There's no hiding it, technology is everyware! Literally everyware!
Nope, those are not spelling mistakes, it is actually a term coined by Adam Greenfield in his book 'Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing'. In it he describes how we as a civilization will become so engrossed in technology that we will not even notice we're using it. This is true, to an extent, of surveillance cameras in our Urban Space.
When you travel around in your own little world, who is watching? Or even, how many people are watching? We in Britain are the most surveillance heavy country in the world with an averaging number of 4.2m CCTV cameras*
*source from BBC 2nd November 2006
There are some debates over whether these are actually doing the jobs that they were meant for when implemented into society in relation to their cost to the government and to the general tax payers. In an article on Ezine Articles,
"In the UK, where an average person may be watched 300 times a day by the prevalent closed circuit television systems, numerous case studies paired with crime statistics have been used by Britain's Home Office to determine the effectiveness of these CCTV systems and to see how well CCTV saves time and money for their police force. In fact, from 1999 to 2001, the British government spent £170 million (approximately $250 million) for closed circuit television security schemes in town and in city centers, car parks, crime hot spots and in residential areas."
From this quote, the amount of money spent is not always benefiting society in terms of keeping crime rates down. But they are there for a 'peace of mind' for the society, they feel safer walking down a dark street, this is one of the many benefits. They also allow the police to get to the scene of a crime (usually fights caused by ruffians on a Saturday night) without the wait for someone watching to call 999. I agree, there are numerous positive points as well as many negative ones, usually involved in money from the tax payer. But the reason why we pay tax as a nation is that if a day comes when we need the security system, it is there for us. It is exactly the same as the NHS.
Scrap the NHS - I'm going private
If the people who argue against paying tax for the CCTV system that doesn't benefit from their services then surely they should feel the same about the NHS? They are paying money so when, if they are injured, they can be fixed-up freely because the nation has contributed into your recovery. If we didn't pay for the CCTV system as a nation, if your were battling a case in court against a man who ran over a family member of yours and you needed the video evidence of him actually speeding you would not be able to get that footage - unless you paid £X amount of money. It's almost like going private in the NHS - you only pay money for when you actually need it but that often leads to massive amounts of money. In a documentary by Michael Moore called Sicko, a man who lost his fingers in a sawing accident had to pay something like $50,000+ to have ONE finger back on, because he didn't have Health Insurance (or America doesn't support the idea of Universal Health Care because, quite clearly in the documentary, they are scared of becoming a communist nation). That isn't the UK at all, are we not a nation that prides itself in nationalism, full of community spirit?
Then there are people who are so paranoid that they are being watched, they feel claustrophobic, trapped. I'm not like that at all, for me they are a piece of ubiquitous tech, there when needed. This is just my attitude, but, I've got nothing to hide. Until the government starts to go all Orson Wells on us - putting cameras in our homes, then they have my support.
Oh yes, another war has started! Surely there is room for two mobile OS's (Operating System)??
........Oh no, both are fighting for the #1 spot in superiority in mobile technology!
I can remember when phones were like bricks, yes I'm 19 years old, so not like this:
A possibly lethal
weapon
..........but more like this:
Small and Ugly
GREAT!
Back then was a time where mobile phones were just used to call and text people, crazy I know, but now they are utilized as a gaming platform via things called applications or 'apps'. These apps are small programs which are downloaded and installed onto your phone. In the good-old days you would navigate your phone via endless menu lists, now in the 21st century you navigate via a graphical user interface covering an OS. These OS are very similar to ones that work on a laptop or desktop computer and are the ones that are in battle with each other. But this battle has been seen before, on computer OS's MacOS (Apple) and Windows (Microsoft). Now it is the war of the phones, Apple's iOS and Google's Android!
In this blog post I will be focusing mainly on the difference in the two OS's because they are basically opposite in how they function in terms of sharing with their users making this war very interesting.
I will begin with Android first. This relatively new mobile OS has taken the world by storm, mainly because there was a gap in the market. The phone universe needed a new OS, I mean, there was Apple but nothing else really that captured the attention of the customers. The thing is that it is not restricted to only one type of phone, unlike iOS, Android can be installed and used on Samsung's, LG, Motorola, and HTC's. This allowed the customers to keep to their preferred phone make while still making use of the Google OS. Another thing to why it has been attractive to these phone manufacturers is that they can put their own slant on the OS, for the Samsung Galaxy S, the phone is run by Android but Samsung have added their own menu system to keep it their own.
See the video above? Android was released in 2008 and the video clearly shows how popular the OS has become. One of the main reasons why it has become so successful is because of its Open-source software. This kind of software is the tipping point to who will eventually win this OS war because Apple doesn't use this, they are all corporate like. The term Open-source will be explained more later.
Now its Apple's turn! Apple are know for their uber-cool designs and unique products and their software is similar. Apple's iOS was first seen on the original iPhone and nothing has really changed in terms of looks. Today some people are becoming a bit bored of the same look on every software update, compared to Android, who updates regularly with alphabetically organised software names such as Froyo, Gingerbread and Honeycomb (yea! their cool!). But mentioned before, Apple do not support Open-source software. Ok, now I will talk about it...
Open-source is a term used to describe the allowance of the final programming code to the public. It is allowed to be altered and used to structure other creations. From the website, How Stuff Works I think they explain it very well:
"Most software that you buy or download only comes in the compiled ready-to-run version. Compiled means that the actual program code that the developer created, known as the source code, has run through a special program called a compiler that translates the source code into a form that the computer can understand. It is extremely difficult to modify the compiled version of most applications and nearly impossible to see exactly how the developer created different parts of the program. Most commercial software manufacturers see this as an advantage that keeps other companies from copying their code and using it in a competing product. It also gives them control over the quality and features found in a particular product.
Open source software is at the opposite end of the spectrum. The source code is included with the compiled version and modification or customization is actually encouraged. The software developers who support the open source concept believe that by allowing anyone who's interested to modify the source code, the application will be more useful and error-free over the long term."
With Android using this they encourage the users of this code to experiment, but what is to stop them from creating something completely different and compete with the platform? On their website they describe their Governance Philosophy, in it they state:
"Uncontrolled customization can, of course, lead to incompatible implementations. To prevent this, the AOSP also maintains the Android Compatibility Program, which spells out what it means to be "Android compatible", and what is required of device builders to achieve that status. Anyone can (and will!) use the Android source code for any purpose, and we welcome all such uses. However, in order to take part in the shared ecosystem of applications that we are building around Android, device builders must participate in the Compatibility Program.
Though Android consists of multiple sub-projects, this is strictly a project-management technique. We view and manage Android as a single, holistic software product, not a "distribution", specification, or collection of replaceable parts. Our intent is that device builders port Android to a device; they don't implement a specification or curate a distribution."
Now that the source code has been released the community can begin to change and alter it, the community can download the Android Software Development Kit (SDK) allowing them to use the tools to create their open Apps (Applications are one of the main factors to a successful mobile OS). The users of this require no skill at all and once created, can be placed onto Android's Marketplace. This is at the other end of the scale for Apple. Apple as I have mentioned before is a very very corporate business and expects only the best content for its customers. With this in mind your average, Tom, Dick and Harry can't get creating. A subscription charge must be paid ($99 yearly) to get use of the development tools that Apple provide. This allows only the more dedicated developers to get creating leaving all the novice's out in the cold. In my opinion this is a good filtering system. Now, I own an Android phone so I'm entitled to say this, the market place is clogged up with poor amateur apps that are not worth downloading. Whereas on Apple's App Store there is rarely a very poor game mainly because they have experienced developers working in their circle. Oh but you may be thinking surely any novice can pay the $99 and get going, well no. Apple have a rigorous application process. This process can take up to months and even then, the app may still get rejected. The rules are also tightly adhered to, a submitted application is tested and each rule is applied, if it fails it does not get onto the app store - simples!
Here is an example*: A man called Nick Bonatsakis submitted his 'DuckPhone' to the popular fruit business. His app was tribute to the phone seen in Jersey Shore. After a wait the app creator received this:
“Dear Atlantia Software LLC,
We’ve reviewed your application DuckPhone and we have determined that this application contains minimal user functionality and will not be appropriate for the App Store.
If you would like to share it with friends and family, we recommend you review the Ad Hoc method on the Distribution tab of the iPhone Developer Portal for details on distributing this application among a small group of people of your choosing or if you believe that you can add additional user functionality to DuckPhone we encourage you to do so and resubmit it for review.
Sincerely,
iPhone App Review Team”
*Example from crunchgear.com
Notice the reason to why this was rejected: 'Minimal User Functionality' - Whaat!? This is coming from a store that has accepted the app getting the user to hold a button for as long as possible, this to me is minimal user functionality! Later on in the source from crunchgear.com the words, "Apple wants a pristine App Store and will get it at any cost". This summarises their system very well in my opinion.
Their not going easy on Android too, they don't want anything to do with them at all, the word 'Android' has been banned from their store and could result in your application being banned - wow, vicious.
The war will continue I'm sure for years to come, with two very strong competitors in the ring it is hard to tell. Apple with their design and marketing skills and Android with Google as their daddy.
If you have ever played a video game then you will have come across multiple glitches I'm sure, you know the ones, your walking around and suddenly you get stuck on something invisible? Or you can't advance any further over the map because of the 'invisible wall' or 'pipeline'? These are all typical when playing, but can some glitches be used to give the player rewards?
A glitch is simply a programming error that is hard to troubleshoot because it is not apparent to all players and may not happen all the time. Players can use these errors in the computer code to access areas that may be difficult to get to or to get an unfriendly advantage on other players - these people are know as 'Glitchers'. Although most glitches are unintentionally in the games code the developers may put some in on purpose, these give the players some sort of reward, not to help them advance in the game, but just some sort of 'thanks for playing our game and exploring the boundaries, here is a little prize' sort of thing. These are know as Easter Eggs in the video game community.
The first evidence of an in-game Easter Egg is in Atari's retro game "Adventure", it it the player's reward for experimenting with the game. To get this egg the player must:
1. Get the bridge
2. Take it inside the black castle
3. Find the central room that causes the screen to flicker. You must have an object with you to see the flicker, as it takes 3 game sprites to cause flicker (you, the "dot" and the 3rd object, in this case the bridge)
4. Use the bridge to get into the secret chamber in the middle of that room
5. Inside that the secret chamber there is a "dot" -- pick it up by pressing into the lower right corner of the chamber.
6. Take the dot to the main hallway (below the golden castle)
7. Once there the dot will cause one of the hallway barriers to disappear. Note that you need to have another object in the room (key, sword, duck, etc.) to make the barrier disappear. You also usually have to have the "dot" in front of you to go through.
8. You can then enter a hidden chamber that lists a message from the programmers
The history behind this first Easter Egg is that the creator, Warren Robinette, didn't like the fact that Atari did not allow its programmers to get credit for making the game. In his frustration he altered the code allowing people to discover who the talent really was. The message from the programmers mentioned in point 8 is simply his name:
The message: "Created by Warren Robinette"
Ever since, game developers have been doing the same, rewarding players for simply exploring the boundaries of the game. Some examples are shown below:
In this Easter Egg notice how there is no glitch. This is the case in some games, instead of using a fault in the game the developers just place funny events into hard to reach areas, almost all the time they are funny. It is a surprise to the gamers because they are out of place and often link to other popular games, in this case: Portal developed by Valve.
This next one is from Halo: Reach on the Xbox 360, check it out:
This sort of Easter Egg is one that provides the most reward sensation in my opinion. It is hard to get to firstly, the switch placed at the very edge of the map and then the spawning into an unknown tunnel. This egg really keeps the player guessing into what is happening.
One from Assassins Creed 2:
This similar to the Fable 3 one above rewards the player for being curious.
GTA4:
I find Easter Eggs a really interesting point to look at because the developers harness glitches and turn them into something entertaining. They can also just put random things into its structure to make it more interesting too. In an interview from VideoJug they ask a game developer a series of questions, one being, "Why do developers put easter eggs in games?"
His answer:
"I think developers put Easter eggs into games just for fun. It's a nod and a wink to the fans; it's a nod and a wink to the players. An Easter egg is usually a little bit cheeky, but it's good fun and they're always meant in good humour."
If the people who argue against paying tax for the CCTV system that doesn't benefit from their services then surely they should feel the same about the NHS? They are paying money so when, if they are injured, they can be fixed-up freely because the nation has contributed into your recovery. If we didn't pay for the CCTV system as a nation, if your were battling a case in court against a man who ran over a family member of yours and you needed the video evidence of him actually speeding you would not be able to get that footage - unless you paid £X amount of money. It's almost like going private in the NHS - you only pay money for when you actually need it but that often leads to massive amounts of money. In a documentary by Michael Moore called Sicko, a man who lost his fingers in a sawing accident had to pay something like $50,000+ to have ONE finger back on, because he didn't have Health Insurance (or America doesn't support the idea of Universal Health Care because, quite clearly in the documentary, they are scared of becoming a communist nation). That isn't the UK at all, are we not a nation that prides itself in nationalism, full of community spirit? 
