Panda: Tactical Sniper

I don't play computer games much but my middle son, Robert, who began to take an interest in the summer when he created this game, has moved on with a new game called Panda: Tactical Sniper.

It was published for the first time yesterday (Monday, October 13) and has been played almost 30,000 times already. That seems to me an astonishing figure yet it is still a comparatively modest number compared with some of the industry leaders.

I say "industry" because this kind of games publishing is an industry in its own right. Rob has been paid a good fee up front for the work (with bonuses if it succeeds) and an artist was employed to improve on his work.

This particular genre is a "sniper game." Rob is no fan of gun games but they are a popular choice among young adolescent males. He is more in to problem-solving and he has worked the sniping activity in to a puzzle game that is no pushover.

Of course it works on both levels and those who want to rack up a big score go through it again for speed and accuracy once they have worked out the puzzles. I have been looking at a few of the other games on this site and some are very clever indeed.

It's easy to be put off by all the advertising on the sites but in this world where sites such as Facebook have still to make a profit this is one part of the internet that really works as a business.

I sent him a couple of my own ideas this morning which failed to impress. Instead (between his studies) he is engaged in creating an obvious follow up - Panda II.

All of a Twitter

I'm finding that social networking is rather like Marmite - you love it or hate it. So if you are in the latter camp and have just received an email from me inviting you to join Twitter.com let me send you my sincere apologies for cluttering up your email box.

If, on the other hand, you were curious to know more - as I see a few were - all I can tell you is that my co-presenter at a recent seminar on social networking was telling us that Twitter was the "new new thing."

Status box

What it does, in a nutshell, is to take one of the most popular features of Facebook - a "status box" that allows you to make a brief mention of something you are doing - and share it among friends or contacts.

Everyone is restricted to 140 characters a twitter so you must keep your message brief. But you can include web links and there is a feature to receive Twitter notes (or tweats) on your mobile phone.

Is it a great thing? I have no idea, but I'm going to give it a try in the same way that I gave Facebook a try.

Social profit

"So you have nothing better to do with your time," some friends have said. In reality I don't spend much time doing this stuff and there is always, always, always some kind of return. But don't think of financial advantage, think of social profit. As BT once said in its advertising: "It's good to talk." Now we might find that it's good to tweat too.

In addition to Twitter I have also signed up to FriendFeed - a site that aggregates your involvement in various social networks. It seems like a good idea. I joined another too but can't for the life of me remember what it was - oh hum.

David Creelman, a Toronto-based human resources specialist who runs Creelman Research and who I also find is Tweating, has given me his own take on how Twitter could be useful in the workplace.

Imagine you are working on a project with five other people. You all sign up to Twitter and have your own twitter group. At a glance you can see how each other is progressing.

As David puts it:

"I suspect that it will be of most use when a group of some sort decides to use it for a real purpose. For example, a dispersed team might suggest they all use Twitter and it could be almost like overhearing the buzz of background conversation:

A - can't get the new motor working, called in for service
C - arrived in Frankfurt, will see Tony later
E - finished the code for sorting
F - J. is sick so I'm at home

The messages here would be distinguished from email because there would be nothing "need to know here." At the same time if you glanced at this from time to time you might pick up useful information. Not only that, simply the buzz would make you feel you were part of a team (if you were in a remote location) not a guy alone in his home office wondering why he wasn't rich like his friends."

That last bit, incidentally, is a personal reference to a twitter remark by some sad dude. I can't imagine who.

Fabulous Scrabulous

If you're not on Facebook - the social networking site - and wonder what all the fuss is about, you might ponder on the latest controversy in the Scrabble games market.

Scrabble has been enjoying a renaissance lately, led in no small measure by the popularity of a Facebook version called Scrabulous. Srabulous is one of thousands of so-called "applications" on Facebook. These applications are clever bits of software built by enthusiasts within the Facebook community.

It is probably the only thing that keeps me coming back to the Facebook site day after day. Just now I have four games going with my sons, one of whom is at Southampton University, so it's a nice way of keeping in touch.

Enterprising Indians

As the Times story makes clear, the two enterprising Indians, Rajat and Jayant Agarwalla, who are earning a nice income from advertisements on the Scrabulous mini-site within Facebook, are facing challenges from Hasbro and Mattel, two companies that make and sell Scrabble.

Hasbro and Mattel want Facebook to take down the game as they say it infringes their copyright. People who play the game are dismayed and some have pointed out that the popularity of Scrabulous must have been responsible for a big increase in Scrabble sales over the past six months. I, for one, bought a travel Scrabble for one of my sons this Christmas as a result of rediscovering the joys of Scrabble on the internet.

The old board was dusted down recently for family games once more and I'm sure this wouldn't have happened had we not have been playing it online.

I hope that Hasbro and Mattel do take Facebook to court. I hope that Facebook defends the action and I hope that a court, through the discovery process, reveals how Hasbro and Mattel sales have been influenced by the Scrabulous phenomenon. I hope then that a sensible judge awards a big slice of Hasbro and Mattel profits from Scrabble in marketing fees to the Indian software developers and Facebook.

This is unlikely to happen but it should. The actions of Hasbro and Mattel - which have taken time to emerge since Scrabulous has been around for months - is symptomatic of blinkered corporate greed and a stubborn refusal to wake up to the "win win" benefits of brand-sharing, using the internet.

Brand Sharing

Instead of asking Facebook to take down the Scrabulous game, Mattel and Hasbro should engage themselves in a good old business discussion with the brothers and with Facebook. It shouldn't be beyond all of them to agree a royalties deal that saves face for the rights owners (and a hell of a lot of business), keeps Facebook and the application developers well in pocket, and the rest of us happy playing one of the best online games around.

Next up, I guess, will be an action to protect the rights of Boggle, which is also available to play on Facebook although the online version is a rather solitary game.

Mattel and Hasbro should learn from the folly of the record producers. Chasing down those who infringe copyright is an expensive pursuit that brings limited success. Shut down Scrabulous today and there will be another version elsewhere tomorrow. As it is Scrabulous has created it's own website. The copyright owners must see that the Scrabble pie has grown a whole lot bigger while they stood by and watched.

Their instincts are the same as the record producers - they still want it all. Instead they should try sharing the pie around. They'll find it's a great way to do business. At the same time The Indian brothers should not believe they can have everything their own way. They've had a good run on the back of an established copyright delivered within a global internet platform that understands the value of their contribution to its success. In business terms it's time for each of the parties to talk turkey.

BlackBerry v Facebook

Which of the above is the best technology? Facebook gets my vote and not simply because it’s free.

I worry about BlackBerries and other BlackBerry-style hand-held devices. I worry about what they are doing to people, destroying the ability to concentrate while creating a world of ever-shortening attention spans.

They increase anxiety as people forever check their emails. They encourage ignorant behaviour when people in meetings devote more of their attention to their BlackBerries than they do to those speaking in the room. They destroy the art of conversation and trample over nuance. They are immune to sensitivity and encourage a Spock-like approach to emotion.

It’s fitting that I should mention the Star Trek character, Mr Spock, since the phrase “beam me up Scotty” which I don’t think was ever actually uttered in the series, but which became, nevertheless, one of the most frequently quoted remarks, heralded the BlackBerry era since it was uttered in to a hand-held device that turned out to be visionary in its conception.

I remember when some newspapers began to issue bleepers to their reporters. I never wanted one. It encouraged control freakery

Some may be attracted to BlackBerry for its convenience and the way it enables people to work any place any time.

But I don’t want to be contactable all the time. Nor do I seek the means to remain in constant contact. As it is there is too much communication via email, a lot of it lazy as people two and fro for message after message making an arrangement which they then change on a whim.

Facebook, on the other hand, is transforming the way we know people, infiltrating social behaviours in to our everyday lives, including our working lives. I’m getting to know more about the personalities of the people I’m dealing with much of the time. You can see the human face behind the business suit.

The horrible Linkedin, on the other hand, is no more than an on-line exchange of business cards. It does not provide the virtual space for human interaction in the way that Facebook does.

The best feature on the whole of Facebook is a little box that says your name and invites you to say something about yourself at any particular moment. So, on my page it says “Richard is….” I look at this quite a lot and ask myself questions: What’s my mood just now? What’s my immediate concern? What am I doing? It’s a little indulgence on a site that invites self-indulgence in an age when we need to be emancipated from the commoditisation of people and work.

Returning to the heading of this blog, it's no contest really: Facebook is a social enabler; the BlackBerry is downright anti-social.

So be my Facebook friend by all means but don’t expect instant responses from a BlackBerry. It ain't going to happen.

Lunchless in London - Facebook to the rescue

The joys of London during a tube strike. In fact the Northern line was running yesterday. It's not much of a life down there in those jam packed train carriages. No-one can hear you scream.

One tube journey was one too many. My morning appointment, as one of the judges of the CBI's Human Capital Awards, ended early as we sprinted through the categories with not much disagreement about the winners.

Out on the streets it suddenly occurred to me that I had nothing to do. A lunch appointment had fallen through, my next appointment was at 5pm and there was a dinner in St James's in the evening.

There are guide books stuffed with things to do in London and not one of them appealed. This was a work day which by noon meant only one thing: lunch. Lunchless in London is a bleak prospect.

Yes I could have nipped to any Pret a Manger but lunch is about meeting people and conversation. The eating bit is ritual. I walked down Tottenham Court Road and cut through to the Strand and John Adam Street where I often take refuge in the Royal Society for the Arts. In the library there I could sit behind a computer and look at my emails.

I popped on to Facebook, the social networking site. One of my favourite features is a little box where you can describe your situation or mood at any particular time. Mine begins "Richard is....." and I can fill in the rest. So I filled it in: "Richard is at a loose end in London (RSA) and looking for a lunch partner, so come on Facebook, do the business."

Within a few seconds, I had a message from an old friend in the recruitment business inviting me to lunch at the Gherkin where he works. The Gherkin is the somewhat phallic tower designed by Norman Foster. At the very top, in the atrium there is a restaurant and bar for the exclusive use of those who occupy the building - and their guests.

Top lunch, excellent conversation, some of it work-related too justifying the experience if any justification is needed which it isn't. I much prefer this sort of thing to lunches that are booked in the diary, weeks in advance.

So what does this mean? It means that Facebook works. It can put two people together spontaneously in a city of 10m within half an hour's notice. It made my day. Dinner in the evening was good too - business/social with people I know and like. Work? It didn't feel like work.

Saving face on Facebook

The Facebook nightmare continues. It's listing more and more people as friends. One or two genuine friends are asking me if I was getting desperate or something. I mean I like people generally. I'll chat with anyone... unless I'm feeling anti-social when the fishing comes in handy. Mostly I talk to the dog but he's not on Facebook - Dogbook maybe.

I wonder what a Dogbook entry would look like? On the Dogbook wall there would be multiple comments saying "Woof", "Arf", and an occasional "Grrrr." They'd send each other peemails. Well they do that already. Our dog isn't happy unless he's checked all his peemails every day.

I digressed. It's not the "friends" who are listed on Facebook that worries me: it's me. I mean how many people have been looking down their emails only to find one from Richard Donkin asking them to be his friend simply because they once sent him an email? How sad is that?

But you can't undo what's done. You can't send messages to people saying: "Sorry but we both know we're not really friends so lets call it off." Besides some of my Facebook friends, well quite a lot of them in fact, are really very attractive. With friends like these.... no, really, sending out that message was an accident. Honest!

Not all the friends are very friendly. One of them is a PR guy with a grudge. There must be plenty of them out there, all wondering why I suddenly want to be their friend.

So why did you do it Donkin, you may ask? I don't recall doing anything. I just had an email and felt curious. Maybe I clicked something. It's like a web-based Pandora's Box. Once started, this thing just balloons. I'm wondering if I can turn it into a column somehow. There has to be a recruitment angle here.

Ah! Have just found another old fart. My old FT mucker and well known technophobe Jimmy Burns has joined and he's older than me.

Friends I didn't know I had

So there I was, minding my own business this morning, writing yet another column, when I checked my email and there was one from Nikki Woodroffe asking if I would be her friend on Facebook. Well I'm already her friend so that seemed OK.

Anyway I signed up and all hell broke loose. I'm getting friends, old faces and people I didn't know I knew popping up all over the place. I'm wondering if accidentally I pressed the button which allowed the system to approach all the 700-odd people on my email log to be my Facebook friend. How embarrassing.

The strangest reaction came from my eldest son, John, who didn't think it was at all cool that his dad might be listed as one of his friends. Anyway he's confirmed me.

Weak ties

Some I don't know from Adam but some I do. Most are in the category of "weak ties" described in this column that refers to the work of Mark Granovetter. That's OK. As the column says, weak ties are good. But how many people are real friends?

It's hard to define a real friend. I suppose it's someone who will help you out when times are tough. I've never had it tough so it's hard to know who my real friends are. But I think I know who they are. My best friend above all others is my wife, Gill. I know that might sound a bit corny but it's true.

Alan Friedman

But there are many more good friends - the sort you enjoy sharing time with. I like friends who tell interesting stories or who surprise me with the things they say or do. I shouldn't admit this, but I quite like outrageous people and some who are really not nice people but who are amusing and have a certain edginess. Alan Friedman, if you ever read this, you know who I'm talking about.

I've lost touch with Friedman. He was outrageous in many respects and, like many such people, would neglect his friends. But he was marvellous company. He introduced me to the wild side of New York that I would have never seen otherwise.


Star Ship Enterprise

He was gay of course, but a bloke's bloke all the same. We called on him in Paris a few years back. In the hallway each wall was painted with a different prime colour with bright green on the fourth wall. There were leopard skin chairs in front of the fire. The telephones were shaped like the Star Ship Enterprise and, above the dining table where there is usually a light, there hung a glass bowl with a goldfish swimming inside. It was all very decadent. But that was Friedman.

We worked together a lot on the Arms to Iraq story in the early days where we found a conspiracy around every corner. I lost touch with him but saw he was doing a business slot on Italian TV. Friedman - one of the great characters of the FT. Not every one's cup of tea. but I liked him.

I notice his Wikipedia entry has aroused suspicion. I'm not surprised. I can see one or two dodgy claims. He almost certainly wrote it himself. I notice also that it's all "was" stuff. I wonder what he's up to now?