FactCheck

A New Orleans television reporter asked John McCain at a June 4 town hall meeting in Louisiana why he had voted twice against the creation of a commission to investigate preparedness for Hurricane Katrina. McCain responded that he "supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy." That's not true. 

McCain did, as the reporter said, twice vote against legislation that would have created an independent commission, much like the 9/11 Commission, to investigate the government's role in preparedness for and response to the hurricane. Here's the exchange:

Reporter: Senator, Maya Rodriguez at the CBS station out of New Orleans. My understanding is you have voted twice against the creation of a commission to investigate the levee failures in New Orleans. And my question is, why have you voted against that?

McCain: I’ve supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy. I’ve been here to New Orleans. I’ve met with people on the ground. I’ve met with the governor. I’m not familiar with exactly what you said, but I’ve been as active as anybody in efforts to restore the city.

The reporter was referring to votes on an amendment offered by Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 to set up an independent commission to look into the government's actions regarding Katrina. The commission would have been made up of non-federal-government employees, appointed by the president and Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress. Republicans defeated both attempts, with yeas and nays cast completely along party lines. 

Defending the White House

McCain lined up with his party at a time when the White House was being accused on all sides of withholding information from the Senate. 

Before the second vote, on Feb. 2, 2006, Clinton charged: "We are seeing the administration withholding documents, testimony, and information from the ongoing investigations by the House and Senate."

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who co-chaired a Senate investigation into Katrina by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, argued against the measure, saying her committee "has been conducting a thoroughly comprehensive, bipartisan, and thorough investigation into the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina." But about a week earlierCollins had been telling reporters that it was "completely inappropriate" for the White House to forbid government officials from talking to the committee and that "the White House has gone too far in restricting basic information about who called whom on what day." 

The other co-chair of that Senate investigation, Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, more forcefully chastised the White House and other federal agencies for withholding documents, refusing interviews and derailing the Senate's work.

Lieberman, Jan. 24, 2006: There has been a near-total lack of cooperation that has made it impossible, in my opinion, for us to do the thorough investigation we have a responsibility to do.

Lieberman voted for the creation of an independent commission, both times. He was later defeated for his party's nomination in 2006 but won reelection to the Senate as an independent and is now backing McCain.

We don't know whether an independent commission would have gotten more information from the Bush White House, and we take no position on whether creating such a commission was appropriate or needed. But McCain's statement that he "supported every investigation" is false. The record shows McCain lined up with his party as it circled the wagons to defend the Bush administration against a more aggressive probe of what went wrong before and after Katrina.

Why Vote Against It? 

McCain suggested that he was merely voting against wasteful spending. He told the Louisiana reporter that he voted against "one of the bills" because it was riddled with pork.

McCain: I also voted against one of the bills that came down that was loaded with pork barrel projects that had nothing to do with New Orleans too. It had billions for projects and programs that had nothing to do with the recovery of the city of New Orleans.

The Clinton amendments, however, would have provided $3 million for the investigation but no funds for anything else.

"Tired negative attacks"

McCain's gaffe put his campaign on the defensive. A spokesman issued a statement accusing Sen. Barack Obama of "launching ... tired negative attacks." 

McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers: It doesn't bode well for Senator Obama's pledges to run a campaign of hope and change when on the first day of the general election he's launching the same tired negative attacks that the American people are so sick and tired of. 

That referred to an e-mail that the Obama campaign sent to reporters. It said: "Whether he simply wasn't aware of his voting record again or he was intentionally misleading the people of Louisiana, John McCain certainly isn't offering us 'leadership you can believe in.' " Other than that, the e-mail simply quoted McCain and gave the dates and Senate numbers of the votes. 

The McCain campaign also said that in his response to the reporter he was"speaking to his strong support" for the Homeland Security Committee probe:

McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers (continuing): As Sen. McCain said, he wasn't familiar with the specific votes the questioner was asking about. Instead he was speaking to his strong support for the Homeland Security Committee's comprehensive, bipartisan investigation of Hurricane Katrina, which was already fully underway when these other proposals were suggested.

It's true that McCain did tell the reporter that he wasn't "familiar with exactly what you said." However, his response to the reporter made no specific mention of the Senate investigation. Furthermore, the Senate investigation was not "fully underway" when the idea of an independent commission was suggested. The first vote on Sept. 14, 2005, was held the same day the committee opened its first hearing.
 
-by Lori Robertson

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

FactCheck

For the past two weeks, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain and Democratic front-runner (and now presumptive nominee) Barack Obama have engaged in a war of words over their respective positions on Iran. In a June 2 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, McCain upped the ante, criticizing Obama's failure to support an amendment that called for designating Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, a charge that McCain repeats on his Web site. It's true that Obama opposed the amendment in question. But McCain is wrong to suggest that Obama's opposition had anything to do with the IRGC's designation. And McCain fails to mention that Obama cosponsored an earlier bill that would have named the IRGC a terrorist organization.

Wait, What Are We Fighting About Again?

TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images

Let's start with that whole Revolutionary Guard business. Here's McCain at AIPAC:

McCain (June 2): We must apply the full force of law to prevent business dealings with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. I was pleased to join Senators Lieberman and Kyl in backing an amendment calling for the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq. Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama. He opposed this resolution because its support for countering Iranian influence in Iraq was, he said, a "wrong message not only to the world, but also to the region."

On his Web site, McCain makes the point even more bluntly:

McCain Web site: The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment Designated Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps A Terrorist Organization - But Senator Obama Opposed It.

McCain implies that Obama doesn't think Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist organization. That's wrong. Before the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was introduced, Obama cosponsored a bill that called for the IRGC to be designated as "a Foreign Terrorist Operation." Obama was one of 72 cosponsors of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which states (in part):

Iran Counter-Proliferation Act: The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization ... and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224.

The McCain campaign notes that the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act has yet to come to the floor for a vote. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama's sponsorship put him on record in favor of labeling the IRGC a terrorist organization, contrary to McCain's insinuation.

As for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, it too called for the executive branch to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The amendment, which passed the Senate on Sept. 26, 2007, by a vote of 76 to 22, is not as bold a step as it might sound, considering the White House had announced a month earlier that it was debating naming either the entire IRGC or the Quds Force, an elite wing of the IRGC, as a terrorist organization. The Kyl-Lieberman amendment expressed "the sense of the senate" that the IRGC as a whole ought to be so designated. Proponents argued that the designation would pressure Iran to change its behavior in Iraq.

Kyl-Lieberman Amendment (excerpt)
Sec. 1538 of H.R. 1585

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(4) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

But the amendment did more than just urge the president to name new terrorist groups. It also expressed the sense that it is "a critical national interest" to prevent Iran from"turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force." Some Democrats, such as Jim Webb of Virginia, argued that the amendment "could be read as a back-door method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate."

Obama did not actually vote on the amendment – he was campaigning at the time. But he did publicly oppose it, calling it excessively provocative:

Obama press release (Sept. 26, 2007): Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

The 19 Democrats, two Republicans and one Independent who voted against the amendment included many of the Senate's leading voices on foreign relations. Joseph Biden, the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, opposed the amendment, as did Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the same committee. In fact, nine of the 23 senators who opposed the amendment sit on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

McCain's Web site offers another curious – and convoluted – argument about Obama and the IRGC:

McCain Web site: After The Kyl-Lieberman Vote, Barack Obama Often Criticized The Amendment Without Mentioning Any Support For IRGC Designation ... Before Responding To John McCain, Obama's Website Provides No Indication That Obama Favors Designating The IRGC As A Terrorist Organization.

The argument is faulty. First, as mentioned already, Obama is on record in favor of designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Second, even if Obama had not cosponsored the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, failing to state support for something on your Web site doesn't mean you therefore oppose it (and vice versa). Such reasoning constitutes a logical fallacy that philosophers call an argumentum ad ignorantiam, or an argument from ignorance. The fallacy occurs when someone asserts that the lack of evidence against a claim means that the claim is true. Should we conclude that because McCain's Web site says nothing about torturing kittens that he supports it? Of course not.

We take no position on the wisdom of the Kyl-Lieberman act. The Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly, and our colleagues at PolitiFact found thatexperts were divided over the implications of the amendment. We do know that McCain's claim that Obama's opposition to the bill was based on an unwillingness to label the IRGC as terrorists is false. 

Also worth noting: For all the time McCain and Obama have spent arguing about the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, they were the only two members of the Senate who failed to show up for the vote.

-by Joe Miller

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Fat Cats

This is a great read from Mark Cuban's blog.  Say what you will about him, but a lot of the time, I like his common sense approach.

My 2 Cents on CEO Pay

There is a game played by CEOs with the corporate issuance of lottery tickets. Otherwise known as stock. Stock can be issued in any number of ways, shapes or forms. Warrants, options, restricted or unrestricted stock. No matter what you call it, every CEO hired, is asking for equity knowing that their only goal is to hit the jackpot and create a pool of wealth that puts them in the "fuck you" wealth category. Thats enough money to buy or rent just about anything you can think of and put you in position to never have to work again. You just live off the cash in the bank.

Put another way, every hired CEO is looking to be in a position to look in the mirror , smile and tell themselves they have made it. They are living the American dream. The only way to do that is to grab as much equity equivalents as you can and do everything you can to get that stock price up as high as you can while periodically liquidating the stock and stuffing the cash in your bank account.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. Any CEO who doesnt take advantage of this golden ticket opportunity is an idiot. In fact, although I don't have actual numbers, I would hazard a guess that more than 95pct of CEOs hired to run companies with a billion dollar plus public market caps probably do get themselves to the position of having more than 10mm dollars in equity very quickly. While those who manage to hold on to their jobs a while and not screw up too bad, can relatively quickly get past the 25mm dollar in equity mark and reach the 50mm dollar mark with in 10 years. Its actually pretty tough to screw up and not get there if you have any brains at all.

Why ?

Because you have the entire Mutual Fund, Hedge Fun and Brokerage industry doing everything they can to get you there. Think about it.

You can't turn on CNBC or Fox Business without them cheerleading the market to go up. Every man, woman, child, fund, index or interested party who buys the stock is doing everything they can to get the stock of the company to go higher. They don't really care how you run the company and they care less about the results of the company than they do about the performance of the stock. Heck, even if they did care, shareholders dont really own anything and have zero say in the company. If you really dig into it, its the ultimate in social networking. Everyone who owns the stock belongs to the fan page or group for the stock and they are telling everyone they can how wonderful the company is and why the stock will go up, all while praying it does so.

Its the American way and it works ! Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year by brokerages telling every American that the stock market over time will go up 7pct per year. All you have to do is diversify and hold onto your stock long enough. For better or worse, everyone believes it.

With all of that social networking power, call it stocksourcing behind stocks, how can CEOs not get rich ?

The problem with all of this is that there is a huge disconnect between the CEO and shareholders doing well and those who work for the company doing well

Yes, its true, particularly in markets like we are experiencing now, stocks can hit 52 week, or even multi-year lows.(although more often than not, in spite of low stock prices, market caps have increased).

Yes, its true that CEOs see the value of their holdings shrink. However, unlike lottery tickets whose value goes to zero when you dont hit the number, the CEO equity positions retain their upside and history has shown us that if they go far enough underwater, they will get repriced and /or reissued. All in the name of keeping the CEO happy. So while CEOs may get "less rich" for awhile, the game is stacked so that a downturn gets them happy real fast when the upturn comes.

The disconnect is that there is a big difference between not making Wall Street happy and not making money.

The pressure from Wall Street is to grow earnings forever. Not matter what it takes. This isnt a problem when a company is doing well. EVeryone is happy. But when the economy hits a bump like it has now, when the market is hitting a bump and stock prices are declining, like it is now, the pressure comes. Everyone owning the stock reacts and whats to know what the CEO will do to get the price back up. This, as they say "is where the CEO earns their pay" Unfortunately, what this really means is that everyone who works for that company is at risk. At risk of losing their jobs, benefits, raises, you name it. Its at risk.

All of which is a long winded way of saying that employees live in the corporate cash zone, CEOs and the top few in management live in the equity/lottery ticket zone.

Those in the cash zone always take the first hit. People,places and things that consume cash are the first things to go because cash expenses immediately reduce earnings. If you or anyone like you consumes cash, unless someone upstairs thinks you generate a straight to the bottom line return on the cash expenditure, you are about to become a corporate ghost. Your person, place and thing will be memorialized as a cut to increase earnings mentioned in a press release that wall street will cheer and use to push up the stock price.

What makes me sad about all of this is that I really think that in this country if there truly was a connection between shareholders and management, that if given a choice by profitable companies, most of us would choose to hold on to our shares and accept an expanded PE for some period of time in exchange for people keeping their jobs.

I would love to receive an email from a company I own saying something to the effect of:

Dear Shareholder,
We are facing a very difficult decision that we would like your feedback on . Our earnings per share last quarter were 20 cents, and for the entire last year, 80 cents. Because of a downturn in business caused by XYZ factors, we face the choice of making 10 pct less, or cutting headcount and related expenses in order to maintain our earnings and possibly even grow our earnings a couple cents this year.

As a shareholder, we would like to ask you whether you would consider allowing us to retain these valued employees. We recognize that it would require you accepting a PE multiple 10 pct higher than the current market. We hope you would be willing to make this concession. We think that the jobs this will save will return far greater value to shareholders over the long run.

We look forward to your vote.

Personally, Im willing to give a higher multiple in exchange for saving people's jobs. At least once.

Unfortunately, this of course is a fantasy that can't happen in this country.

Which brings us back to CEO Pay.

As long as CEOs live in the equity/lottery ticket zone and employees in the cash zone, CEO pay is going to be outrageous relative to everyone else.

The only possible way to change this is to put CEOs in the cash zone. Make companies generate 100pct of their compensation in cash that is 100pct expensable in the quarter paid. Thats not to say they cant own stock. Hell yes they can own stock. But make them buy it either on the open market, or as part of the programs that make stock available to every company employee, on the same terms. They are getting paid enough in cash and if they believe in their ability to run the company, they can put their money where their mouth is. Eliminate all the free lottery tickets. Make them buy stock, options, warrants, whatever, on the same terms as everyone else can.

Shareholders tend to ignore how much stock is given to management, they don't ignore cash. Companies will always be a lot more stringent with their cash, whether its paid to the CEO or anyone else. CEO cash compensation will go way up, but total compensation will come way down. More importantly , CEOs getting paid huge sums in cash will stand out like a sore thumb when things arent going so well. They will be treated like everyone else in the cash zone and held far more accountable for their work.

Of course this is all just my opinion, but to me its a good thing for all involved. The rich can still get richer, but everyone shares in the risk.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Made in China

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Evernote

I've been giving Evernote a go for a couple of weeks and thus far have been pretty impressed.  I'm a bit worried as it's free at the moment while it's in Beta but could cost some funds when it's out of Beta.  If you've been looking for a nice app that "allows you to easily capture information in any environment using whatever device or platform you find most convenient, and makes this information accessible and searchable at anytime, from anywhere.", I'd highly recommend Evernote.  I've been using another nice app, Journler, for a bit now but have been looking for something to sync to the cloud.  So far, Evernote fits the bill perfectly.

As is the trend nowadays, Evernote's in a closed beta at the moment but I have a few invitations.  If you'd like one, post a comment.

I ran across this post on GottaBeMobile that was timely as a buddy of mine and I were wondering about costs:

- Rob Bushway

Phil Libin, Evernote's CEO, responded to my "Doing Some Thinking About Evernote" article and offered some comments on a few of my thoughts. Since they involve a few issues others have asked about, including the big pricing question, I've pasted them below:

Rob, Thanks for your kind words. I'm very happy that you're finding Evernote useful. Some comments to your comments, in-line:

Everote needs to put some serious work into developing an auto import from OneNote to Evernote for those wanting to make the conversion.
Good idea. Or maybe, once we publish our APIs, someone else can do it for us.

"I'm wondering why the Evernote web interface doesn't default to https? When forced to https, it'll stay there temporarily, but then switch back to http. I want my note information transmitted securely."
Right now all user authentication happens over HTTPS. Large-scale SSL transmission of all note content is expensive (to us), and will be a feature available to premium subscribers, once we launch the premium subscriptions.

"I really, really wish Evernote would allow mix of ink and text. I've asked them about it multiple times. Sadly, it is not a priority."
It's very tough to do this while preserving portability and search across multiple platforms, but we've got a few options we're exploring.

"How much will Evernote, with all its syncing glory, cost? Are we looking at monthly subscription fees for the syncing or will it be free with the purchase of the client. Pricing is one data piece not being provided yet. I'd like to know what their pricing model is going to be like."
There's going to be a free subscription level that includes pretty much all of the features you see in the beta, including multiple clients. syncing, recognition. There's going to be a "premium" subscription level that includes things like much higher quotas, enhanced security, etc. We haven't really worked out the details on premium features, timing and price yet.

"The iPhone mobile interface is totally awesome!"
It's going to get a whole lot more awesome soon.

--- Phil Libin CEO, Evernote

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Job Market 2009

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Geek

<stolen from PCWorld>

With Vista hacked Friday, a Linux laptop remained uncompromised at the CanSecWest PWN 2 OWN hacking contest.

Robert McMillan, IDG News Service

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Microsoft Entourage

<Stolen from The Entourage Help Blog>

With the help of a plug-in, the Finder can display the contents of Entourage mail messages without having to open them in Entourage. Shin-ichi Kawamura has posted Entourage QuickLook Plug-In ver. 1.1 as a free download on his website.

The website and the included Readme.rtf file are in Japanese but I needed no translation to tell me when I opened the .dmg file that I simply need to drag and drop the Entourage QuickLook Plug-In.qlgenerator file into the /Library/QuickLook folder. Installation is that simple. If you’re not an administrator on your Mac and do not have privileges to install items into the main Library folder then you can place the plug-in inside ~/Library/QuickLook where “~” is your own home folder. You will need to create the QuickLook folder if it doesn’t already exist.

Read the rest at The Entourage Help Blog.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Steve Jobs

This was a great read about Steve Jobs.

<stolen from Fortune Magazine>

In October 2003, as the computer world buzzed about what cool new gadget he would introduce next, Apple CEO Steve Jobs - then presiding over the most dramatic corporate turnaround in the history of Silicon Valley - found himself confronting a life-and-death decision.

During a routine abdominal scan, doctors had discovered a tumor growing in his pancreas. While a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is often tantamount to a swiftly executed death sentence, a biopsy revealed that Jobs had a rare - and treatable - form of the disease. If the tumor were surgically removed, Jobs' prognosis would be promising: The vast majority of those who underwent the operation survived at least ten years.

Yet to the horror of the tiny circle of intimates in whom he'd confided, Jobs was considering not having the surgery at all. A Buddhist and vegetarian, the Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) CEO was skeptical of mainstream medicine. Jobs decided to employ alternative methods to treat his pancreatic cancer, hoping to avoid the operation through a special diet - a course of action that hasn't been disclosed until now.

For nine months Jobs pursued this approach, as Apple's board of directors and executive team secretly agonized over the situation - and whether the company needed to disclose anything about its CEO's health to investors. Jobs, after all, was widely viewed as Apple's irreplaceable leader, personally responsible for everything from the creation of the iPod to the selection of the chef in the company cafeteria. News of his illness, especially with an uncertain outcome, would surely send the company's stock reeling. The board decided to say nothing, after seeking advice on its obligations from two outside lawyers, who agreed it could remain silent.

In the end, Jobs had the surgery, on Saturday, July 31, 2004, at Stanford University Medical Center in Palo Alto, near his home. The revelation of his brush with death remained - like everything involving Jobs and Apple - a tightly controlled affair. In fact, nary a word got out until Jobs' tumor had been removed. The next day, in an upbeat e-mail to employees later released to the press, he announced that he had faced a life-threatening illness and was "cured." Jobs assured everyone that he'd be back on the job in September. When trading resumed a day after the announcement, Apple shares fell just 2.4%.

Apple entertained no further questions about Jobs' health, citing the CEO's need for privacy. No one learned just how long Jobs had been sick - or that he had contemplated not having the surgery at all. "It was very traumatic for all of us," recalls one of those in whom Jobs confided, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the topic's sensitivity. "We all really care about Steve, and it was a serious risk for the company as well. It was a very emotional and very difficult time. This was one page in the adventure."

***

The Steve Jobs adventure: By now it's one of the most remarkable stories in business. When Jobs returned in 1997 to Apple - then facing its own near-death experience - he arrived with a tarnished legend. He was, of course, the charismatic boy wonder who at age 21 had co-founded Apple with Steve Wozniak in his parents' garage back in 1976. He was worth $200 million by 25, made the cover of Time magazine at 26, and was thrown out of the company at age 30, in 1985.

What he's accomplished in the past decade has not just restored Jobs to the Silicon Valley pantheon but elevated him to the status of superstar. On the brink of bankruptcy when he returned, Apple now has a market value of $108 billion - more than Merck, McDonald's, or Goldman Sachs; $1,000 invested in Apple shares on the day Jobs took over is worth about $36,000 today. And it isn't just Apple and its investors that have benefited from Jobs' executive skill. Pixar, where he served simultaneously as CEO, has come to dominate the animation business, churning out megahits like "Finding Nemo" and "The Incredibles" that prompted Disney (DIS, Fortune 500) to buy the company in 2006 for $7.5 billion. (Jobs now owns 7.3% of Disney, worth $4.6 billion, in addition to Apple stock worth $682 million.)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

iPhatigue

<stolen from The Unofficial Apple Weblog>

Posted Mar 6th 2008 2:52PM by Mat Lu

While Apple did not release any games at today's event they did begin to show what's possible with several tech demos. Apparently the SDK has only been available for the last two weeks or so, even inside Apple, which makes what they showed that much more impressive. First up, a team inside of Apple cooked up "Touch Fighter," which appears to be a kind of space-based shooter that you steer by tilting and aim by pointing. The game is 3D and uses OpenGL graphics.

Next up was Travis Boatman from EA who showed an iPhone version of the eagerly-awaited game Spore (also shipping for Macs later this year). It's clearly cut down from the desktop version, but as Johnson said of the dog walking on his two hind legs: "it is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all!" Considering that EA had two weeks, this suggests the iPhone has the power to be a serious gaming platform.

Finally, Ethan Einhorn from Sega showed off a build of Super Monkey Ball, naturally also using tilt controls. What's interesting there is they actually underestimated what the iPhone could do, and ended up having to bring in another artist to upscale the art from what they had anticipated. Again, the take home message: the iPhone is a real platform for game development.

It's worth noting that these were all demos and there are no guarantees that any of them will be released. Nonetheless, it's an impressive showing for two-weeks with the SDK and we can only imagine what things will look like in June when firmware 2.0 is released to consumers.

Update: Engadget says that EA has confirmed Spore for iPhone; release in September.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend