From the category archives:

Technology

Here’s Why You’re Addicted To Angry Birds

August 16, 2011

| Posted in: Gaming,Technology

Photo by Rovio

Angry Birds, the mobile gaming juggernaut that just passed the 100 million download milestone, is on track to be the most popular mobile app ever.  The company just secured $42 million in investment capital, which will be used to bring the game to new platforms (including Facebook and Google) and extend the brand into more traditional media (including the possibility of a feature film).  The game, which cost just $140,000 to develop, has already yielded $70 million.

But Rovio, the Finnish company behind the game, isn’t resting on its laurels.  At a panel discussion at SXSW last Spring Rovio CEO Peter Vesterbacka all but pronounced console gaming dead, arguing that console games cost too much, both in terms of development and cost to consumer.

But low price point alone doesn’t begin to explain why the game is so popular and addictive.  Fortunately, a user experience engineer named Charles Mauro broke down the game in terms of its cognitive appeal.  His findings may help explain why users worldwide spend some 200 million hours a day playing Angry Birds:

Just Simple Enough.  Mauro’s praises the game for the simplicity of its design and the player interaction.  But he’s careful to add that what sets Angry Birds apart is the fact that it brings the necessary elements of engagement to this simplicity.  How?  By making us think. “It is engaging, in fact addictive, due to the carefully scripted expansion of the user’s mental model of the strategy component and incremental increases in problem/solution methodology.”

All In Due Time.  While Angry Birds is by no means a slow game, Mauro points out that the developers didn’t simply make it as fast as was possible.  Again, what makes it appealing is that users have some time to contemplate. “This response time of  3-5 seconds, in most user interfaces, brings users to the point of exasperation, but not with Angry Birds. Again, really smart response time management gives the user time to relax and think about how lame they are compared to their 4 year old who is already at the 26th level. It also gives the user time to structure an error correction strategy (more arc, more speed, better strategy) to improve performance on the next shot.”

The Magical Mystery Tour.  Like an good form of entertainment, Angry Birds is full of mysteries. “Why are tiny bananas suddenly strewn about in some play sequences and not in others? Why do the houses containing pigs shake ever so slightly at the beginning of each game play sequence? Why is the game’s play space showing a cross section of underground rocks and dirt?”  Mauro doesn’t answer these questions because answering them is not the point.  The fact that they are present and that users are forced to consider them means that they are more deeply engaged in the experience.

That Sounds About Right. While references to “avian dialogue” may strain Mauro’s credibility a tad, his argument that the audio effects make the game more engaging are sensible, especially if you’ve ever played the game with your device set to mute. “The audio in Angry Birds serves to enhance the user’s experience by mapping tightly to the user’s simple mental model of conflict between the angry birds and the loathsome pigs. This concept, known in film production as ‘action syncing’, provides enhanced levels of the feedback for users at just the right time.”

You’ve Got The Look.  Mauro’s least persuasive argument comes when he attempts to explain the visual appeal of the game, which he describes as “a combination of ‘high-camp cartoon’ with a bit of greeting card graphics tossed in for good measure.”  After arguing that visual design is as much about the appropriateness of the attributes that are presented as it is about being either good or bad, he falls back on the age-old cliche that you know it when you see it.  And with Angry Birds, he most definitely sees it.  And, apparently, so do 100 million other users across the globe.

Source:
Why Angry Birds Is So Successful And Popular: A Cognitive Teardown Of The User Experience, by Charles L. Mauro

{ 0 comments }

How We’ll Watch TV In The Future (Probably)

March 16, 2011

| Posted in: Technology,Television

Photo by Lambert/Getty Images

Netflix, the video rental and streaming behemoth, is getting into the original content game.  According to Deadline Hollywood’s Nellie Andreeva, Netflix is reportedly in talks to buy 26 episodes of a remake of the British political drama “House of Cards” for $100 million.  The remake will star Kevin Spacey and be directed by David Fincher.  While the deal is significant in terms of the players, the size of the order and the dollar amount, it also represents a broader change in the way people will consume television and movies, as Andreeva notes.

Netflix isn’t the only non-traditional player with its sights set on territory traditionally controlled by Hollywood.  To help determine what the future may hold in terms of distribution and content production, we enlisted veteran tech/media reporter Peter Kafka of All Thing’s Digital to assess the five candidates most likely to challenge Netflix:

Amazon
“While streaming video is currently being used in a limited way as an incentive to get people to join Amazon Prime, there is no reason they can’t assemble the same catalog as Netflix.  They have the money and most of that content is not exclusive.   They are also one of only a handful of companies who have a credit card billing relationship with literally hundreds of millions of existing customers, so the payment infrastructure is already in place.”

Apple
“They clearly want in, but their model hasn’t really taken off.  According to Jobs the content guys are pricing their stuff to high, but the studios and networks have shown no inclination to offer anything for cheaper.  But Apple has one huge advantage:  they have credit relationships with something like 200 million people.  These users already buy content from Apple in some form, and they are used to the experience.  That said, I can’t see Steve Jobs wanting to get into the television production business.”

Facebook
“The official party line is that they are platform, but it doesn’t take much to imagine them being a more active participant in online video.  The most obvious model would be an iTunes-like set up.  This has tremendous appeal to the distributors of content, who are all working hard to have their content involved in social interaction.  This would cut out the middleman.  They’ve only just dipped a toe in this area, but I’m bullish on Facebook in terms of video distribution.  As for original content, they’ve shown know inclination to want to do this and probably would draw a bright line so as not to compete with distributors.”

Google
“Google has the resources to buy their way into whatever business they want but they seem to have made a conscious decision not to enter the distribution and content production race in the United States.  You can rent movies now on YouTue, which most people don’t realize.  And they are now talking about getting a handful of famous people to create content for their own YouTube Channels, but neither of these are part of a major focus. It’s probably very disappointing for Hollywood because people thought Google would just show up with a truckful of cash to buy a studio or an output deal.”

Microsoft
“Microsoft has spent years trying to get into the living room, and now with Xbox they’ve succeeded.  Now that they have an internet connection going to people’s TVs they are playing around with the idea of turning the game console into a cable box, as evidenced by their recent deal with ESPN to make 3,5000 live broadcasts available through the Xbox. The tech press tends to discount Microsoft because of other struggles but this is one area where they could become a big deal.” 

{ 0 comments }

Sales Figures For The iPad 2 Debut: It’s Still Anybody’s Guess

March 16, 2011

| Posted in: Technology

Photo by Reuters/Lucas Jackson

Given Apple’s penchant for secrecy and only touting good news, determining how well (or poorly) an Apple product does following its debut weekend requires a certain degree of sleuthing. The thinner, lighter and more powerful iPad 2 went on sale on Friday at 5 p.m.  It’s now Wednesday afternoon on the east coast, and the company has yet to provide official sales figures.  As a result the tech press is still trying to crack the Apple code, using a mix of Kremlinology and deduction.  Here’s a review of the parlor-room assessments thus far:

The One Million Mark? According to several leading industry analysts interviewed by Reuters on Monday, as many as one million iPad 2 units may have been sold. If true this would represent a threefold increase over sales of the original iPad during its initial weekend. (The first version sold some 300,000 units when it debuted on April 3, 2010).

Not So Much. Others were a bit less bullish.  On Monday Dan Frommer of Business Insider noted that the lack of a press release from Apple may indicate that sales were not worth bragging about. (Apple sent out a release early the Monday morning following the weekend debut of the first iPad).  Frommer also mentioned the rumors surrounding the iPad 2’s supposed supply chain issues, which Slashgear reported on in early March.

Fifth Avenue Sellout:  On Tuesday Dylan Love of Business Insider, citing a “well connected source,” reported that the NYC flagship store on Fifth Avenue had sold all 7,200 unit it had in stock on launch day.  What this means in terms of overall sales figures is unclear, but it’s a good indicator of demand.

Inventory Issues Continued Tuesday. Apple stores were supposed to receive additional inventory on Tuesday, and lines once again formed.  But according to Apple Insider, some stores didn’t get additional stock, and those that did received less inventory than anticipated.  This has led one analyst to suggest that the international launch, scheduled for March 25th, will now be delayed.

The Market Speaks. For those who look to the stock market as indicators there have been mixed messages.  Shares of Apple stock (AAPL) were up a tick over 1% after the Monday morning bell but this was followed by a sharp sell off, according to MarketWatch.  Then on Wednesday morning JP Morgan downgraded their rating on Apple stock from “Market Outperform” to “Outperform,” citing issues with a manufacturing partner.  While this latter move was not solely related to the iPad, the tablet market was mentioned in the note that accompanied the downgrade

The Waiting Is The Hardest Part. With nothing else to go on some publications were reduced to speculating on the presence of lines, which analysts said were longer this time around.  Sure, they seemed present at every Apple store and official retailer across the country, but even fanatics with prime spots were disappointed: At the Apple store in Century City, CA the ninth person in line was unable purchase the model with the specs he wanted (white, 64GB).  And, those who prefer to stay away from bricks and mortars stores were not spared: on Tuesday Apple announced that the wait time for online orders had increased to four to five weeks.

Playing (With) The Numbers. Most conspiratorial of all is the suggestion that Apple has “tweaked its Web ordering tools to randomize order numbers so that users can’t figure out how many units the company has moved between two different points in time.”  That seems like a lot of work to hide something that will probably turn out to be a very positive metric.

{ 0 comments }

Market Makers

February 10, 2011

| Posted in: Technology

This is an interesting mediation about how the Internet has neutered the thrill of hunting for obscure objects (e.g. old baseball cards, wacky pop cultural vestiges, vintage eyeglasses, etc.).  The end result, the author argues, is that everything is less rare and less unique.  And there is no longer any value in being an ardent hunter of such items, combing through garage sales and flea markets.  His main gripe, however, is the loss of “eureka” moments.

It’s the old “convenience is the enemy” argument, and while I half-buy it, I’m also happy that I can find things I’m looking for without having to drive hither and yon to do so.  In an ideal world we’d all have the time to roam the earth in search of the objects we desire.  I was lucky enough to have spent a couple of years in my early twenties doing just that.  But my current reality dictates otherwise.  I go to flea markets and garage sales when I can, but I also use the Internet to source things, and I like the precision it provides.  Certainly there is great value in the happenstance finds that occur in the real world.  But a lot of the stuff I’ve acquired this way over the years is now extraneous and in the way (like me).

I also wonder how much of the author’s sense of loss has to do with being a certain age.  Nostalgia is a dangerous emotion to bring into a journalistic or cultural argument, because it is usually a feeling for something that never existed in the first place.

{ 0 comments }

Off The Grid

December 2, 2010

| Posted in: Technology

The news that the FTC is trying to protect consumers with a plan that would allow them to opt out of having their browsing and buying habits monitored is heartening.

Unfortunately, it’s only good in theory.

The government is comparing it to the “do not call” registry, which is supposed to keep people off of telemarketing lists.  But “do not call” doesn’t really work (just use your own anecdotal experience here).  If it’s nearly impossible to keep people from calling our landlines imagine how difficult it’s going to be to enforce these sorts of measures in the world of e-commerce.  Most of the time we have no idea we’re even being monitored.  At least with a phone call you know when it’s coming, and you can ignore it or hang up immediately.

The truth is that we make a trade-off for the conveniences provided by our digital technologies, and privacy is often what is bartered away.

{ 0 comments }

Re: The Internet

November 24, 2010

| Posted in: Arts & Culture,Technology

Sir Tim-Berners Lee’s original proposal for something he called the “hypertext project.”

The memorandum would, of course, be acted upon, eventually growing into the Internet as we know it.  Without it you wouldn’t be reading these words.  Think about that as you carve into your organic, locally-sourced turkey tomorrow.

{ 0 comments }

The Internet Isn’t Making Us Stupid

November 15, 2010

| Posted in: Technology,Trends

Robert Frost with students at Dartmouth, 1947.

We are.

Still, a growing chorus of cranks continue to trot out the digital age’s most resilient trope–that the Internet is making us stupid. (Your mere awareness of these words is putting your intelligence at risk).

These warnings comes from Nobel Prize winners, sitting U.S. Presidents, well-meaning wonks and the person who is currently the Nation’s Most Important Novelist, who in February told the Guardian newspaper that, “It’s doubtful that anyone with an Internet connection at his workplace is writing good fiction.”

Conveniently, most of these gripes are uttered in broad terms, rarely bothering to offer proof, or even define the term “Internet,” the troublesome lifeblood of every digital activity.  Presumably they are all equally bad for our intellectual health, our attention spans and our ability to care about books nobody has read for seventy five years.

Never mind that at no other time in history has more knowledge been more accessible to more citizens of the planet or that stupidity has been a major part of humanity since humans first crawled from the muck, which preceded the arrival of the Internet by 200,000 years.

The web has won. The Internets are everywhere, like air and Lady Gaga. In 1995 there were 6 million people using the Internet worldwide.  Today that number is closer to 1.2 billion. Ruminating on the dangers the Web poses pointless, akin t0 somebody in 1915 suggesting that electricity was a threat because it was going to make people less appreciative of candle light. (Douglas Adams anticipated all this back in 1999).

Yes, there are broad swaths of the Internet that are utter crap (this is equally true of analog mediums, of course). Yes, the Internet does allows those who do stupid things to broadcast them widely.  And, yes, all of this diddling around online is probably altering our brains, though the same is true of walking down the street and praying.

What is goading about the proclamations routinely made by the guardians of high culture is that they continue to place the blame on the wrong party

If we are more stupid today it is not the Internet’s fault.  It’s ours.  We are the ones acting of our own free will to use this IQ-sapping technology to make our lives more convenient, more informed and more full of momentary diversions.

The Internet is passive.  It doesn’t force us to learn French or watch double rainbow videos.  It just sits there, running its protocols, waiting, idle. We make a choice to indulge, the same way we do with booze, cheeseburgers, and power tools.

In other words, don’t blame the game, blame the players.

{ 0 comments }

G Money

October 6, 2010

| Posted in: Technology

Gary Coleman, still killin’ it!

{ 0 comments }