Justin Bieber vs. Level 19 Fire Troll

Now you can choose on Google's free in-flight WiFi

Need to play World of Warcraft in the sky between JFK and LAX? Or review the YouTube library of Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga music videos before the peanut cart arrives on the aisle? Let the fight between two of your favorite WiFi options begin--maybe even before the seatbelt sign turns off!

For most of the year, you can pay just $11 for 24-hour access to Google's WiFi internet at certain airports and on certain planes. However, recent news reports let us know that Google is once again offering free WiFi at certain airports and on certain planes during the holiday season.

Free?!?!

Wait a second, you're saying. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and certainly there's no such thing as free WiFi.

How does a big ticket company like Google get its millions if it spends its days offering free, high-quality, and useful items? I feel like Microsoft charges for nearly every little thing it can offer, so to me they're not on board here. What's the business strategy in offering free stuff?

To me it seems like Google has long held a mantra of offering choices and, when possible, free choices. Their original search engine was famously simple to look at, not riddled with flashy banners and ads, and yet today Google is considered today to be a powerhouse in advertising.

Google acquired YouTube and kept the free service free: because free is a great word for building an audience. Today Google offers free WiFi all year round for a number of nearby Californian residents. From Google we get a free internet browser, a free desktop gadget utility, free lightweight yet powerfully adaptable email, and even an entire operating system (although this last one is admittedly not free; it does come preloaded on gadgets to be announced in the future).

The company's unofficial slogan at its inception was, “Don't be evil.” My thought is that the company seems to have spent its history making useful products that are either free (Google Earth is free, but its former competition wasn't), pleasant in their efficient utility (Chrome, Google search engine), or just a straight up challenge to the existing market competition (Buzz, Android).

To see evidence that Google is growing and succeeding, just take a look at the history of their investments, including stocks and acquisitions. I don't think that just because a company is enormous means that they are evil. So far Google has been pretty good to me.

Next time:

A Brief History of Google: An Illustrated Companion

Microsoft Kinect: The "Justin Bieber" of Modern Gaming is Not Racist

This just in: after fielding sensational headlines that the Microsoft Kinect might be "racist" for not distinguishing well between multiple dark-skinned users, it turns out that the lights in the room just may have been too low. Not racist. Room too dark. Makes sense.


Confused about how I could compare the Microsoft Kinect to Justin Bieber? To find out again why the video game industry's potential next big concept is like Justin Bieber, please take a look here.

Microsoft Kinect: The Justin Bieber of Motion Gaming?

You  may be wondering what Justin Bieber has to do with motion gaming. Stay tuned.

Don Reisinger posted an article on Slash Gear that explains his disillusionment with the new Microsoft Kinect, a new device that uses your body's motions to communicate control commands to the video game. He argues that he's not interested in games that make him stand up and act out what his character does on screen. Just because it might be more realistic to swing your arms than to push A or B on the controller, the gaming experience does not necessarily improve, he says.


I'm with you, Don. Sometimes the less "realistic" controlling systems--ye old classic controller--are best for breaking down the wall between the mind of the gamer and the mind of the character. For years I've been telling my kid brother that a turn-based RPG is in fact more realistic than their early "action" counterparts. If the goal of gaming is to make less obvious the disconnect between sitting on a couch while staring lifelessly ahead and slaying well armored fire ogres with my +50 sword of might, then selecting "Attack" and my hero swinging the blade are two actions both fluid, reflexive, and well controlled. Perfect. On the other hand, trying to master A+B << V > Start  X and wondering why my battle-hardened on-screen warrior can't draw arms in the face of danger doesn't make me think, "Now I'm doing it. I'm vanquishing evil."

Of course, Don is saying that this new technology works well, so maybe the intentions of the gamer won't as easily mismatch with the hero ("Swing the sword, dang it! No! Block! NOOOOO!!!"). What do you other people think?

And what does Justin Bieber have to do with motion gaming like the Microsoft Kinect? Both devices are used by major American corporations to connect with a younger audience by offering the illusion that the walls are coming down between themselves and their fantasies. And both try to make you dance like a fool on the living room floor. Well I for one will have none of it.