The Brooks Review

Author: Ben Brooks

  • Freemium Mobile Gamers Spend Most Money on Items They Don’t Keep

    Jeferson Valadares on the Flurry blog:

    >The chart shows that over two-thirds of all items purchased in iOS and Android freemium games are consumable, goods that users deplete. Measured another way, approximately half of all real dollars spent within all apps are for game items consumers don’t keep. Based on our data, the most popular virtual purchase, consumable or otherwise, is for “premium” in-game currency.

    This is an industry they are predicting to surpass $1 billion in revenue — this year. This is astonishing to me and being that I am not in the group that plays these types of games, I just can’t see the motivation to buy in-app currency to use — especially knowing that I will have to buy it again at some point.

    Again, no judgment — I just don’t “get” it.

  • Lion Is More Painful Than Vista? Hardly

    [Adrian Kingsley-Hughes wrote a link bait article](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/os-x-107-lion-is-more-painful-than-vista/14242) one that I was going to let pass, but then I got to thinking about it and — well — I got a little more pissed.

    First things first: Lion has bugs. I know this and admit this — I have been using it since the first Developer Preview came out and I know first hand how annoying some of these bugs are.

    Kingsley-Hughes writes a hardware column, not a software column. Now this doesn’t mean that he can’t comment on Lion, but perhaps he should be extra careful when doing so and double check what he is really trying to say. Even so he installed Lion on his Mac mini and reports three problems.

    Each of these three problems are rare oddities that a vast *minority* are experiencing. The third one, though, is a specific problem with iMacs — yet Kingsley-Hughes claimed to have installed Lion on a Mac mini. Maybe he has both, but if that is the case I — the reader — want to know if he is having the issues on both machines, because that would lead to a far more credible tale.

    Kingsley-Hughes’ end conclusion is the Lion is far worse than Vista — oh really? I think what he maybe meant to say is that Lion is the Vista of Mac OS X (still wrong, but a better comparison), but that is *not* what he did say.

    I had Vista Ultimate two weeks after it came out, I know what Vista was like. Let me tell you some of the issues I had:

    1. There are literally two disks to install Vista with, a 32-bit and 64-bit. So even after I decided between the seven or so different versions I still had to figure out which version of the OS to install. Yay me! Now you maybe thinking well that is easy, what kind of processor did you have. Do keep in mind that Vista came out right around the same time that consumers started to get their hands on 64-bit Intel chips. I actually didn’t know there was a difference in the disks and installed the 32-bit version only to have to install the 64-bit version later on.
    2. My sound card didn’t work. In fact my sound card wouldn’t work for another month after the install. Yes, for an entire month that computer had *no sound*. I went out and bought a USB sound card to use for gaming, but it didn’t work either (I can’t remember if I even got it working).
    3. Every ten seconds a dialog popped up asking if I would allow access (or something along those lines) to program/process/activity X. That was *fun*.
    4. My older games — the games that I ran a Windows box for — they mostly were not useable. After a few months most of the games were patched, but you know that took a FEW MONTHS.
    5. It took about a month (that’s being generous) before the graphics drivers were up to speed and fast enough to game with.
    6. Oh, did I mention that there was *no* upgrade path from Windows XP Pro and so any Vista user **had** to do a fresh install? [True story](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Upgrading-from-Windows-XP-to-Windows-Vista). Now this was the 32-bit OS to 64-but OS, but just look at that linked table of the upgrade options a user has. Crazy right?

    So *even if* Kingsley-Hughes is having random crashing, wifi dropping and “videos freezing iMacs” — even if those are all real — he *still* has a useable computer when those things are not occurring, which is likely not that often despite his best attempts to “prove” otherwise.

    With Vista my computer was barely useable, and honestly wasn’t useable for what I wanted to do on it for months.

    Lion is not worse than Vista and saying so is a flat out lie.

  • Lie to Yourself

    MG Siegler on Google’s statement that Motorola will be left as a separate company and will not change their relationship with other Android partners:
    >I actually believe that Google believes that (or at least that many higher-ups at Google believe that). I just don’t believe it will be possible. And I think that eventually, Google will recognize that it won’t be possible.

    His entire post is spot on. Google is not trying to lie to others — no — Google is believing a lie they told to *themselves* and is in turn telling that lie (unknowingly) to others as a truth. You should really read his entire post to see what I am talking about.

  • “Me-too Android Handset”

    John Gruber:
    >Why do Motorola’s products matter? Which one of their products is actually important in the market, and not just another me-too Android handset?

  • “Awkward Situation”

    This is a fantastic look by Florian Mueller at the Motorola-Google deal and the $2.5 Billion breakup fee that Google will pay if the deal doesn’t go through. The long and short of it:

    1. There *is* concern that this deal will not go through by Motorola.
    2. Actually, I’ll let Mueller address this:

    >If regulatory scrutiny delays the closing of the acquisition, Google could end up buying a company that is formally enjoined from importing Android-based devices into the United States. That would be a really awkward situation.

    Awkward indeed.

  • Rope-a-Dope, Indeed

    Spot on and awesome. Read the entire post. I saw the post in question this morning and couldn’t believe how bad it was.

  • What the Price Paid Says

    Florian Mueller:
    >Google said in the conference call that it would operate Motorola Mobility as a separate business, but the price Google agreed to pay is not reflective of the value of Motorola Mobility as a stand-alone business: that’s the kind of price paid by a strategic buyer who plans to use the acquisition target as leverage for its (Google’s) own core business.

  • Are Software Patents the “Scaffolding of the Tech Industry”?

    Timothy B. Lee has a great look at the ‘patent problem’:
    >The key question is whether patents have a net effect of encouraging innovation. And there’s no reason to believe this is the case. To start with, a big chunk of patent revenues simply flows to patent lawyers.

    See also his statement on failed companies:

    >But the reason the auctioned patents are valuable is usually because the winning bidder will turn around and demand licensing fees from the failed company’s more-successful competitors, effectively punishing success.

  • “Protecting the Ecosystem”

    Google’s acquisition of Motorola for a surprisingly low $12.5 billion is a rather concering proposition. Not when you think about the acquisition in terms of Google “wanting to control the hardware for Android handsets and tablets”. If you think about what Google really got things get all the more concerning, but first you must believe what [MG Siegler believes](http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/06/ive-abandoned-my-boy/):

    >Increasingly, Google is trying to do everything. And they have the arrogance to think that they can. And it’s pissing people off.

    I have a hard time arguing against that notion. Certainly everything doesn’t truly mean *everything*, but when an Internet search company starts creating self-driving-cars — well perhaps everything really does mean *everything*.

    You can’t take statements like this one by CEO Larry Page seriously:

    >The combination of Google and Motorola will not only supercharge Android, but will also enhance competition and offer consumers accelerating innovation, greater choice, and wonderful user experiences.

    Because the preceding statement is:

    >Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies.

    “Increase competition” is a flat out lie, unless of course you mean between patent litigators in the courtroom.

    24,500. ((Technically 17,000 owned with another 7,500 or so pending.))

    That’s how many patents Motorola owns — that’s what Google is buying, everything else is a fringe benefit to Google and a potential disaster to competitors.

    ### Everything

    This acquisition is about far more than getting handsets and tablets — if that was all Google wanted they would have been far better buying HTC or Samsung, as these companies make more compelling hardware. What Google is getting in addition to the Android devices and the patents is:

    – Home telephones
    – Radios (walkie-talkies)
    – Modems/ routers

    The first two are a bunch of “meh” the last item is where things get really interesting. Google now not only owns patents and a “complete” Android experience, but they also bolster their ISP ambitions with the addition the Motorola modems.

    Motorola has long made the best modems a consumer can buy for their home DSL/Cable connections — Google now owns that. That prospect scares me as the last thing I want is a party with a vested interest in what, where, and how I browse the Internet to be standing between me and the Internet. Google is now that party — of course they may never leverage it, but do you *really* believe that?

    How long before there are Google branded modem/routers on the market that tout Google cloud features as the benefit? That scares me a lot, mostly because Motorola SurfBoard modems are so good.

    ### Back to Android

    Let’s get back to the meat of this acquisition: Android.

    [Mike Cane fears for Android](http://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/google-pulls-a-zune/) partners and thinks they may suffer the same fate as Microsoft MP3 partners did when the Zune came out:

    >This is exactly the position every single Microsoft partner using PlaysForSure DRM for MP3 players was in when Microsoft announced its own player, the Zune. They all dumped their products.

    I don’t see the same happening here, mostly because handset partners seem to be in far greater denial — more on this in a bit.

    In an interview for a [site on the Internet, Peter Kafka asks](http://allthingsd.com/20110815/gulp-google-buying-motorola-mobility-for-12-5-billion/):

    >Q: How does this change Android from partner perspective? Do you think MSFT now positions itself as a “neutral” platform?

    To which he gets these two response:

    >Page: No change to Android. Still an open ecosystem.
    >Rubin: Nothing changes. Motorola remains a separate business. This is about “protecting the ecosystem, and extending it as well”

    That’s a hard line to swallow even if you aren’t an Android licensee. Does any one really buy that crap? I think by now the Internet itself has by and large proven that Android is not-so-open and that Google hasn’t really done much to “protect the ecosystem”.

    Android may have more “open” facets, but it is not really *that* open in the respect that most open source software is. This acquisition will eventually wake Google up to the fact that they need more proprietary software.

    [Craig Grannell thinks](http://reverttosaved.com/2011/08/15/google-buys-motorola-mobility-offering-the-potential-of-apple-like-android-ecosystem/) such an acquisition will be able to up Apple’s game and create some of the best handsets out there. I can see the potential for that, but I also saw the potential for Google Wave and other failed Google offerings.

    This acquisition only has potential for as long as it can hold Google’s attention — thus far nothing other than Adwords and Gmail has been able to hold that attention for very long. Even Google searches are becoming less accurate than some smaller upstarts ([including Bing](http://www.infoworld.com/t/search/surprise-bing-tops-google-in-search-accuracy-035)).

    If you don’t believe — then explain why Motorola will be left as a “separate” company instead of rolled into the fat of Google? You will never get an Android device that controls the experience in the same way that any Apple product can if two separate companies are making the device. If — IF — Google had sought to actually make Motorola a part of Google then I could give that notion some thought, but that’s not the goal.

    Motorola will remain separate so that Google can drag Motorola’s name through the mud with patent disputes — I have seen that tactic somewhere else… ((Lodsys.))

    Kevin C. Tofel has a nice take on the purchase over at GigaOM [saying](http://gigaom.com/mobile/will-hardware-makers-trust-google-after-motorola-buy/):

    >The situation is akin to Microsoft buying Dell: Would HP and others be happy about that?

    That’s spot on, but he left out the fact that Microsoft would have to still be trying to convince HP that “everything’s cool bro”.

    Again at [GigaOm Darrell Etherington](http://gigaom.com/mobile/with-motorola-purchase-google-buys-a-seat-at-the-patent-table/) makes an excellent point:

    >Also, if Google is serious about ensuring that this deal doesn’t negatively affect its relationships with other hardware partners, it can use the purchase to at least try to ease some of the patent pressures being applied to Samsung and others.

    In other words Google is going to majorly tip its hand when they do, or likely do not, step in with their new found patent holdings to help out competing companies (because now Samsung and HTC *are* competitors to Google, as much as they are partners).

    [Of course Google has refuted all of this by putting up some choice quotes from Android partners](http://www.google.com/press/motorola/quotes/). Which leaves smart people asking: what was the question that was asked to get these quotes?

    I think the question was: How do you feel about Google buying Motorola’s *patents* to protect Android partners?

    When the question really should have been: “How do you feel about your licensor now buying a company to *compete* directly with your company?”

    That would have told a much different story.

    As [Dan Frommer points out](http://www.splatf.com/2011/08/google-motorola/):

    >Google would finally have a real business model for Android! Instead of just giving everything away for free for a cut of advertising revenue, Google is now in the position to bring in hundreds of dollars of revenue and profit per smartphone sold, the way other companies do.

    How any Android “partner” could read that and *not* be worried is beyond me.

    Lastly I leave you with some choice [wisdom from Horace Dediu](http://www.asymco.com/2011/08/15/the-perils-of-licensing-to-your-competitors/):

    >The lesson (and warning) was that a licensor that is also a licensee makes other licensees uncomfortable. The supplier is also a competitor. This is classic channel conflict and never ends well.

    >Open or not, with or without equity, these arrangements are always unworkable.

    Now who is more naive when Google states they are “protecting the ecosystem” with this purchase? Google, or Google’s partners?

    Update: A few have said that the Modems/Routers may not go with this deal. As far as I can tell the consumer grade stuff is a part of the Mobility group — though I may be wrong.

  • The Problem with Average Star Ratings

    Spot on.

    [via Amitava B]

  • [SPONSOR] Scheduling App

    Scheduling is web based employee scheduling software that takes all the pain out of making and posting work schedules. People can easily request time off, use the company wall to communicate and post documents, and their work schedules get emailed automatically. There’s a 30 day free trial with no credit card required, and you can use the coupon code BROOKSREVIEW for 50% off your first paid month.

  • Goodbye, Cruel Word

    Steven Poole on leaving Microsoft Word:
    >Microsoft Word still uses the metaphor of the page, the computer screen that imitates a blank, bounded sheet of physical paper. For me, this is outdated and unimaginative. It has become a barrier rather than a window.

    His entire article is a fantastic read and really shows “the light” that was triggered for me when I stopped using “page layout” programs to write in. ((I define ‘page layout’ programs as anything that wants you to save the formatting of your text in a way that said formatting would be lost if the ‘document’ was to be opened in a plain text editor. More importantly anything that shows “page breaks”.))

  • Nintendo’s Pressure to Make iOS Games

    Marco Arment commenting on the strategy of a company like Nintendo selling iOS versions of their games:

    >I’m not even sure that their brand recognition is relevant enough in these markets to guarantee that their games would do particularly well there. How much of the iOS gaming market is too young to have much loyalty to Mario and Zelda? (And how much of the Facebook gaming market is too old?)

    I’d go a step further and suggest that it’s not just the brand recognition, but that the fundamental way that games make money has changed. Nintendo made money off of: hardware, accessories, and games. Zynga and others makes money off of: fake currency, ads, and in-app purchases.

    How do you make Mario into a game that sells for nothing and has IAP to make up for the difference? Game play, not just hardware, has changed. Nintendo hasn’t.

  • Converse for iPad

    This looks massively clever, what a great little tool.

  • AFP: Apple, Publishers ‘Sued for Price Fixing’

    AFP:
    >”We intend to prove that Apple needed a way to neutralize Amazon?s Kindle before its popularity could challenge the upcoming introduction of the iPad, a device Apple intended to compete as an e-reader,” Berman added.

    Apple *may* have been a party to actions publishers took with regard to price fixing, but if the entire argument depends on proving that Apple was worried about its fully-functional tablet competing with an eInk reader — well you will lose that argument. Apple never made the iPad so that it would be *just* an e-reader, never.

    This sounds like someone dragging the Apple brand into something to garner more attention.

  • RIM Forced to Rewrite Its Playbook Again

    Ina Fried, reporting in 2011 — contrary to the fact that it sounds more like 2010:
    >In the meantime, the shift means it will be even longer before RIM has a tablet capable of connecting to the Internet without Wi-Fi or a nearby BlackBerry.

    Someone needs to put RIM out of its misery at this point.

  • Theodolite from Hunter Research and Technology

    My thanks to Hunter Research and Technology for sponsoring the RSS feed this week to promote Theodolite. This is one of those apps that make you feel like you are carrying a ‘Q’ issued iPhone — it’s just really damn neat.

    The best way I can describe it is that Theodolite is like your eyes coupled with live data from a computer. You get all sorts of things to see: angles… well truly you get a bunch of data that may never be very useful, but that looks pretty sweet.

    From where I sit the top of the door across the room is elevated at +8.5 degrees from here — the knob is -2.3 degrees from me. Theodolite is very choice.

  • The B&B Podcast – Episode 22: Fo’ Drizzle

    This is a good one to listen in on. Shawn takes over reading the ads and does his best “radio voice”, while he also *attempts* to tell some jokes. Oh and we talk about Internet speed stuff, backlit keyboards, and standing for work versus sitting.

    Many thanks to our sponsors: [Paste Interactive](http://pasteinteractive.com/) and [InVision](http://www.invisionapp.com/)

  • Quote of the Day: Russell Brand

    “If we don’t want our young people to tear apart our communities then don’t let people in power tear apart the values that hold our communities together.”

  • The Patent System Is *Kind* Of Broken

    Yesterday [Nilay Patel posted a massive overview](http://thisismynext.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system/) of the U.S. Patent system. I skimmed most of it once I got half way through — the tone didn’t sit well with me. I am linking to Marco Arment’s comments on the post as this statement really got me thinking:

    >Spoken like a true lawyer: yes, the courts have given lawyers a lot of tools with which to defend patent lawsuits, but only those that actually reach the point of being heard in courts.

    You should read all of Marco’s comments as I 100% agree with him.

    Here’s another thought bouncing around my head: If we changed it so that patent disputes were decided through the USPTO instead of between lawyers — and sometimes courts — I wonder how much *less* that would cost everyone.

    That is: is what is being patented the problem? Or are the courts the problem? Or are the over worked USPTO staff the problem? Or are the laws the problem? Or are lawyers the problem?

    Don’t get me wrong, I like lawyers and think they serve a valuable purpose, but how many less patent disputes would we have if instead of a room full of lawyers it was a room full of USPTO staff and inventors — presumably people with direct knowledge of the patent and technologies and inventions at hand. ((Again this is not a solution, just a thought. Also this is not what Marco was saying, just something that he prompted me to think about, personally.))