Well, I just re-read Jason Calacanis's article on his opinions on the state of Apple Inc. today.  It's a lot to digest.  But let me summarize.

Jason finds fault with Apple and calls them to the carpet because of their closed system, anti-trust practices, and large sums of money they seem to be making at the expense of the user.  His 5 points that lead him to reject Apple directly taken from his article are:

1. Destroying MP3 player innovation through anti-competitive practices
2. Monopolistic policies in telecommunications
3. Draconian App Store policies that are frankly, insulting
4. Being a horrible hypocrite by banning other browsers on the iPhone
5. Blocking the Google Voice Application on the iPhone

Phew!  Where to start?

Jason Calacanis is a brilliant writer and journalist, an excellent evaluator of technology, and CEO of his own company, so I know he's got the experience of seeing business from the other side of the table.

But I have to disagree with some of his points.

He spends the first part of his article explaining how much money he's spent over the years on Apple technology, confessing he believes it to be a bit much.

Jason glosses over the fact there's a more precious commodity than money - and that is time. 

Maybe I'm just getting older, and slower, but I don't have the time I used to have.  Managing a company with my brother, helping to assist my recently widowed mother, being both a father and husband, has shown me that how I spend my time is much more precious than how I spend my money.

On top of which, I'm moving much more slowly than I'd like to admit.  My memory's getting shakier, nothing's a hop away any more, but more of a hobble.  Who knows, maybe all that hair I've been losing over the years contained my energy.  But it's waning.

I've used windows since around 1992.  I've been 3.1'd, 3.2'd, 95'd, 98'd, XP'd, Vista'd, and now 7'd.

I've used Linux as my main desktop for around 4 years now. I've been gnome'd, kde'd, xfce'd.  I've been centos 4'd and 5'd, knoppix'd, foresight'd, ubuntu'd, kubuntu'd, and opensuse'd.

But recently I mac'd myself.  Here's why.

While I've loved using computers all these years, I'm still amazed at the time I wasted.

I learned from windows that I can't be productive if I don't regularly defragment my hard drive, scan for viruses and remove them, patch software regularly, pay for secure software, be wary of attachments in email, and don't ever use Internet Explorer.  Unless of course, I have to go to a web site that requires it.

I learned from Linux that although a powerful system for running my servers, it pales in comparison as a rich user experience in its desktop form.  I was so politically there too.  Open source software, that I was free to edit and change at will?  Oh such power!  Oh such control over my hardware!  And for free as well!

But I went from maintaining windows to fighting hardware and software compatibility issues.  (Has Adobe yet released a working Flash player that runs in 64bit Linux?) Could hardly maintain a wireless internet connection while patching a system.  Every new patch and release seemed to break my connection to the internet.  So instead of me struggling to maintain a system and keep it running, I went to just trying to get a user experience that consistently worked.  (In defense, I still use Linux as my main desktop OS at work.  When of course I'm not using my windows only accounting software.)

Two things happened over the years that made me go Mac...

1) Apple released OSX (the 10th version of their Operating System)

2) Apple began using Intel cpus.   

Whoa!  With the advent of the OSX built upon the power of BSD, on an Intel chip, meant I could literally run windows, Linux, and OSX on the same system.  Now I'm interested.

So with coaxing from a good friend ( and my happy wife ), we bought our first mac together.  A relatively inexpensive mini-mac.  And I was blown away!  I'm still amazed at the experience of using a mac, a few years later.

I mean - here's the parallel.  If you feel like using a computer is a chore, here's a good analogy.

Using windows?  You're definitely going to hell at some point.

Using linux? You're going to hell - and faster because linux makes the river Styx flow faster.

Using a mac?  Well, you might be going to hell, but you're actually looking at it as a nice scenic tour.

The point is, I still have to maintain a mac just like I have to maintain other OSs, but for some reason, there's some corny notion going on at Apple Inc, that the user experience is important. And I'm loving it. 

Forty-eight hours after installing the new computer, I accidentally deleted something I needed.

Now I've done incremental backups for years, but have you used Apple's Time Machine?  Not only is it pretty and intuitive, but it damn well works too.

Fancy that?

Jason forgets in his argument for point number one (Apple is destroying MP3 player innovation), that there are other MP3 players on the market, and there are many other ways to buy music than through iTunes. 

But if you want to buy music through Apple, and you own an iPod or iPhone, then I guess yes, you're going to have to use iTunes.  But of course, you're free to spend your money elsewhere, which I guess is where Jason's headed.  Those actions speak loud to any company.  If flocks of users flee to some other company's product, then they'll probably change their ways.  But if people are continually happy from the experience, good luck.

Jason asks "What would your reaction be if Microsoft made the Zune the only MP3 player compatible with windows?"

I'd like to see them try, actually.

The windows OS is in the poor state that it's in because of it being so widely used, and whoring itself to the world, it has to try to remain compatible with everything that's out there.

Apple doesn't attempt to make their systems open to every program that exists.  Maybe that's why there's fewer vulnerabilities, and fewer choices.  But I'd take a small loss in freedom (And I do mean SMALL), if I get the user experience I want from a product.  So far, Apple hasn't let me down.

And if they do, I'll jump ship to the next greatest product.  But right now, they get my money.

For point number two, I have to confess, I haven't had any problems with AT&T as my provider for my iPhone.  Would I like to see tethering?  Sure.  But it's not my driving feature.  The iPhone has replaced six different devices, some of which I've never owned but was thinking about purchasing.  It's now my GPS, phone, portable music player, newspaper and book library, camera, and computer.

But while my experience has been positive, I also believe that choice keeps the prices low and capitalism working well.  So I agree with Jason on this point.  Open it up to other carriers, and consumers win.

For point number three, there is no counter-argument.  Apple has everything to gain by doing away with its policies of reviewing every app before it's released, which I'm sure is a costly measure.  And the fact that I may want to run a program that works fine on the iPhone, but for some reason they block it, that is Draconian and I agree.  If my desktop mac was similarly blocked from installing applications, I'd go running instantly back to linux. (I'd slowly hobble back to windows if I had to.)

Point number 4 is just an extension to number 3. Apple does not permit any other web browsers on its iPhone.  You're stuck with Safari.  I agree with Jason - no counter-argument warranted.

Point number 5 I have mixed feelings about.  Apple blocked the Google Voice app, and are now being investigated for it.

It's because of this action that so much dialogue is occurring.  It seems as you get closer to the top of the hill, and become king, you also become everyone's target.  And Apple has a problem.

It's too bad because Google and Apple seems like a good merge.  Google needs a hardware company; Apple needs to be more open with its services.

And Google just might win this fight.  They are re-inventing their application as a web application.  And Apple will surely have the proverbial "egg on its face", if they choose to block this functionality.  But that's good for consumers.  Competition keeps everyone happy - well everyone except the king.

So in essence, I agree with some of the arguments that Jason Calacanis raises, but I'm not willing to jump the Apple ship yet.  I've already embraced open source - and that has its share of problems.  I've already embraced windows, but I don't want to spend my time maintaining a tool, I want to simply use it.

So Jason - if you're really getting serious about leaving apple products, are you willing to sell them at a discount?

Oh yeah - and the answers to your questions:

1) Do you think Apple would be more, or less, successful if they adopted a more open strategy?

If Apple was able to maintain the seamless experience I expect every time I use an Apple product, where the product becomes an extension of my own creativity and intelligence, then yes I support the move.  But if they lose that - then Apple becomes like any other technological brand and they lose - simply because they don't stick out anymore.

2) Do you think Apple should face serious antitrust action?

No.  And nor did I think Microsoft should.  Government should stay out of business endeavors.  People will be able to better control companies with their dollars, if not their individual voices.

3) Do you think Apple's dexterity and competence forgive their bad behavior?

They're products forgive them.  Make me a terrible product, you'll lose my money then.  So far they haven't.

Congratulations to all the attendees of the 2009 argfestocon in Portland Oregon.  After much debating and sharing, the writers, web designers, artists, academics, film producers, directors, puppet-masters, and players have created a 26 bullet point list that clearly defines the ARG genre as a whole.

Beginning Monday, July 20th, 2009, all ARG designers must adhere to the aforementioned bullet-point list before "going live" with their work.  All present ARGs are excluded from the bulleted list adherence requirement, except unless "beginning a new chapter".  In such case, the new work will be required to comply. 

An elected board of seven "moderators" will be silently monitoring all ARG work over their two-year term, after which seven new members will be elected - (See Section 32 - Sub-part A - Paragraphs 3-5).

Any ARG creator, or ARG player for that matter, found to be not in compliance with aforementioned bulleted list, will be immediately detained and interrogated by no less than five violent mimes, subjected to heavy fines, and ex-communicated from the community.

You have been warned.

Resistance is....

well, you know the rest.

Silly isn't it?

Many of us come from different backgrounds and expertise; we did indeed have much debate at the conference.

There were writers and academic researchers who see plot and character as top priority, strongly pushing the need for traditional story elements in new media.  Film producers and directors who emphasized players being an "audience", seeing players' roles as more limited in order to preserve the original creators' intent. Conversely other film directors and producers who see audiences the exact opposite.  There were vocal ARG players who emphasized the need for puzzles; that the personal fulfillment gained from solving a puzzle creates the ultimate experience.  ARG designers who spoke of unshackling our minds from traditional story-telling and emphasized the transient experience of live events and physical exploration.

So did we come to any agreement as to what an ARG should be?

Well, yes and no.

The common thread from the panel discussions throughout the day seemed to reflect one basic theme. The different topics and panelists that were presented all seemed to emphasize, at one time or another,  one ARG attribute more than anything else.

An ARG is about the Experience

Regardless of how the ARG unfolds, an ARG is about the experience.  Because ARGs ultimately imitate life, this results unfortunately in a lack of preservation or persistance.  For instance, one can re-read a book, or watch a favorite film ad-nauseum.  But how does one re-create the joy of initially solving a puzzle, or capture the magic of a "live event"?  It's because the ARG experience is so fleeting that makes the fun so rewarding and fulfilling - and so precious.

So whether the ARG is traditional story-telling, or a physical exploration of a city, or a series of puzzle-quests that unlock future chapters of an ongoing film, the emphasis in on the PLAYER'S EXPERIENCE. That, more than anything else, seems to be the common driving force behind ARGs that were discussed on Saturday.

One panelist brought up Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, referring to Scott's emphasis that the story between the frames of a comic book or strip takes place in the reader's mind - and that's what we're after in creating ARGs. 

Yes, it could be said that all art and media is about the experience.  A film must be viewed; a book must be read, etc.

But that's not the point.

We're not arguing that an ARG is an experience, what we seem to be saying to one another at the conference is the player's experience is TOP PRIORITY.

This examination of the player's experience was reflected in each and every panel discussion.  There were those that cared deeply for the experience of the players, and there were those who detached themselves from the priority of the players' experience.  And those that did detach, faced scrutiny of fellow panelists and the audience. 

It's the shared connection, the collaborative effort, not just among players working together but of the coveted unofficial agreement between the puppet-masters and players, that separates the ARG from other media.

A book is written, than read later.  A film is shot, edited, than viewed later.

Probably the art-form related most closely t o ARGs are stageplays. Because while the play is written earlier, it's shared and experienced through real-time  - and like a puppetmaster may redirect mid-game how the story or experience unfolds, so too can stage actors react to a live audience, and redirect the experience (albeit - somewhat limited).

And it's because an ARG is told in real-time, the shared connection between the players and those that work behind the curtain becomes a stronger bond than in any other media.  And because that bond is based on so many unknowns - the only way to forge that bond, is to base it on trust.

Let me repeat that.

An ARG, more than any other art form - is based on trust.

Think of the underlying trust you have when you attend a play, or view a film.  You can look at the running-time beforehand (ah yes - I can put aside 2 hours of my life to watch this).  You can read reviews (Wow - Roger Ebert gives this a thumbs up).  You can hear about the experience from friends and co-workers before deciding to actually read that book, or see that film.  After all - it can't be that bad - they're still alive!  They survived!

But because ARGs are so transient, because the experience can't easily be preserved, we as players have absolutely no basis in deciding whether or not to go down the next rabbit-hole. 

Should I trust these puppet-masters?  Should I invest my time in this?

Throughout yesterday's conference, old and new issues of trust surfaced.  Topics such as: what to do on forums that are "outside the game", how often does a puppetmaster directly get involved in the unfolding of the experience, where lies the "safe word" for players. How to appeal to different players' levels of comfort.

And while some issues are still being debated, at least we came together to discuss those issues.  Trust, and the violation of that trust became the underlying theme of yesterday,  from the first panel in the morning to the keynote speech from Jordan Weisman.

Waita minute!

Does that mean we finally have a definition for an ARG?

An ARG is a shared transient experience, unfolding in real-time.

Wait that's not an ARG.  That's life.  ARGh!

How about this?

An ARG is an ARTIFICIAL shared transient experience, unfolding in real-time.

Because an ARG is about blurring the lines between what is real and what isn't, to clearly define what an ARG is and what it isn't, is not only impossible, but by nature rejects its own definition.

Maybe we should forget trying to define our genre that we work and play in.  Let the history book writers many years from now struggle with that issue.

Instead let's discuss more, create more, trust more, and experience more.

And if you send me a 26-bullet point list on what I'm supposed to adhere to, I'll send a mime after you.