lovehate: The Gates of Seinfeld

The hordes of yea and naysayers hurling their two-bits in about the latest Gates/Seinfeld Microsoft ads have, if nothing else, provided more coverage for the OS giant than almost anything in recent years. And the fact that it may be half good and half bad is at least half better than most of coverage during that time.

It's curious that media critics seem to realize the ads are no different than most other huge companies but... more on that later.

It's the so-called tech experts and bloggers that seem to have the most analysis invested into the most detailed minutae of these spots. On "This Week in Tech" last week, gdgt's Ryan Block performed a deconstruction on the first ad that made the entire spot into an allegory about the "common man's" experience in an Apple Store. On this week's TWiT, John C. Dvorak wondered why the hell Microsoft wasn't "selling" something with such an expensive campaign. Today CNET is reporting that critics are abuzz over the fact that the third installment of the ads will NOT feature Jerry and Bill and, as such, this constitutes a surrender to the bad press and a radical shift in the campaign. Of course further in the article it is revealed that Microsoft actually announced this shift last week and that the dynamic duo would return.

All of this proves one thing: no one is talking about "how bad Vista is" anymore.

Let's get back to how these ads are no different than any other mega-sized company. When was the last time you saw a Nike ad that talked about the new sole design technology or comfortable insoles or crazy grommit technology advancements for the laces. My usual Nike experience is watching someone running in slow-motion while an intended inpsiration passage in read in the background by a famous athlete while a slow string pad crescendos in the background. When was the last time you saw a Coke or Pepsi commercial that talked about the drinks themselves and not just about "wanting to buy the world a Coke" or being "part of the Pepsi Generation". Every McDonald's ad essentially says one thing: "Hey look! We're McDonald's. Try and not be dragged here kicking and screaming by your kids."

Huge brands do not have to sell product, they simply have to sell the brand. The point/counterpoint Apple commercials always have bullet point features that help to explain the great features of Macs because, simply, most people do not have a Mac, most people have not seen a Mac in operation, and most people, if they're going to switch, NEED to be sold on product AND brand but the fact that you will be paying between 30-50% more for an equally-powered system.

A used car lot often has a loudmouth talking a million miles a second trying to explain everything they've got and are selling at lower than everyone else. Commercials from the big automakers show cars whipping around long sweeping mountain curves with techno music pumps up the jam and, if you're lucky, you may get a chromakey blurb or two at the bottom with a logo at the end.

Videogames will often show a bunch of cutscenes strung together with a grandiose synthesized orchestral score. Gatorade will be similar to a Nike commercial with less talking and a lot of orange sweat. How much can you say about potato chips without talking about the thousands of migrant workers that got paid 25% of minimum wage to harvest your Wavy Lay's? How many ads for financial establishments don't include a young or retired couple sitting across from a suit smilling and nodding their heads while words like "easy", "friendly", and "future"?

I'll be the first to admit that these Microsoft ads are clever while not brilliant, and I'm not trying to be an MS Apologist 3.1, but the inner Samuel Beckett in me could not help but revel in the absurdity of the first ad's punchline: "Just wondering, are they ever going to come out with something that will make our computers moist and chewy like cakes so we can just eat them while we are working?" That the agency behind this was brave enough to make it (as every other big company's ads) about nothing, makes me love not the ads themselves, but the mindset that acknowledges the quirky, the bizarre, and the just plain ridiculous still has a place on television. And if anyone spends too much time sitting around WTF'ing their television while these spots are playing, maybe they'll understand when Godot appears.

gates robot

lovehate: Spore v. Reality

Far be it from me to take a cynical view on things (cue crickets and an Edna Krabappel laugh) but am I the only one who thinks that the release of this season's most eagerly anticipated video game experience is surreptitiously constraining its players under the guise of freedom and creativity?

Spore, for those who don't care for video games at all, is a Massively Multiplayer Online game that allows every player to be the god of their own world from the "pimp my bacterium" stage all the way up to their own private Death Star. It promises the freedom to create shared environments that go beyond anything before. It sells itself with the self-gratifying narrative hook: "What they never realized was that all along the way, from humble microbes to starship captains, someone had guided them at every turn... and that someone is you."

Now I suppose my following rationale will all come down to construct of reality that are probably far better left for a professor of metaphysics or Jeff Spicoli, but since neither of them are around, try this on for size. Spore is selling itself on three core ideas: 1) that you will have freedom to exercise your creativity, 2) that your ego will be so satisfied by the fact that you made a creature with a phallus sticking out of its chest, you will have no choice but to propogate your species, and 3) that the game itself holds more creative license over your time and energy than your actual life does.

Let's really take a critical look at a product that's supposed to "foster" creativity.

I realize that the creative process in most aspects of life is frought with parameters that we must learn to live with or submit to in frustration. While a piano player is limited by the instrument and the painter is limited by the canvas, we certainly applaud the pursuits of those artists and craftspeople who, within the boundaries of their fields, work creative achievement to levels we never thought possible. A game like Spore (and Civilization, the Sims and Sim City before it) may work as a noble attempt at entertainment (as subjective as the appreciation for various media is) but it is certainly a step down in basic creativity from even the act of picking up a crayon and coloring outside the lines.

I apologize in advance, but I'm gonna go all aesthetic here (and that doesn't mean I'm getting my eyebrows waxed). The artistic process must be unabridged, untethered, unfetterd and any other "un-" word you care to include. Spore, as any game, is like a giant jigsaw puzzle that needs to be assembled to complete the experience (and I'll admit, in Spore's case, the puzzle look wicked cool and contains millions of pieces). The only way to exercise individual creativity in assembling a puzzle is to screw it up to the point that the picture on the box becomes irrelevant.

One G4TV review of Spore includes: "Just as The Sims tapped into the human need to interact, Spore taps into a very deep and similar experience that few games dare to touch - to create and share." No matter how successful the marketing demographic is for this game, think of how restrictive the concepts of creation and sharing in the manner have become. Players are exercising  constrained "creating" and "sharing" with one type of person (other Spore players) in one type of environment (sitting in front of a monitor) with a mouse and a keyboard. While, to some, this might be entertainment - and party hard Spore-style with your mating dances if it is - the only artistry and creationism I see is on the part of the gamemaker. He has begun to create an unmatched  piece of concept art which includes screenshots of millions of people with glazed eyes and carpal tunnel syndrome playing virtual gods. Will Wright, I doff my cap to the master artist whose powers of manipulation may outstrip most world leaders. Other gamemakers may have more people staring at screens for entertainment value, but you've actually convinced many of your players that their doing something fruitful. You are indeed a master.

The review of Spore in PC Gamer UK reads much more interestingly, "Spore's triumph is painfully ironic. By setting out to instill a sense of wonderment at creation and the majesty of the universe, it's shown us that it's actually a lot more interesting to sit here at our computers and explore the contents of each other's brains." In one sense, I completely agree; it is a lot more interesting to explore the contents of each other's brains... although I would rather say minds so as not to sound zombie-like. It's just a shame that where the platform of interaction used to be face to face, the new exploration consists of keystokes and double clicks.

I've really got nothing against Spore. I do, however, hate the fact that someone, somewhere is going to beatify the game as manna from the heavens when it's hardly that different from the days I used to jack up the taxes in Sim City by one percent so I could build a football stadium... what an artist I was back then!

thinglets: Monster Madlib - InterEx, Mozilla, Safari & Chrome

The story as told through the plot of Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster...

In 2008, a Googlygirl with a small California mountain view, possessed by the spirit of a Yahooan, escaped a bubble just as it exploded. As this happens a meteorite falls from the sky containing InterEx, the monster responsible for her planet's destruction. At the same time, Mozilla and Safari emerge from hibernation and not only attack Webia, but each other as well. Chrome, along with her twin priestesses, attempt to convince Mozilla and Safari to stop fighting each other and to team up to fight the InterEx monster. At the same time, the Googlygirl is being hunted by a group of assassins who want to Cuil her so that her enemies can take over her homeland. Then, just when the only living assassin is about to kill the Googlygirl, InterEx crushes him by knocking over a pile of boulders on him. Mozilla, Safari, and Chrome finally drive InterEx off. The movie ends with the Googlygirl going back to her home land and Mozilla and Safari watching Chrome swim back to Mountain View. 

Ghidorah

lovehate: Monotasking

There's an old insult that still get thrown at people who are either clumsy or obsessive: you couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. As the world turns more wired and media streams at us from all angles, I'm starting to wonder if the insult will soon be turned around to say "you can't just walk" anymore. After all, how many people when walking aren't a) en route, b) plugged in (earbuds or otherwise), or c) waiting to pick up their dog's stool sample?

When I sit in front of the computer, I almost always have the TV on. Sometimes the TV is on (muted) while I'm streaming web radio. Last night I caught myself blogging while watching a podcast in the corner of the screen while the TV was muted and I was involved in two games of online poker. I can multitask with the best of them... I don't know that I can monotask anymore.

While going to sleep, I always have a podcast, music, or TV playing in the background. While walkin' down the street I always queue up my "walkin' 'round" playlist on my Nano, and I wish I could say I was just walkin' 'round to walk 'round, but I'm usually going somewhere instead of just walkin'.

It's the reason I can't live with a browser that doesn't have tabs. A hotel I recently stayed at was still running IE6 and I kept wondering why my clickthroughs weren't showing up in my active window. It's the same reason I have at least two dozen add-ons running in Firefox; I must know as much as possible in the smallest amount of screen real estate possible.

I feel lucky that I'm old enough to still sit through a film without restlessly twitching around. I feel sorry for the 16 year old that compulsively texts during films and then feels it's necessary to discuss the conversations with her friends during the part where Bruce Willis takes out a helicopter with a police car!

I am thrilled that, while enjoying a concert, I don't have to be viewing it through a two-inch digital camera or cell phone screen. That I don't need to shuffle through 50 yards of death march-like meandering for overpriced beer in order to enjoy listening to live music.

I suppose that what Windows was all about though, the burgeoning dawn of multitasking. We've moved into an age of snippet efficiency where the majority of us don't only find it tempting to allow our minds to hop, skip and jump from job to job and back again, we will soon be to the point where we can't do anything but.

I remember, through university, sitting down in front of an archaic PC where the concept of doing anything while typing up an essay was just as impossible as it was impractical - after all, it took hours to download even a few songs from an FTP server on a 28.8 or 56.6 modem as long as the three other people in my house didn't get a phone call. There was certainly no way you were going to be listening to streaming web radio... because, quite simply, there wasn't web radio. And if I tried to burn a CD, I'd was better to even move the mouse around for fear of causing a buffer underrun error.

Technology has allowed us to centralize our multitasking, because, let's face it, ask any parent who's been a primary caregiver and they can tell you all about the history of multitasking, but they put a crapload of miles on every day. My PC's sedentary interface allows me to communicate in real time (and by mail), listen to music, watch video, and then turn around to record and produce my own content. I read, critique, mashup, digg, stumbleupon. I can buy and sell anything while negotiating a home mortgage and investing in an RSP at tax time. I can research any topic and aggregate information, catalogue, hyperlink and blog to my heart's content. And I can do this ALL at the same time while sitting in a chair.

So am I doing more or less? From the micro perspective, there's a lot of stuff going on. From the macro perspective, I'm sitting at a computer, occasionally clicking or keying and really embodying what an outsider would call monotasking. I've become the living metaphor for Jamiroquai's "Travelling Without Moving".

I just wish I could fall asleep without aural and visual wallpaper.

Why can't we just enjoy chewing gum for its own sake?

Cell Show