I’ve seen so many consoles come and during my years as a gamer. I remember the old rivalries back in the day between the stalwart Nintendo fans and the just as dedicated Sega followers. As time went on Nintendo’s dominance became hard to push back against and Sega struggled to face up to the competition. Sony however made quite a splash with their original Playstation and was arguably the reason behind the transition away from game cartridges to the disc based systems we have today. For the last 5 years or so though there really hasn’t been much of a shake up in the console market, save for the rise of the motion controllers (which didn’t really shake anything up other than causing a giant fit of mee-tooism from all the major players).
I think the reasons for this are quite simple: consoles became powerful enough to be somewhat comparable to PCs, the old school king of gaming. The old business models of having to release a new console every 3 years or so didn’t make sense when your current generation was more than capable of modern games at a generally acceptable level. There was also the fact that Microsoft got burned slightly by releasing the Xbox360 so soon after the original Xbox and I’m sure Sony and Nintendo weren’t keen on making the same mistake. All we’ve got now are rumours about the next generation of consoles but by and large they’re not shaping up to be anything revolutionary like their current gen brethren were when they were released.
What’s really been shaking up the gaming market recently though is the mobile/tablet gaming sector. Whilst I’ll hesitate to put these in the same category as consoles (they are, by and large, not a platform with a primary purpose of gaming in mind) they have definitely had an impact in the portable sector. At the same time though the quality of games available on the mobile platform has increased significantly and developers now look to develop titles on the mobile platform wouldn’t have been reasonable or feasible only a few short years ago. This is arguably due to the marked increase in computing power that has been made available to even the most rudimentary of smart phones which spurred developers on to be far more ambitious with the kinds of titles they develop for the platform.
What I never considered though was a crossover between the traditional console market and the now flourishing mobile sector. That’s were OUYA, an Android based game console, comes into play.
OUYA is at its heart a smartphone without a screen or a cellular chipset in it. At its core it boasts a NVIDIA Tegra 3 coupled with 1GB of RAM, 8GB of flash storage, Bluetooth and a USB 2 port for connectivity. For a console the specifications aren’t particularly amazing, in fact they’re down right pitiful, but it’s clear that their idea for a system isn’t something that can play the latest Call of Duty. Instead the OUYA’s aim is to lurethat same core of developers, the ones who have been developing games for mobile platforms, over to their platform by making the console cheap, license free and entirely open. They’ve also got the potential to get a lot of momentum from current Android developers who will just need a few code modifications to support the controller, giving them access to potentially thousands of launch titles.
I’ll be honest at the start I was somewhat sceptical about what the OUYA’s rapid funding success meant. When I first looked at the console specifications and intended market I got the feeling that the majority of people ordering it weren’t doing it for the OUYA as a console, no the were more looking at it as a cracking piece of hardware for a bargain basement price. Much like the Raspberry Pi the OUYA gives you some bits of tech that are incredibly expensive to acquire otherwise like a Tegra 3 coupled with 1GB RAM and a Bluetooth controller. However that was back when there were only 8,000 backers but as of this morning there’s almost 30,000 orders in for this unreleased console. Additionally the hype surrounding around the console doesn’t appear to be centred on the juicy bits of hardware underneath it, people seem to be genuinely excited by the possibilities that could be unlocked by such a console.
I have to admit that I am too. Whilst I don’t expect the OUYA to become the dominant platform or see big name developers rushing towards releasing torrents of titles on it the OUYA represents something that the console market has been lacking: a cheap, low cost player that’s open to anyone. It’s much like the presence of an extremely cut-rate airline (think Tiger Airlines in Australia) sure you might not catch them all the time because of the ridiculous conditions attached to the ticket but their mere presence keeps the other players on their best behaviour. The OUYA represents a free, no holds barred arena where big and small companies alike can duke it out and whilst there might not be many multi-million dollar titles made for the platform you can bet that the big developers won’t be able to ignore it for long.
I’m genuinely excited about what the OUYA represents for the console games industry. With innovation seemingly at a stand still for the next year or two it will be very interesting to see how the OUYA fairs, especially considering its release date for the first production run in slated for early next year. I’m also very keen to see what kinds of titles will be available for it at launch and, hacker community willing, what kinds of crazy, non-standard uses for the device come out. I gladly plonked down $149 for the privilege of getting 1 with 2 controllers and even if you have only a casual interest in game consoles I’d urge you to do much the same.
As someone who’s been deep in high technology for the better part of 2 decades it’s been interesting to watch the dissemination of technology from the annals of my brethren down to the level of the every day consumer. For the most part its a slow process as many of the technological revolutions that are unleashed onto the mass markets have usually been available for quite some time for those with the inclination to live on the cutting edge. Companies like Apple are prime examples of this, releasing products that are often technically inferior but offer that technology in such a way as to be accessible to anyone. Undoubtedly the best example of this is their iPhone which arguably spawned the smart phone revolution that is still thundering along.
When it was first released the iPhone wasn’t really anything special. It didn’t support third party applications, couldn’t send or receive MMS and even lacked some of the most critical functionality of a smart phone like cut and paste. For those brandishing their Windows Mobile 6.5 devices the idea of switching to it was laughable but they weren’t the target consumer. No Apple had their eye on the same market that Nintendo did when they released the Wii console: the people who traditionally didn’t buy their product. This transformed the product into a mass market success and was the first steps for Apple in developing their iOS ecosystem.
With the beachhead firmly established this paved the way for other players like Google to branch out into the smart phone world. Whilst they played catch up to Apple for a good 3 years or so Google was finally crowned the king early last year and hasn’t showed any signs of slowing down since then. Of course in that same time Apple created an entirely new market in the form of tablet computers, a market which Android has yet to make any significant in roads too. However whilst Google might be making a token appearance in the market currently I don’t they’re that interested in trying to follow Apple’s lead on this one.
Their sights are set firmly on the idea of creating another market all of their own.
For products that really bring something new to the table you really can’t beat Project Glass. Back when I first posted about Google’s augmented reality device it seemed like a cool piece of technology that the technical elite would love but if I honest I didn’t really know how the wider world would react to it. As more and more people got to use Glass the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive to the point where comparisons to the early revisions of the iPhone seem apt, even though Glass is technically cutting edge all by its own. The question then is whether Google can ride Glass to iPhone level success in creating another market in the world of augmented reality devices.
There are few companies in the world that can create a new market that have high potential for profitability but Google is one of the few that has a track record in doing so. Whilst the initial reviews are positive for Glass it’s still far from being a mass market device with the scarce few being made available are only for the technical elite, and only those who went to Google I/O and pony up the requisite $1500 for a prototype device. No doubt this will help in creating a positive image of the device prior to its retail release but getting tech heads to buy cutting edge tech is like shooting fish in a barrel. The real test will be when Joe Public gets his hands on the device and how they integrate into our everyday activities.
Security is one of those things that many people put aside when developing a new product since it’s one of those things that doesn’t get you any closer to launching and adds no face value for your end users. For many people it’s usually the last thing on their mind until they have an incident, and then afterwards it becomes the top priority (as we’ve seen with Sony recently). With the average data breach running a company something in the order of $7 million you can see why a lot of companies go belly up once they’ve been hit and that’s why I still find it frustrating when new start-ups and companies put security on the backburner. They’re really shooting themselves in the foot.
It’s not like basic security is that hard either. I’ve said in the past that SSL isn’t that hard and I stand by those comments, especially if you’re building something on any of the popular frameworks. SSL is just the beginning though as you can still fall prey to security problems like SQL injection and cross-site scripting attacks even if your site is using SSL for the more sensitive aspects. Again though since the vast majority of new web applications are built on some kind of framework most of this leg work is taken care of for you, as long as you make a token effort to implement them.
I think why I get so uppity about this is because some of the most secure institutions, like banks, fail to implement security on the same level that others, say game developers, manage to do quite well and surprisingly cheaply. The best example of this would have to be Blizzard who implemented their authenticator program to combat the constant problem of accounts being hacked. Compare this to the 3 or 4 banks I’ve had dealings with over the past couple years, none of which have offered me such a service, and you can begin to understand why I’m a little annoyed that my World of Warcraft character’s epics are more secure than the cash I use to pay for them.
It’s not all bad news however as the era of the smart phone has made it possible to replicate two factor authentication quite cheaply. Both Google and Facebook have now made it possible to login to their services using two factor authentication via an application on your smart phone. Whilst I’m sure the vast majority of people will not bother (until after something bad happens of course) it still shows that they’re at least thinking in the right direction, unlike many other services which just don’t bother.
What really surprises me is that how this isn’t a commodity service yet. The idea behind two factor authentication is simple, you have to know something (your password) and have something (your smartphone) in order to gain access to the system with the specified user account. Realistically the password problem is already solved and the second factor is really just a simple random number generator that’s seeded by a particular value that both you and the server know. Couple that with decent time synching (easily done on any phone with GPS) and your well on your way to better security. Sure there’s a bit more too it than that but since I’ve been considering doing this as a weekend project ever since I thought of it should give you a clue to just how easy it is to put decent security in an online service.
I’m hardly an expert at this whole security stuff, hell I bet if you hacked away at any of my projects for 10 minutes you’d find some awesome exploit, but even in this day and age of malware/crimeware/scamware I find it surprising just how lax some people can be we it comes to rudimentary security measures. You’re never going to be able to stop the most determined of intruders but it’s the casual hacker tourists that you want to keep out. Realistically you only need to be more secure than the next guy they have a go at and judging by the terrible level of security present online these days that’s not going to be too hard. So you developers of online web services you have no excuses for not at least attempting to put security into your product and should I catch you sending my login details in clear text over the Internet you can be sure I’ll be the first in line to blast you for making such mistakes.
Yeah that’s right, I’m going to blog about you and there’s nothing you can do about it… TAKE IT!
It seems like only yesterday that the world was abuzz with rumours that Google would release a phone with all the non-Apple fans chomping at the bit for something to topple the iPhone giant. The world’s dreams were usurped by Android, which whilst it wasn’t the gPhone everyone was hoping for did signal in a new era of choice for people who wanting something more than Symbian or Windows Mobile but refused to cave into Apple. The past few days have seen the technology world all a fluster with the announcement that finally Google has teamed up with HTC (as if they’d chose anyone else) to create their very own phone, the Google Nexus One. On the surface it looks just like any other recent HTC phone, but I’ve got a feeling that Google wasn’t out to revolutionize the world of smart phones in the way that the iPhone did.
Let’s take a look at the tech specs of it to get a feel for what’s under the hood of this thing:
Impressive, it definitely beats the pants off my old trusty Xperia X1 in terms of raw specs and is quite a step up from the iPhone. Still it’s technically just a HTC HD2 that has a slightly different casing that’s running Android 2.1 instead of Windows Mobile. Being brutally honest this is nothing that a few minutes on XDA developers couldn’t achieve so I’m not impressed with the re-branding effort that Google has gone through (at least Sony created a unique form factor). This doesn’t detract that it’s one of the most powerful Android phones around however, which does count for something.
Initial reviews of the Nexus One are looking positive, with many of them confirming that it is quite good as a phone on its own but nothing earth shattering. The Google brand carries an exceptional amount of weight but it seems many Android users are still lusting after a hardware keyboard, something that I myself have come to appreciate. The omission of multi-touch is a peculiar one since the panel they use in it is capacitive and thus, should be capable of performing such actions. It appears that this might be a legal issue, since the same phone in other countries has the capability built in. Overall it’s had a good reception, but nothing compared to hyperactivity that the iPhone caused.
Taking all this into consideration you’d have to wonder what Google’s motivations were. If they had released the Nexus One at the same time as they did Android you would’ve had quite a stir on your hands. Instead Google released Android into the wild much earlier which was a smart move considering that there is now dozens of Android handsets and thousands of applications available. On the other hand there seems to be a strange mix of sales channels for the Nexus One, with Google offering to sell you the phone outright (for about AU$580) and the traditional subsidiaries offering a cheaper phone with a contract lock-in. Whilst it’s not unusual to have the ability to buy an unlocked (although direct from the supplier is quite rare) it is strange that they’ve managed to slip through a phone that will work with all American networks, yet only partnered with one. Something else must be afoot.
Initially I couldn’t see a point to having Google sell the handsets themselves. In Australia it’s not hard to get yourself a phone that will work with all networks, even when you’re buying from a carrier’s retail outlet. The exception to this is pre-paid phones which are locked to their carrier’s networks, but even they are usually only an unlock code away from being free from the shackles of its carrier. This isn’t the case in the US, with most carriers forcing handset manufacturer’s to make models specifically for their networks so that a handset built for one network will usually have wildly different features (and sometimes even look different) from their overseas counterparts. It seemed counter-intuitive to me at the time but it is in fact an aggressive marketing tactic to drive brand loyalty and helps to keep their revenue streams steady. It would seem however, that Google has decided to take a shot at this tactic.
Offering to sell the phone directly to the customer with no strings attached shows Google’s commitment to open access to communication networks. They’ve been at the forefront of the net neutrality movement for quite some time and their steps into the smart phone space with Android was an attempt to make it more open, and it’s worked. The Nexus One is an organic progression of this idea as it puts the power of choice back in the hands of the users who are no longer chained to a single carrier because of their choice of handset. It’s an interesting move for Google and I can see that T-Mobile decided to get in on the action rather than be against it, although I can’t say whether or not Google attempted to negotiate with the other carriers.
I’ve been looking for a suitable Android phone for developing on and the Nexus One would suit the bill quite nicely. The lack of a true Australian version is something I can probably look past since I wouldn’t be using the Telstra network (Three uses 2100MHz for their 3G coverage) but its still a kick in the teeth for those of us who were lusting after some Google phone goodness. I can’t be sure if it would wriggle its way into daily usage but I’d be willing to give it a try (one of my friends, Brett, has a HTC Hero and it was quite a nice phone to use). Plus there’s something to be said for having a little bit of Google in your pocket 😉