon, so I got one. When it arrived, I installed the software and was prepared for it to live up to the glowing reviews I had read. However, my experience was horrible. The scroll ring seemed incapable of actually scrolling-I would move it and the scroll bars would go up or down seemingly at random. When I clicked on the lower left hand button (set for a single click) it would cause the scroll bars to move and would also sometimes “jump” to other fields. For example, when trying to blog in WordPress it would scroll the main text area, then the categories would suddenly start scrolling up and down. The same sort of thing happened in the Start Menu: I would try to click on a program icon but the click would cause the scroll bars to move up or down randomly instead.

I was not happy and was ready to send the mouse back.

However, I realized that the problems seemed like the mouse was somehow getting two sets of signals and seemed “confused.” I suspected that perhaps the custom Kensington software was somehow at odds with the standard mouse software. To test this, I uninstalled the Kensington software and the problem was solved: the scroll wheel worked flawlessly and the scroll-click problem had ceased.

So, if you run into this problem, uninstall the software. If you want to custom configure the trackball, you can install the software and then remove it after setting the preferences. Interestingly, the button assignments I did using the Kensington software stayed even after I uninstalled the software.

Overall, I really like the Expert Mouse. However, many people are not fond of trackballs, so be sure to give it a try before you buy. Assuming, of course, anyone still goes to a store to buy mice/trackballs.

Kinect

Image by Sascha Grant via Flickr

Being both an athlete and a gamer I find the idea of a more active way to play video games interesting. Then again, I must admit, I often find the actual implementations a bit silly.

One of the latest attempts in this field is Microsoft’s Kinect. I gather that this clever name is derived from “kinetic” and because it sounds like “connect.” At the very least this shows that Microsoft has advanced in its naming methodology since the days of Bob. The gist of this system is that it allows gamers to control the game play via body movements. These are, of course, body movements other than using a standard controller. For example, a player might move her arm to swing a sword or move her legs to move her character in a game.

Since I am in favor of exercise, I think that almost anything that would get people to be more active would be a good thing. Using a system like Kinect would get the player to move more than he would using a normal controller. Of course, this would provide less exercise than actually doing exercise (like running or going for a real walk). But at least the gamer would be off the couch. Assuming, of course, that people actually decide to buy and use Kinect.

There have been various attempts to combine actual physical activity with video game play. These, as you might imagine, generally did not make it into most living rooms. One reason is that people often prefer not to sweat when playing video games. Another reason is that gamers are generally not the sorts of people who are into exercise and people who exercise obviously already do so. As such, it is not clear that there is a substantial market for this sort of technology.

In my own case, about the only thing that would motivate me to buy a Kinect device would be if some truly awesome video game came out that required this. Otherwise I’m content to get my exercise the old fashioned way and to play video games in the traditional manner (my hands on the controller and my ass in a chair).

One minor concern I have about such systems is that they seem to provide the illusion of exercise. For example, consider the Wii system. The Wii controllers were touted by some as a way to be physically active while playing video games. The idea was that players would swing the controller ferociously when sword fighting or swing it like a real club when playing a golf game. However, moving a little plastic stick around is not much exercise. Also, the controller also produces the same results via rather small motions. That is, you can play Wii in the traditional manner (hand on the controller, ass in the chair).

I do think that the sort of user interface being developed by Kinect does have some potential. After all, manipulating virtual objects with natural motions is…well, natural. Also, think of the really advanced user interfaces shown in some science fiction-the user interacts without a mouse or keyboard by using gestures and by manipulating virtual objects by “touch.” While this is currently being presented as a gaming technology, it might become part of a much more general user interface. For example, imagine never losing a remote again because you can control your TV by hand gestures. You would gesture to call up a virtual remote, then manipulate it from across the room. This would allow you to watch TV in the traditional manner (ass on the couch) and you would never have to get up and look for the remote.

Of course, this technology won’t get really cool until Apple starts developing it. No doubt it will be called iTouch or something equally “i” related.

Facebook Patent

Image via Wikipedia

Facebook was recently awarded a patent for streaming feed technology, that is “dynamically providing a news feed about a user of a social network.” Obviously enough, that sort of streaming feed is an integral part of social networks. The most obvious example is Twitter.

When I read about this patent, I immediately thought of the social networks that are associated with online gaming. For example, Xbox Live seems to provide dynamic data about the users. As another example, so does World of Warcraft-accomplishments are broadcast over Guild channels and, of course, characters are updated on the Armory site. I suspect that Facebook will be reluctant to throw down legally with Microsoft over this, but a clever lawyer could probably make a case over this.

One serious concern is that, as noted above, the news feed model is standard fare in social networks.  Depending on how the Facebook folks wish to wield their patent, they could finally find that elusive revenue stream. In this case, lawsuits for patent violation or perhaps gathering up licensing fees.

It might be argued that Facebook should not be allowed such a patent because the news feed model is widespread and well established. This patent, it might be argued, would be damaging to the social networks and also impede progress rather than advance it. However, the fact that many people have “stolen” a patented process does not invalidate a patent. After all, they are intended to prevent just such theft. What does remain to be seen is how far the patent extends and what the folks are Facebook intend to do with their new legal tool.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Facebook granted a patent on news feeds (seattlepi.com)
• Facebook gets a patent on ‘news feeds’ – are you frikken kidding me (inquisitr.com)
• Facebook Patents The Feed (allfacebook.com)
• More Patent Nonsense (avc.com)
• Facebook Granted Patent on the News Feed – This Could Be Very Big (readwriteweb.com)
• Because Without Patents, No One Would Ever Come Up With News Feeds (techdirt.com)
• Facebooks new patent (robbiz1978.blogspot.com)
• Facebook patent will disrupt rival social networks (v3.co.uk)
• Facebook Patents the ‘News Feed’ (blogs.wsj.com)

The Future of TV

Image via Wikipedia

While I’m rather fond of technology and gadgets, it is only recently that I tried Netflix streaming video on my Xbox 360. It was fairly easy to do: sign in via your Xbox Gold membership, download the Netflix app to the Xbox 360, get the code it provides, sign in to Netflix, input the code and you are ready to start streaming. While Netflix is accessed via a Gold Account, it does not actually link to that account, so if you switch your Gold account to another Xbox 360, you will need to go through the activation process once again.

On the plus side, the streaming video is part of  Netflix and does not add to the cost (as long as you have the appropriate level of membership, of course). I found that the quality was quite good-comparable to watching a DVD. Of course, my TV is not HD (yes, I bear that shame), so I could not provide a truly proper assessment of the quality. The only problems I had were with Comcast-but that is not the fault of Netflix. One the downside, the selection of movies is still somewhat limited. While there are some top tier movies, there are also many B grade flicks.

Watching movies stream over my Xbox 360 made me think about the future of cable TV. Not surprisingly, I began to wonder why anyone would pay for premium movie channels when they could get movies they want, when they want. Of course, some premium channels do offer content that is not available via services like Netflix and there are “on demand” services.

I am, of course, not going out on a limb to say that the path of the future is along the trail being cut by services like Netflix (and, of course, online TV like Hulu). In the near future, set programming schedules will be rather limited or perhaps even non-existent. True, media providers will still produce content on their own schedule, but perhaps there will be something like a “daily delivery” of content that people can view at their convenience. For example, the Daily Show might be filmed in the morning and be ready for viewing anytime after noon.

It also seems likely that the convergence of computers and TV will continue. While there have been various lame and failed attempts to merge the two in the past, the technology is clearly much better now. In fact, as I type this, I am watching V on my PC.

The web and the rise of ereaders like the Kindle show that even the printed media is blending even more into the realm of computers. Even radio is being streamed over the net, thus it seems that all forms of media are converging.

On the positive side, having the web, TV, radio and all sorts of media blended together into one super media does make it more convenient to get that media fix. Also, it might save consumers some money-rather than having to buy multiple devices and have numerous types of subscriptions, people might just need one main device and one subscription (or perhaps a variety will still be the order of the day).

On the negative side, media convergence can lead to monopolies and provide an even more reduced pool in regards to diversity of opinion. After all, one concern about the media today is that a few major companies own almost all the forms of media. Such convergence would put even more control into the hands of a even more limited number of people.

Of course, it could be argued that such convergence will allow for greater diversity. After all, almost everyone has access to the web and can thus be content creators. This convergence would allow (in theory) anyone to provide content and thus there would be an expansion rather than a contraction. Of course, this assumes that those in control of providing access will allow such diversity of content. On one hand, they have much to gain for allowing such content. After all, YouTube thrives (but seems to have yet make any money) on the basis of such user created content. On the other hand, companies often desire to control content and set limitations. After all, there has been considerable dispute over net neutrality in recent years.

Of course, normal TV will continue for quite some time. There are still many people who are just fine with it and, of course, there is the weight of inertia to overcome. But, the future, as always, brings change.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Will The Web Destroy Cable?, Ctd (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Netflix Review: Is It Worth It? (bargaineering.com)
• Netflix Claims Americans Don’t Want Standalone Streaming Movie Service (techdirt.com)
• Netflix to Launch Streaming-Only Service…but Not in the U.S. (readwriteweb.com)
• How To Cut The Cable/Satellite Cord And Remain A Couch Potato [Money-saving Tips] (consumerist.com)
• Apple Wants iTunes to Replace Your Cable Box for 30 Bucks a Month [Rumor] (gizmodo.com)

Windows 7

Image via CrunchBase

While I did attend a very nice Windows 7 launch party, I’m still running XP on my main PC and OS X on my iBook (with Windows 2000 running nicely in emulation). I do have Vista on a laptop, but only because it came with Vista and I could never quit muster up the gumption for a downgrade to XP.  Interestingly, though I have used it the least of any computer I own, it has thrown up the most blue screens of death. But, to get back to Windows 7.

My desktop PC (a repair job based on the burned out shell of a friend’s “one fan short” computer) is running XP Pro quite nicely. While I am more of a Mac person, I find XP Pro with Service Pack 3 to be fairly stable and good with resources (of course, it was released almost a decade ago). Most importantly, it does everything that I need an OS to do-that is, it allows me to run the software I use without too much trouble. When Vista was spawned to torment the world, I passed because I saw no compelling reason to “upgrade” to a annoying resource hog. I do not regret that at all.

When Windows 7 was announced, I knew that I would probably have to use it eventually-after all, my PC is reaching the end of its expected life. However, I also knew that I would not be shelling out money for an upgrade. Rather, I figured I would just buy a new PC after Microsoft got around to beating some of the worst bugs out of Windows 7.

Based on my limited experience and research on Windows 7, it seems to be roughly a service pack of Vista. That is, it is basically Vista that works a bit better: it is less annoying, a bit faster, and hogs slightly less resources. However, there seems to be nothing compelling about it-beyond the fact that Microsoft has discontinued XP and soon it will be the only real Windows game in town.

While Windows 7 has some nifty interface features, I can honestly do without them or, if I must have them, I can find some third party freeware to do the same thing. Of course, my view of an OS is to take it as a metaphor for a worktable-it is there to provide the foundation on which I work, not to be getting in my way with fancy features. I am, however, concerned with security and stability. Not surprisingly, I rather like Linux.

Like many people, I find Microsoft’s multiple versions of Windows to be annoying. I rather like Apple‘s approach: have one OS for consumers and a server OS. Don’t have numerous versions that seem to differ only in fairly minor ways (other than cost). Presumably Microsoft thinks that it can make more money with all these versions and perhaps this is correct. When I do buy a new PC, I’ll shop for the best hardware deal and then probably just deal with whatever version of Windows 7 is on there. I’d take a stab at sorting out all the different versions, but that should be something Microsoft makes clear. Fortunately, someone has taken the effort for me.

If you have an XP machine and are happy with it, then it makes sense to just stick with it until it dies. While it might be able to run Windows 7, it makes more sense to use the money for an upgrade and put it towards a new PC. After all, some new PCs are priced close to the cost of a full version Windows 7.

If you have a Vista machine, then you might be eligible for a free upgrade to Windows 7. If you bought your PC on or after July 1, 2009 then you are probably in luck. If you bought before then, then you will need to buy an upgrade. If you are a student, then you can get the upgrade for $29.99.

Of course, my view is that Microsoft should issue a free upgrade to all Vista users as an apology for that mess. At the very least, they should allow them that $30 deal.

Cloudburst

Image via Wikipedia

While some folks have been pushing Cloud Computing as the next great thing, there has been a rather nasty cloudburst. to start things off.  Over the weekend, many T-Mobile Sidekick owners were struck with a lightning bolt from these clouds as owners lost contacts, calendar data, to-do lists, and their photos. This loss was due to a “glitch” at Danger, a company owned by Microsoft. This did not impact all Sidekick owners, but the loss was still significant.

While Microsoft is working on rectifying the situation, this misadventure shows the risks inherent to cloud computing as well as the importance of having a method of backing up data down on earth, away from the clouds.

While this incident should be taken as a clear warning and a chance to learn a valuable lesson (admittedly one that should have been obvious), the cloud does offer some interesting advantages. For example, having data in the cloud means that you can (in theory) access your data from almost anywhere and with a variety of devices. Of course, as this incident shows, being able to access your data is not very useful if your data has evaporated.

This, of course, leads to the old advice: back up your data and put not your faith in clouds. Also, avoid using a device that doesn’t let you back up your data yourself.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cloud Computing is Dangerous (elasticvapor.com)
• With outage, Sidekick service loses its footing (news.cnet.com)
• How Did Danger Not Backup Its Servers? How Did Microsoft Allow Such A Failure? (techdirt.com)
• T-Mobile loses users’ data – shakes our trust in the cloud (downloadsquad.com)
• Microsoft server fails, Sidekick users lose their address book (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Sidekick outage casts cloud over Microsoft (news.cnet.com)
• Sidekick users see data in the cloud evaporate (inquisitr.com)

Chrome

Image via Wikipedia

Google announced that it would be developing its own open source operating system. In a slightly confusing move, the OS will have the same name as the Google web browser, namely “Chrome.”

While the news of Google’s OS has been getting considerable attention, the idea of a Linux based OS with a special emphasis on the web (that is, cloud computing) is not new. Good OS (or gOS) is already on version three. It is essentially Ubuntu Linux with the addition of Google gadgets, plus a lot of talk about cloud computing. Of course, Google is a huge company and enjoys considerable influence. As such its Chrome might have an impact on Windows.

Of course, Google has tried to go up against Microsoft by offering a suite of programs as rivals to Office. So far, Microsoft has had nothing to really worry about. Also, the Chrome OS seems to be aimed mainly at netbooks. While this market has been hot, there is the possibility that it will cool down. More importantly, netbooks are something of a niche-most users (especially business users) use and most likely will keep using desktops and laptops. However, I must admit that I rather like my netbook and recommend them to people who need a light, small and capable computer. Of course, Windows XP recently replaced Linux as the normal install in many netbooks and it will be hard for Google to push Microsoft out and its Linux back in.

If Google is going to make a significant advance against Microsoft, they will need to get Chrome to the good things Windows allows users to do (like run a top office suite) while avoiding the problems of Windows. If they can make an OS that does all they claim it will do, I will probably install it on my netbook, but as a boot option rather than my only OS. After all, I’m not sold on cloud computing, most software I rely on is Windows or Mac based, and I don’t see Chrome being able to properly run Windows games.

Even if Google’s Chrome is not a Windows killer, the entry of Google into the OS business should impact the development of Windows. That is, Microsoft will most likely copy many features of Chrome into the next version of Windows (8 or whatever they call it) or implement them via add ons or Internet Explorer in Windows 7.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Google OS Becomes Reality: Google Announces the Google Chrome OS (readwriteweb.com)
• Google Drops A Nuclear Bomb On Microsoft. And It’s Made of Chrome. (techcrunch.com)
• Google OS to challenge Microsoft’s turf (money.cnn.com)
• Google targets Microsoft with new operating system (guardian.co.uk)