Children's software: a dismal market in Windows, dead for the MacTel

I've just completed another of my recurrent surveys of the state of children's software for OS X and Windows. The best I could find was this Windows-only site: Software for Kids - Children Educational Software, Child / Kid Game.

The bottom line is that this market is comatose on the Windows' side and worse-than-extinct on the Mac side. The "OS X" software sold may simply fail to work on newer machines -- that's worse than nothing.

As my wife asks, "What happened to the long tail?". I don't really know, I suspect piracy, quality issues, channel problems (marketing) and branding all played a role. I'd say that the consoles were where this market moved, but I'm not sure that's true. I read recently that the gaming market is under threat because there's little available for novices or children.

Is this a market failure, or am I missing something big? In the meantime I think I'll have to, reluctantly, put BootCamp on my MacBook and see how it works. (Parallels won't do the trick, it failed my game tests.) Even in the XP world there aren't many choices, but some of our ancient children's games (many are no longer sold) may run under XP for a while.

(I think I'll need to upgrade my MacBook drive in a year or two -- using BootCamp will suck space.)

Update 11/26/06: I came across this recent related article. The Nintendo Wii is starting to look like the right move at the right time. Kudos to Nintendo if they've guessed right. Of course there was much more to children's software than just games; there's no replacement on the horizon for the rest. One way out of this conundrum would be for Apple to start funding bundled educational solutions and a production platform for third parties to expand on them. It would help sell Macs, and piracy would be less of an issue for Apple.

Populism and electronic guidance of electoral choices

Slashdot has an unusually good submission on populism and voting patterns in the Netherlands (emphases mine):

Slashdot | Web-Based Assistant Changes the Face of Dutch Politics

The elections held in The Netherlands on Wednesday have shaken the country. Almost 10 million votes were cast, and statistics show that a full half of those who voted used a popular web-based voter guide. This guide is operated by the independent institute for the public and politics. Advice is given to the visitor upon answering a number of multiple choice questions on some common political topics. Statistically, a number of people ended up scoring in support of populist parties both on the far left and far right. No bias was reported to exist in the test itself. However, these parties have ended up with an unforeseen amount of power as a result of the election. The voter participation was high, and the web-based advisories may have motivated people with little interest in politics to cast a vote anyway...

I took the test; I apparently fit best with D66, which is described (of course) in Wikipedia:

... D66 was founded on October 14, 1966 by 44 people. Its founders are described as "homines novi", only 25 of the 44 had previously been members of a political party. The initiators were Hans van Mierlo, a journalist for the Algemeen Handelsblad and Hans Gruijters, a municipal councillor in Amsterdam. Van Mierlo became the party's political leader and Gruijters the party's chair. The foundation of the party was preceded by the Appeal 1966 on October 10, in which the founders appealed to the people of the Netherlands to re-take their democratic institutions. The party renounced the 19th century political ideologies which dominated the political system and wanted to end pillarization. It called for radical democratization of the Dutch society and its political system and it called for pragmatic and scientific policy-making...

Ok, I'm impressed. D66 sounds like a reasonable fit for me. The test felt solid and thoughtful. I feel it would truly direct people's votes to a party that fit with their own inclinations. Which brings one to the poster's thesis -- that enabling persons with little participation in political dialogue to vote "intelligently" may predispose to unusual and possibly extreme political parties. I am inclined to believe the thesis; if this method caught on it could have a vast impact on the political process.

Historically when non-engaged persons vote, it's pretty mindless. They may vote based on ballot order, the sound of a name, the last ad they saw, etc. The net effect is a combination of "noise" and a wild-card bias. If non-engaged persons were to actually vote the party that best reflected their opinions using a tool like this one, the "noise" in the system would fall, but I think the distribution of candidates would widen.

Fascinating. I'm not sure whether this tool is a good thing or not, but it's well worth attending too.

Playing dirty: the GOP's election

Salon has quite a catalog of GOP dirty electoral tricks from the past few months. Lest we forget ...

The GOP's dirty deeds of 2006 | Salon News

....In this year's biggest dirty trick, that's what happened to voters across the country, who were deluged with robo-calls that purportedly were coming from Democratic candidates. The calls started innocently enough, by offering information about the local Democrat. But if you hung up, the robot would call back. Hang up again and, like some character out of a Stephen King novel, the robot would call again. And again. And again, sometimes as many as seven times before it gave up. So the voters who had the temerity to want to enjoy their dinner unmolested were left with the impression of a Democratic candidate who simply would not leave them alone; those who stayed on the line were instead treated to a string of disinformation about the Democrat. The calls, which were paid for by the NRCC, hit many of the House races vital to Democrats' chances to take back the House. They ran in at least two key Illinois districts, including Duckworth's, and in Connecticut, where vulnerable Republican incumbent Chris Shays survived a stiff challenge from Democrat Diane Farrell, and in other races in states as diverse as Georgia, California, Pennsylvania and New York. In all, a total of 1 million calls were spread over 53 House races; this means that an average of 20,000 calls were made in each district, each of which contained about 200,000 votes. The calls could potentially have reached one out of every 10 voters in the targeted races.

The uproar that followed hasn't escaped the attention of politicians. Sen. Barack Obama has introduced a bill that would criminalize the practice, and on the local level several states are considering similar legislation.

It's not that the dirty tricks didn't work, it's rather than they couldn't overcome a large anti-GOP mood. In many elections they would have done the trick.

The GOP is a morally bankrupt institution.

The Needham question, 9/11 and the next fifty years

I've not much time to develop this thesis, so I'll go quickly here. Maybe I'll get to it later.

There are four parts to this:

• The Falling Cost of Havoc (9/11)
• The Needham Question
• The Next Fifty Years
• The Innovator's Dilemma
  

The Needham question is basically: "Why didn't China sail a steamship bristling with canon into Manhattan @ 1750?".

The Falling Cost of Havoc is the observation that small groups of individuals can now afford some of the military capabilities (bioweapons, worldwide secure communication channels, advanced data mining, evolved terrorist techniques) that were once available only to nations.

The Next Fifty years is my post suggesting, somewhat to my own surprise, that the next fifty years may not be all that different from the last fifty years. (Speaking Mandarin and using low speed low energy vehicles is not that big a difference.)

The Innovator's Dilemma is a fascinating business book pointing out that well run dominant enterprises are appropriately good at stifling disruptive technologies.

The thesis is that these are connected.

The best current answer to the Needham question is that China was doing pretty well during the 14th through 18th centuries, and it had developed a governmental system that was very stable* and very good at eliminating disruptive interruptions. In other words, it behaved like a well run corporation. Innovation is disruptive, disruption is dangerous.

If the next fifty years is to resemble the last fifty years (by no means the worst outcome), then the world must become far better at stifling disruption and managing the falling cost of havoc. The world will rediscover China's answer to the Needham question. (Ironically, China will need to rediscover it too ....)

My guess is that the world will do this, whether geeks like me like it or not. I think the history of the counter-revolution has been greatly under appreciated.

Ok, that's all for now.

* The past 5 years of US history has dramatically diminished my faith in the stability of democracies.

New Scientist: The 50 year prediction

Marginal Revolution pointed me to New Scientist's the Next 50 Years. I'll spend some time reading it.

On the one hand, 50 years seems far too long to make sensible predictions about. On the other hand, imagine someone in 1950 predicting life in 2000. Any futurist worth their salt was predicting flying cars to Mars, but the right answer would have been 'sort of like 1950, but most people have more money and live ten years longer'. The shock for 1950 would not be computers (what? They're not sentient?), but rather gay marriage and gay adoption. Oh, oil prices would have been shocking too -- we were supposed to running on nuclear fusion by now.

So in the same vein, I'll predict that we don't get sentient AI, we don't boost human IQs substantially, and we don't prevent aging. Life in 2056 is rather like 2006, but we live 10 years longer and most people have more money. The shocking part is ....

Update 11/19/06: The authors are generally as cautious as one would expect. They are reputable sorts, and thus fearful of foolishness. There is, however, a clear trend. Several contributors speculate that we'll learn about extraterrestrial life. I suspect they mean sentience too, but that's too brash and idea. I suspect they toopuzzle over the Fermi Paradox.

Healthcare Reform: The Faughnan One Slide Presentation

I will never be invited to a public debate on healthcare reform. Bit of a shame -- I could make a case that I'm unusually well suited by experience, training, and employment to opine on the topic. I even have a one slide presentation, which I came up with in the shower this morning. Here it is (imagine the two visuals on the same slide).


and next to it


The top image is a new Lexus. It's a very fine car. There's a luxury premium to be sure, but perhaps not so much as with a Mercedes. You really do get a lot of quality when you buy a Lexus.

The bottom image is from a Manhattan subway. I think the subway is better now than when I strolled the then mean streets of Manhattan; in those days it was smelly, dirty, and very noisy. It delivered excellent value for the price, though it was not a pleasant ride.

If you lived in Manhattan, sometimes the subway was really a much better way to get from A to B than the Lexus. The Lexus, of course, would be most people's first choice if they could afford it.

That's all you need to know about Healthcare Reform in America.

I grew up in Quebec when socialized medicine was new. It was fabulous for us. Everyone got a Honda Accord and was more or less satisfied with that. Cost structures changed over time, and now everyone rides the subway. That doesn't work for those who can afford a Lexus, or even an Accord.

The mistake of socialized medicine was thinking that it was possible to provide an Accord forever, to everyone.

I live in America, where almost everyone insists on a Lexus and a heck of a lot of people are walking. Without shoes. In winter. Increasingly the walkers are newly underemployed and unemployed men and women aged 50 to 65.

The tragedy of American healthcare is obvious.

America will aways provide the Lexus, and the Mercedes, and the chauffeur driven Rolls-Royce to those who wish can afford them -- and choose them. It will also provide the Accord for a heck of a lot of people. Those who get the Accord and the Lexus will often, but not always, get better experiences and outcomes than those who ride the subway.

All Healthcare reform discussions in America are about the subway.

That would be the end of my presentation.

The meaning of Apple - will it always stand alone?

I sigh when I look upon my Samsung PalmOS phone. It's almost good, the last of a discontinued line that was within spitting distance of Apple elegance. Alas, Palm fumbled, Samsung floundered, and the moment passed. Every phone on the US market sucks. Spectacularly sucks.

I wait for the iPhone. It may not be what I want, but I know I will respect it. I may change my wants to suit it. It will not suck.

My toaster sucks. I've looked for its replacement for years. I figure I'll pick one up the next time I'm in Germany. I find myself wondering if Apple will make a toaster. I'd buy it ...

Then I read this Mark Morford SFGate column (I've added him to my bloglines collection)...

When Apple Rules The World / What does it mean when you really, really want to lick a new MacBook Pro, and swoon?

....I don't mean [Apple] they've solved world hunger or cured cancer or ended racism or muzzled Ashlee Simpson. But I do mean something that, in its way, is nearly as profound: They've managed to make the world just a bit more pleasurable, tasteful, beautiful. They've added a dash of that rarest of human qualities, especially when talking about factory-made tech crap: They have added a touch of grace.

You know it's true. Apple has done more than perhaps any other mass-market consumer line on the planet to affect the look and feel of nearly every gizmo made today. This cannot be underestimated. It's a George Bush world, after all, one that values sameness, mediocrity, intellectual and spiritual laziness. But merely rub your hand across the top of a MacBook or whip your thumb around the click wheel of an iPod and notice: Feel that throb? That's your id saying mmmmmmm.

What? What's that you say? Why yes, other tech companies have changed the world, too. Microsoft, for example. They invaded the global cube-farm and made everyone's workday a bit more bloated and annoying and sad and just a little uglier, buggy as hell, frustrating, virusy and lonely and numbing. Truly, it has been quite an impressive accomplishment...

Read the whole thing. It's a funny, slutty, paeon to Apple. It's over the top, and yet true. No other company, save Google on a good day, actually delivers elegance (Aperture excepted). Apple really is different. I can only pray it won't be alone forever; I could sure use a new toaster.

Microsoft? It's far less than the sum of its excellent people. Some corporations can do that.

PS. My new MacBook is due this week ...

Suzhou, China - Home of my MacBook

When I ordered by Core-2 Duo MacBook, I received a FedEx notice that it was being shipped from Suzhou, China. Google Earth provided a low-res picture. Note the massive urban landscape and what appears to be industrial smog and black some ominous looking black water.

On the one hand, this is a snapshot of 21st century life. On the other hand, the 'map view' has no geographic details and there are no embedded links to local pictures, webcams, etc. (Google Earth would have more, but it died with my laptop drive and has yet to be resurrected). In a year or two, the rest of the puzzle will be in place.

It's not that far from Suzhou to some impressive looking mountains and forests ...

Update 11/25/06: In another note on the changing technology of shipping, my MacBook arrived in a relatively compact box that would not have survived the shipping methods of old, or even travel in a conventional UPS truck. The shipping box was a fraction of the size of the box that held my iBook years ago. Even so, the external box looked flawless. I'd like to read a story about how FedEx does this kind of thing.

Voting: just do what Minnesota does

Schneier gives a good rundowns of the ongoing electronic ongoing electronic voting machine debacles. Then he reveals his residence in my home state:

...In Minnesota, we use paper ballots counted by optical scanners, and we have some of the most well-run elections in the country. To anyone reading this who needs to buy new election equipment, this is what to buy...

I've heard only five states use optical scanners. Must be an IQ thing. When Caltech and MIT joined up (rare event) to review the Gore/Bush voting debacle, they concluded optical scanning was by far the best choice. Every review I've read since has come to the same conclusion. Come on guys, let the frozen north lead the way ...

The gravest threat we know of ...

Years ago, the Economist pointed out that based on risk assessment asteroid impact warranted as much attention as airplane crashes. That was then ...

Did an Asteroid Impact Cause an Ancient Tsunami? - New York Times

... Most astronomers doubt that any large comets or asteroids have crashed into the Earth in the last 10,000 years. But the self-described “band of misfits” that make up the two-year-old Holocene Impact Working Group say that astronomers simply have not known how or where to look for evidence of such impacts along the world’s shorelines and in the deep ocean.

Scientists in the working group say the evidence for such impacts during the last 10,000 years, known as the Holocene epoch, is strong enough to overturn current estimates of how often the Earth suffers a violent impact on the order of a 10-megaton explosion. Instead of once in 500,000 to one million years, as astronomers now calculate, catastrophic impacts could happen every few thousand years.

If the hypothesis is accepted, then the risk to life of a meteor impact will have increased about 500 fold. That would move it very high up the risk index, perhaps above thermonuclear war.

If that happens, and if humans were logical creatures, we would put a significant share of the world's GDP to surveilance and diversion research. Alas, humans are far from logical ...

PS. The 2807 BC rock landed on, of course, Atlantis. :-)

Neandertal is us: the meaning of species

We all know how confusing the terms race and ethnicity are. It turns out that things are equally messy when one tries to define was a species is.

John Hawks sifts the narrative, and basically decides that species is a semi-useful term that can be largely ignored -- particularly in the fossil records. His read is that Neandertals are probably members of the same species as us, but that the distinction is pedantic and misleading. He does strongly feel that our genome contains evidence of Neandertal descent, but that the discussion is missing the point (emphases mine):

... I think that evidence of introgression reinforces the hypothesis that modern humans emerged in an adaptive context, making use of adaptive variation from a widespread (possibly pan-Old-World) population of archaic Homo. It's one of the two main patterns in the evolution of modern humans.

We're all waiting to learn what the other pattern is, Hawks won't tell us yet. The fundamental shift is to stop thinking of Neadertals mating with "us", and to instead think of modern humans as something that evolved from a large number of "archaic Homo" populations. We are Neandertal, but we are also one of many old populations.

When the cliche is real: falling on the grenade

It's an old cliche. Falling on the grenade. I assume there isn't time to think. Cpl Jason Dunham has been awarded the medal of honor.

The uncelebration: blinking in the light

Krugman feels (mostly) relieved, not giddy. Tom Tomorrow writes:

... It’s as if the biopsy results just came back and you don’t have cancer after all. You’re not giddy, exactly, but you can finally take a deep breath and maybe let some of the tension drain out of your shoulders...

...It’s time to have grownup conversations now. It goes without saying that the Democrats will to disappoint us, one way or another. So what? The test results came back, and it’s not terminal. We got a little breathing room, and isn’t that all you can really ever hope for in life?

I'm not hearing any Dem trash talk or braggadacio. My fellow commies aren't cackling with glea. We've been living in the shadow of Mordor for years, but now the smog is lifting. We find we're at the bottom of a deep pit surrounded by lions, tigers, and hyenas, but at least we've stopped sinking. The hard slog back may begin.

Conde Nast: An unusual spammer

CondeNast Publications puts out Gourmet, Wired, and many other periodicals. They are also a major league spam generator. This is rare with big vendors, SONY is the only other example that comes to mind. (SONY stopped spamming sometime around their rootkit fiasco, but even so no self-respecting geek will buy from SONY.)

Gourmet has been bad forever -- clicking on the 'remove me' link never did anything. Subscription solicitations kept rolling in. I blacklisted gourmet.com. That worked for a while, but now the spam is coming from gourmet@email.condenast.us. Recently, they started doing the same thing with Wired.

I guess it works for them, but it's really weird to have Wired be owned by a major spam producer. I get it for free somehow, but even if I really liked Wired I wouldn't pay for it. Their owner is too disreputable.

I've added condenast.us to my blacklist, so that should do it for now -- until they come up with a new email address.

Thank you, Howard Dean

Many democrats have been praised in the past few days, but perhaps the most important one has not been mentioned at all. Until now ...

Howard Dean, vindicated | Salon.com

...Despite all the complaints and demands directed at him over the past 18 months, Dean stuck to his principles. He and his supporters in the netroots movement believed that their party needed to rebuild from the ground up in every state, including many where the party existed in name only. These Democrats prefer to think of their party as one of inclusion and unity. They openly disdain the divisive strategies of the Republicans who have so often used racial, regional and cultural differences to polarize voters.

And they believe that relying on opportunistic attempts to grab a few selected states or districts as usual -- rather than establishing a real presence across the country -- conceded a permanent structural advantage to the Republicans that would only grow more durable with each election cycle.

Breaking that advantage would be costly and difficult, as Dean well realized, but it had to be done someday, or the Democrats would fulfill Karl Rove's dream of becoming a permanent minority party -- or fading away altogether. Against the counsel of party professionals, whose long losing streak has done little to diminish their influence, the new chairman began the process of re-creating the Democratic Party in 2005. And contrary to the gossip and subsequent press reports, he succeeded in raising $51 million last year, about 20 percent more than in 2003 and a party record for an off year...

Humanity owes a debt to Howard Dean.