As the tech industry continues to reel from revelations surrounding the top-secret PRISM program (Guardian), analysts within the tech industry said the row has yet again showcased that Apple is doomed. “It’s not so much that Apple might have enabled the US government some kind of ‘back door’ into its systems—after all, Google’s accused of doing the same, so that must be a good thing, promoting openness,” said some analyst or other that no-one had ever heard of before today. “The real problem is the whistleblower used PowerPoint, and that’s bad news for Apple. If people are still using PowerPoint, they’re not using Keynote and they’re not using Macs. Ergo, Apple is doomed and Tim Cook should be fired.”

Another analyst had a slightly different take: “Just because the PRISM slideshow was a PowerPoint document, that doesn’t necessarily mean its creator used a PC. PowerPoint exists for the Mac, and it’s also possible to use PowerPoint in a Windows virtual machine on a Mac.” However, rather than end there and plant a common-sense flag in the ground, his analystness took over for the final furlong: “That said, all of those cases nonetheless spell doom for Apple, because they mean people who try to whistleblow on major governments clearly side with Microsoft, even if they’re using Apple computers. It’s like a secret that will at some point explode from them in a flurry of flat design and Windows. On the basis of that proof, I predict Windows Phone marketshare will eclipse iOS by next Thursday at the latest.”

Yet another analyst also pointed to the composition of the now famous ‘Dates When PRISM Collection Began For Each Provider’ slide as further evidence that the Cupertino-based company is doomed: “Just look at it. Logos everywhere. Gaudy colours. Names of companies broken up over two lines. This isn’t the kind of thing you’d ever see from Apple, and it shows the company doesn’t have its finger on the pulse of modern design trends. This year’s all about bright yellow, cramped text and randomly positioned graphics. Rumours are Sir Jony Ive will unveil simpler, sleeker versions of iOS and OS X at WWDC, and he’s therefore going in exactly the wrong direction. It’s time for someone else to take hold of Apple before it’s too late. Ive and Tim Cook should be fired, and Sir Alan Sugar should immediately be installed as Apple CEO. After all, those Amstrads showed he sure knew good design when he saw it.”

A new op-ed by me for Stuff magazine, on what iOS 7 really needs.

The average pundit might tire of a new device approximately eight seconds after switching it on, dismissing it with a weary sigh for not parping a tech revolution fanfare and simultaneously spraying complexity everywhere, but consumers are fond of familiarity. They rather like knowing that on tapping upgrade‚ everything will remain where it was before, but be a bit better. They’re more interested in useful enhancements than me-too (or even me-first) features that won’t fundamentally enrich their lives.

That’s the main gist of it, although there’s also a bit about Tim Cook being fired out of a cannon.

There’s a lot online today about the Xbox One, with Microsoft clarifying a few points about the system’s restrictions. Everything’s outlined in a Eurogamer piece by Tom Bramwell, and the short of it is you don’t own content (you license it, even if it’s bought on optical media), publishers decide whether resale is allowed, the Xbox One must connect every 24 hours or you can’t play games (live TV and optical media playback are exempt from this rule), and loaning/renting is still being figured out.

Bramwell also notes:

10 people can be authorised to play these games on a different Xbox One via the cloud, but not at the same time, similar to iTunes authorised devices.

I’ve also seen other articles comparing Xbox One to iTunes, but I don’t think the comparisons hold up. First, iTunes was always a digital system, whereas Microsoft’s still juggling digital and optical media; secondly, iTunes content is a hell of a lot cheaper than the games that will be sold for the Xbox One, which perhaps makes Apple’s restrictions more palatable; thirdly, I can play my games on all authorised iOS devices simultaneously if I like; and finally, I only ever have to go online to download updates or for game-specific functionality (Game Center, online multiplayer, and so on).

By contrast, Xbox One is a system that matches iTunes in you never really owning a physical thing, but the games are pricier, and cannot be played across multiple devices on one account at the same time. Additionally, you’re forced online daily or your games simply don’t work. That is truly astonishing.

If anything, Microsoft’s managed to out-Apple Apple in terms of creating a closed, user-hostile gaming experience. (As regular readers will know, I’m a huge fan of iOS gaming, but I’m not blind to its shortcomings regarding ownership and restrictions.) However, there’s also another angle to this, in that Microsoft’s also increasingly joining Apple in eradicating huge chunks of gaming’s history. As games designer and developer Ste Pickford said on Twitter earlier today:

I think that’s my main problem (with iOS too), that we’re losing the ability to archive our culture—games aren’t valued.

Some people will argue that Microsoft had no choice—that to continue funding triple-A games, further restrictions were necessary. No doubt there will be claims that the Xbox One is a win for gamers. But all I see is the hope of a win for deluded publishers, a probable win for Microsoft in terms of console sales (which will inevitably be high—at least in the short term—because most people will give in and buy the Xbox One regardless of their distaste for its restrictions) and a loss for gaming as a whole.

Marco Arment writes about Vesper, a new note-taking app by  John Gruber, Dave Wiskus, and Brent Simmons. He asks:

How can these guys launch a relatively expensive text-note app that’s missing so many features of competing text-note apps?

Balls.

I agree about the pricing (iOS apps should be more expensive); I agree about believing you have something to offer in a crowded category; but then:

It takes balls to release a note-shoebox app in 2013 that has no sync, import, or export.

To my mind, that’s not something that takes balls—that just is balls. Information silos for this kind of information, in 2013? Really? I’ll bet people defending this wouldn’t have done so had the app been by Adobe or Microsoft, or even by people lacking the fame and reputations of Gruber, Wiskus, and Simmons. (And, yes, Vesper might well get that feature in the future, but, again, isn’t that a bit like the usual tech excuse of “well, it’s only version 1.0, and it’ll be great by 2.0″ that everyone claims to hate?)

British media is again buzzing with demands to clamp down on online porn, a stance broadly backed by politicians. The movement this time was triggered by the tragic death of April Jones, with various figures and charities now claiming a “proven” link between porn and sexual assaults, without offering much actual proof. The problem, as ever, is the vast majority of reporting and commentary on this subject remains a mishmash of half-truths, ignorance and outright deception.

Here are the problems as I see them.

Blocking technology simply doesn’t exist

Politicians and the media now regularly argue porn should be blocked by default, and customers should apply to have an ‘unfiltered’ feed should they demand it. Leaving aside the obvious issues of what prosecutors would no doubt dub “a demand for hardcore porn” from those who simply want unfiltered web access, the big problem is there is no magic bullet technology.

At best, blacklists will cover some porn, but some will leak through, meaning it will still be accessible to all, including children. It also won’t require more effort to find—there would just, by default, be less of it. This creates a false sense of security—people expect technology of this sort to be flawless, but it’s far from it.

A better solution would be teaching parents about whitelisting technology, and also more general openness about sex (and even the realities of porn) in British society, rather than the ongoing clampdown to remove even basic sex education from British schools.

Blacklisting blocks access to other content

Blocking technology is, as already noted, imperfect. Often, it’s compiled algorithmically, and it’s driven by a set of rules dictated by the viewpoints of those dictating policy. On that basis, through error or design (or both), blacklists don’t block everything they should and can also include false positives.

There was a case in Australia where a dental surgery was caught in a blacklist, which was clearly an unfortunate error. Sexual health websites are routinely blocked by blacklists, which probably isn’t. This has the potential for a huge negative impact, especially on teenagers genuinely trying to learn and find out information about sex and sexuality. The UK already has a fairly puritanical stance and one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the west; blocking information to such subjects will only make matters worse.

The media is hypocritical

One of the more astonishing aspects of the Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection was The Sun’s agony aunt, “Dear Deidre” Sanders, being the Inquiry’s first expert witness (PC Pro). When asked about the fact a child can very easily stumble across Page 3 (which, for those who aren’t aware, features topless women, who are often only 18), she said:

They often say one person’s erotica is another person’s hard-core pornography, it is really really hard to draw that line and I would like to point out certainly that the Editor of The Sun thinks it’s okay, but it’s 9 million people actually; 3 million who buy it and 9 million read it.

So the editor of The Sun thinks it’s OK. Phew! And nine million read it, which is a lot! Surely, that’s far more people than who use the internet! Her subsequent clarifications are that online porn is “too much”, but, as noted The Sun’s Page 3 is “OK”. On that basis, will Rupert Murdoch be pushing for the government to only block hardcore porn by default? Will it still be OK for softcore porn sites to be viewed by default in the UK? What about the Daily Mail’s regular pictures of famous girls in bikinis, alongside innuendo-oriented headlines and remarks that they “look old beyond their years”?

For me, this is all about context. I for the life of me cannot see any justification for Page 3 in a national newspaper (or on its website). But in the context of a silo where that’s what would be both what’s expected and also appropriate on visiting (rather than a child stumbling across such material while within the same silo), that seems acceptable, so long as the content is legal.

Additionally, the media’s falling over itself (including, surprisingly, The Observer), slamming Google for not blocking pornography involving children, and saying something should be done. This ignores the rather pesky fact that the IWF already works with ISPs to do this very thing (PC Pro; also, the IWF’s own site). Still, facts get in the way of good stories (and, in the case of The Sun, teenage breasts), so they’re probably best ignored. Unless you’re Ministry of Truth, out to tear apart the claim that 1.5 million British adults have somehow stumbled across online child porn.

This can be a slippery slope

It’s a bit of a tin-foil hat thing to say, but once you start blocking bits of the internet by default, where do you stop? Should the UK government succeed in its efforts to block ‘porn’, would it be satisfied with that? Or would it continue to nibble away at things it doesn’t want online (for our children’s safety, obviously)? I’m not suggesting the UK’s version of the internet would become North Korea’s overnight (nor, for that matter, ever), but once precedent has been set, it would be relatively easy for a government to start blocking something else it doesn’t like—perhaps anti-government political movements.

Porn is being redefined

Finally, one of the more curious things happening during this recent flurry of media activity has been the redefinition of pornography, or more accurately lumping it all together. The path has been that child porn is unacceptable (which is true, but really that should be termed assault) to hardcore porn being unacceptable to the generic ‘porn’ being something that should be blocked online.

Conflating lots of separate issues is good for headlines but bad for everything else. We shouldn’t be lumping in something that’s perfectly healthy (porn for consenting adults) with something that’s abhorrent and illegal (child porn, i.e. sexual assault on children). By the same token, we also shouldn’t be making knee-jerk reactions against tragedies because they play well with pollsters and get eyes on websites.

If there is a problem in the UK that involves pornography, there should be wider investigations, not least involving education. Whatever solution is found, it should put the power into the hands of parents (provide information and education for those who need it; offer blocking but as an opt-in), rather than being a prescriptive decision forced on everyone by politicians looking for a boost in the polls, and that in the long run won’t be nearly as beneficial as its advocates claim.