Crashed Pips - Computers, politics, emetic trash

Monday, September 29, 2008

Microsoft ad FAIL continues in earnest

Filed under: Microsoft — Tags: , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 01:02

I’m aware that I’ve been blogging far too much about Microsoft’s ad campaigns lately. But - hey -  they’re so laughable they’re practically an endless source of material.

Firstly, here’s a video of the (surprisingly) rejected version of the first Seinfeld advert, with a slightly alternate ending.

Then we come to the new “I’m a PC” ads. These seem to be a bit better, but the “I’m a PC” bit at the beginning, which should be a dig at Apple, sounds far too defensive.

Also, somewhat amusingly, the new ads were authored not using Expression Media on Vista, but on Adobe Photoshop CS3: Macintosh Edition. (It’s true. I’ve checked the metadata.)

Overall, this ad campaign’s becoming a bit embarassing for MS. This is even discounting the fact the new slogan, Windows: Life without walls, makes no sense. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a window need a wall to be installed and mounted in? Otherwise it is merely a pane of glass.



Wednesday, August 6, 2008

The Senescence of ITV

Filed under: Television — Tags: , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 18:52
Kent House, the home of ITV. Image courtesy of <a href=

Kent House, the home of ITV. Image courtesy of The JPS. Modified under license.

It’s official: ITV is dying. We’ve known it for some time, but the story has been confirmed by the figures. It’s depressing to see that a company with such a rich heritage may well go down the pan, but in my opinion, it’s something that there may be a solution to.

Rewind your minds back around fifteen, twenty years. In these days, ITV plc did not exist. Each ITV region had its programming managed by an independent comapny. For example, until 1993, programming in London was managed by Thames Television (now talkbackTHAMES) on weekdays, and LWT from Friday evening to the end of the week. In all the other regions, a single company controlled programming around the clock - for example, until 1993, programming in the South West was managed by TSW. Each regional station produced its own local news, and for national news, all the regions simeltaneously crossed to ITN.

However, over the period from the commencement of the 1993 onwards franchise period, ITV had been deregulated, and the companies began to huddle together and conglomerate. This was mostly led by Granada in the North West, and Carlton in London. The process was completed in 2004 when Granada and Carlton merged into a single company, and formed ITV plc.

Since then, things have gone downhill, drastically. Programme quality had been declining ever since conglomeration began in the early 1990s, but now it accellerated. This combined with the economic slowdown of recent months means that ITV is starting to collapse, and fast.

There’s no denying that the conglomeration was a mess. ITV is now finding it difficult to run a profitable business and fulfil its public service broadcaster remit to produce a certain amount of regional programming and current affairs programming.

Therefore, it seems to me that ITV has three options open to it.

  • The first would be for ITV to do nothing, and continue as it is. This would mean almost certain ruin for the network.
  • The second, and most likely, option, is that ITV will ask for its PSB status to be removed. This will remove its franchises for the Channel 3 multiplex, and will mean that ITV1 gets moved back to the very back of the digital terrestrial channels (or, god forbid, on to subscription services). This could open the way for a new system, from scratch, similar to the old franchise system where each component of the network was served by a different company.
  • The third option would be for ITV to bring out the corporate cleaver, and slice itself into tiny little pieces, to create something not dissimilar to the old arrangement of different companies shuttling around tapes and producing home-grown programmes. This would be a big risk, but it might well pay off - it’s more economical to produce regional programming if headquarters is in the relevant region.

I don’t claim to be an economist, but I am certain that ITV in ten years or so will be very different to the ITV we see today.



Saturday, November 17, 2007

Why it’ll be nearly impossible to carry out a digital radio switchover

Filed under: Communications, Television — Tags: , , , , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 17:12

Most broadcasters in the UK are making a huge fuss about the digital television switchover, which will see the old analogue TV signal switched off for good across the country by 2012 and replaced by digital multiplex broadcasts (MUXes).

OFCOM, the media industry regulator (famous for allowing ITV to ruin itself and numerous other mistakes) has also laid out proposals to switch Britain from analogue radio to digital radio.

No, no, no. Bad idea.

It’s pretty easy to switch your house over to digital TV: your main set can be hooked up to digital cable or satellite. You buy a subscription and a box off them, plug it into your TV and you’re away. Generally, though, this will only work on one set, because otherwise it would require separate boxes and access points for every set in the house.

Alternatively, you can opt to receive digital terrestrial transmissions without subscription by buying a Freeview decoder, and when switchover comes (BBC2 will be the first channel to be switched off on analogue), you run a line between the box and your TV, and between the box and your aerial. Simple as.

This is possible because a TV is essentially a monitor with an input where your aerial goes in. Other things can be plugged in where the aerial would go, such as a video recorder, or, when the switchover comes, a digital box.

This is not so with a radio. It can only take input from an aerial at the back, and not any other devices. The only way to receive digital radio is to buy a brand new radio - and this will be difficult, because the vast majority of radios in operation in the UK are analogue systems.

In particular, it would mean ancient radios, such as that Robert’s transistor radio in the shed which is older than you, will be useless (unless you want to hear the ‘bip-bib-bip-eek’ of the digital transmissions of the frequency’s new owner).



Sunday, November 4, 2007

I feel sorry for high-profile male actors

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 14:33

because it seems as though they are hounded upon by the public as though they’re fair game for certain tabloid newspapers, women’s magazines, and the paparazzi.

Videos uploaded to Youtube of people on the beach actively encourage people to gawk at these actors as though they’re sex symbols, and comments are made on the Internet that border on sexual harassment.

Here I quote from comments left on the guestbook of the website miloventimigliafan.com, some of which I would find quite disturbing if I was in Mr Ventimiglia’s shoes.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i luv u milo ur so cool!
plzplzp please visit canada ugh
i think season 2 is very great and i luv it

plz can u cum to canada plzplz toronto
me and every1 else love! heroes we are totaly adicted

i reli like claire too shes great!
so i hope u can cum…and i know u have alot of fans but we are ur biggest fans!! of all time
thanks and ur a great actor bye

The fact that the fifth line seems to invite Mr Ventimiglia to have an orgasm in Toronto terrifies me.

The next paragraph comes from someone identifying him or herself as ‘Miss Ventimiglia’.

hey baby, just got home and wanted to tell you how much i LOVE you ur my everything and i hope you know that milo♥

love, miss ventimiglia your biggest and #1 fan

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo and a trillion more♥♥♥

I would, at this point, have called the police.

It seems that most people who have signed this guestbook (some of whom seem to require large amounts of sedative, or hormone replacement therapy) haven’t read the disclaimer on the website, left by the ‘webmisses’:

The website, design and coding is © to Sarah and Tona. This is an unofficial fansite and it is not affiliated with Milo Ventimgilia in any way. All pictures is © to their respective owner. No copyright infrigement intended.

The fact that some people can be so thick worries me.



Sunday, September 9, 2007

Madeleine Fund conflict of interest?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 16:19

Hmm. So it emerges that Kate and Gerry McCann have been declared suspects in relation to the disappearance of their daughter.

So now what happens to the millions raised by Mr and Mrs McCann? Well, the Find Madeleine website makes for interesting reading, particularly the FAQ page.

What are the objects of Madeleine’s Fund?

Madeleine’s fund is a non-charitable not-for-profit company, which has been established to help find Madeleine McCann, to support her family, and to bring her abductors to justice. Any surplus funds will be used to help families and missing children in the United Kingdom, Portugal and elsewhere in similar circumstances.

The full objects of the Fund are:

  • To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
  • To procure that Madeleine’s abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
  • To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family.
  • If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

Uh-oh. If it does emerge Mr and Mrs McCann are responsible, then those two aims would seem to contradict each other. So which would take precedence?

I’m not in a position to say, but this could mean a very large conflict of interest.

There are another two FAQs that are very interesting.

Who are the directors of Madeleine’s Fund?

There are six directors of the Fund. They are:

  • Peter Hubner; a retired consultant;
  • Brian Kennedy, a retired head teacher;
  • John McCann, a medical representative;
  • Esther McVey, managing director of a public relations & communications company;
  • Doug Skehan, clinical director in cardiology at Glenfield Hospital;
  • Philip Tomlinson, a solicitor and former coroner in Leicestershire.

Are the directors paid?

The directors are not paid as directors of the company. However, they may, if family members, be beneficiaries of the Fund and they may, as is the case with some registered charities, be paid for providing services to the Fund. The Fund has established conflict of interest policies to deal with these situations.

Currently, as at the end of July 2007, none of the directors are being paid for providing services to the Fund.

Does this therefore mean that the money raised by Madeleine’s Fund could potentially be used for defence solicitor’s fees for Gerry and Kate McCann, if the police do charge them with Madeleine’s abduction/murder?

Another interesting point to note is that the Madeleine Fund has employed Bates Wells Braithwaite as their lawyers. Now, I don’t claim to be a legal expert, but surely such a fund would not need legal advisors, as Portugal’s own prosecution service should take on the case if the abductor is found? While I’m not pointing the finger at anyone in particular (and THIS I STRESS) it does seem very odd that such a fund should require legal advisors.



Powered by WordPress 2.7 Comments are the responsibility of their respective author. The Rest © 2007-2009 Jonathan Rothwell, unless otherwise stated.