August 31, 2005 5:55 AM PDT
Perspective: A guide for would-be conspiracy theorists
See all Perspectives
Barely a week goes by without the publication of a new, ornate theory about Company X's plans for domination of the planet, or at least domination of the market for personal-connectivity solutions. Look at other trade publications and witness the difference: Rarely do you see people hotly debate whether International Harvester has lost its soul.
Google is the latest company sitting in the star chamber. Will the search giant try to buy Skype, as some have speculated, and turn the telecommunications industry upside down? Are all of its latest moves merely an indirect attempt to distract Microsoft?
Google recently deleted from its "Our Philosophy" Web page a sentence saying it does not do horoscopes and chat, leaving open the possibility that the search giant may indeed offer astrological guidance along with Google Talk. Perhaps Zeus had been displeased with the company's impertinence? Will the company start offering all sorts of New Age content?
The reality is likely far more pedestrian. Google, after all, is an accidental success. It originally concentrated on selling search tools to corporations--and was running out of cash, according to board member Mike Moritz at the VentureOne conference in April. The company then decided to emphasize the search part of the business, which was growing by word of mouth. Since then, it's become the Web's premier site for finding information on topics such as bomb building and bestiality. (I think this is correct, but Google refuses to talk to CNET News.com because of a previous story.)
As a result, the company is probably just testing a variety of ideas to see what captures the public imagination. When you have a few hundred thousand servers, testing new services on the Web is cheap.
That explanation, though, is somewhat dull. So plots emerge.
The primary explanation for the prevalence of conspiracies is that strange, unexpected events do occur. IBM sold its PC unit after the prediction fell flat for years--and to a Chinese company, no less. Corporations adopted open-source software, despite heavy-duty skepticism about it. After years of disparaging Intel processors, Apple Computer announced plans to adopt them.
But wish fulfillment plays a big role, too. When you get down to it, the industry is centered around logic but ruled by emotion. Thus, many of the theories can be actually be boiled down to "Dell is terrible because they're more popular than I'd like," or "The sales guy from Oracle really bugs me."
How can you come up with your own theories? Here's a simple, five-step method:
1. Base everything on circumstantial evidence. This comes straight out of medieval times. Take as many disparate surface details as you can and try to discern meaning in them.
Two weeks ago, for instance, some wags speculated that Intel would abandon the x86 architecture at the Intel Developer Forum because the company: a) said it would come out with a "new" chip architecture and b) said it would provide better power performance. But the prediction was wrong.
Accuracy isn't necessarily important here. John Dvorak, among others, said he predicted the Apple-Intel deal two years in advance. However, he predicted that Apple would adopt Itanium. Apple didn't, but he still asked for credit.
2. Assume the people you're dealing with are geniuses or, alternatively, dopes. A good rule of thumb to apply here is that, if the company is struggling to make money or regain market share, they are deep thinkers, three steps ahead of the competition. If they are successful, they have the collective brainpower of a hungover gibbon.
It's sort of the reverse of what you see in history. Napoleon was considered a genius until he lost. Bill Gates often gets criticized for lack of imagination, mostly based on the fact that Microsoft does, in the end, emerge victorious.
3. Play up insignificant facts. A lot of people claim Apple was behind the success of USB and wireless notebooks. Yes, Apple unfurled wireless notebooks in 1999, but Dell and Compaq Computer did about the same, at approximately the same time.
Next week, Apple is expected to release a phone with an MP3 player or a portable video player. Never mind that Sony and Samsung have similar products. If Apple does it, there will be some claim to originality.
4. Focus on the omissions. Forget what a company does. If there's an ad on Yahoo's site for a logistics coordinator, does that mean they'll try to take on Bekins and Mayflower in the shipping and storage industry? And by the way, how come eBay hasn't mentioned its cafeteria in recent quarterly reports? Are they giving up that front? If it's unspoken, it's true.
5. Everything is really a distraction for a bigger plot. Sony often gets motives read into its moves: It's the Knights Templar of consumer electronics. The PlayStation was supposed to be the Trojan Horse that defeated computing. The Cell chip exists to undermine Intel. When the company got into movies way back when, demonic fantasies of vertically integrated entertainment swirled.
As it turned out, the only thing Sony was up to was layoffs.
Biography
Michael Kanellos is editor at large at CNET News.com, where he covers hardware, research and development, start-ups and the tech industry overseas. He has worked as an attorney, travel writer and sidewalk hawker for a time share resort, among other occupations.
See more CNET content tagged:
theory, Apple Computer, Google Inc., Intel
based on the fact that Microsoft does, in the end, emerge
victorious.
>> True, but usually because MS throws enough money against
the wall to 'innovate' a mediocre solution, and then embed it
into a Windows OS as a marketing ploy.
Next week, Apple is expected to release a phone with an MP3
player or a portable video player. Never mind that Sony and
Samsung have similar products. If Apple does it, there will be
some claim to originality.
>> Rarely does Apple make phony claims for originality, but
people do seem to interpret claims for a new implementation as
a claim for original invention. Probably there isn't a single
technology item which hasn't been originally identified a long
time ago, tho not necessarily in a readily recognized form. So
the claims need to always refer to a new implementation, no
matter who makes the claim.
But in general, the report is correct. Too many people who ought
to know better get quickly involved in 'my computer can beat up
your computer' arguments which are both childish and
inconsequential. But, that's what blogs and related
communications generate, much smoke, and little intelligence.
Except for this one, of course ;-)
based on the fact that Microsoft does, in the end, emerge
victorious.
>> True, but usually because MS throws enough money against
the wall to 'innovate' a mediocre solution, and then embed it
into a Windows OS as a marketing ploy.
Next week, Apple is expected to release a phone with an MP3
player or a portable video player. Never mind that Sony and
Samsung have similar products. If Apple does it, there will be
some claim to originality.
>> Rarely does Apple make phony claims for originality, but
people do seem to interpret claims for a new implementation as
a claim for original invention. Probably there isn't a single
technology item which hasn't been originally identified a long
time ago, tho not necessarily in a readily recognized form. So
the claims need to always refer to a new implementation, no
matter who makes the claim.
But in general, the report is correct. Too many people who ought
to know better get quickly involved in 'my computer can beat up
your computer' arguments which are both childish and
inconsequential. But, that's what blogs and related
communications generate, much smoke, and little intelligence.
Except for this one, of course ;-)
http://www.realmeme.com/Main/miner/religion/googleconspiracyDejanews.png
However, if you want to debate conspiracies,
you need a quantifiable test, such as this:
To qualify as a conspiracy, there must be
1) two or more participants, sharing information
2) an unwitting third party
3) a motive, i.e. the conspirators must stand
to profit by the third party's lack of information
http://www.realmeme.com/Main/miner/religion/googleconspiracyDejanews.png
However, if you want to debate conspiracies,
you need a quantifiable test, such as this:
To qualify as a conspiracy, there must be
1) two or more participants, sharing information
2) an unwitting third party
3) a motive, i.e. the conspirators must stand
to profit by the third party's lack of information
mostly
> based on the fact that Microsoft does, in the end, emerge
> victorious.
Gotta disagree with you there. Microsoft does not have a history
of being an innovator, except in the area of being able to
emulate the good stuff of others and use their own novel tactics
to dominate the market.
Now before you claim this is a screed for Apple, it isn't. I'm not
claiming anything for Apple. But let's not try to sugar coat the
Microsoft story. They are great at marketing, lousy at
innovation.
mostly
> based on the fact that Microsoft does, in the end, emerge
> victorious.
Gotta disagree with you there. Microsoft does not have a history
of being an innovator, except in the area of being able to
emulate the good stuff of others and use their own novel tactics
to dominate the market.
Now before you claim this is a screed for Apple, it isn't. I'm not
claiming anything for Apple. But let's not try to sugar coat the
Microsoft story. They are great at marketing, lousy at
innovation.
There is something worse than ascribing all powerful people, organizations, and businesses, with "conspiratorial" intent.
And that, is to simply ignore the sad, but very real, fact that "conspiracies" DO ACTUALLY HAPPEN all the time, ...especially where "money", and/or "power", are concerned.
Sometimes these manipulations are unethical. Sometimes they are illegal. Sometimes, ...they are both.
Furthermore, I have observed that, these days many of the most unethical, and manipulative groups, ARE in fact furthering their goals by dismissing, and publicly-ridiculing, their opponents as "...mere Conspiracy Nuts".
My advice, ...take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. Look at who, and how many, are pointing out such "conspiracies". What are their credentials. What do the have to gain, or loose, ...personally, emotionally, or financially. And then, make up your own mind.
Fear of open-discussion is really the greatest threat, and should be considered to be a warning-flag to any intelligent-person.
who really don't have a clue about what is going on are far too
willing to believe that some group out there is plotting against
them.
Second, history has clearly shown that attempts at conspiracy
are screwed up by having people involved. No matter what the
attempt is, it self-destructs long before getting anywhere.
Third, the classic conspiracies reported in the press, maybe
beginning with the Knights Templar, are in the category of Santa
Claus and the Easter Bunny - which some people also believe are
real.
Sure, there are always groups trying to execute a maneuver to
gain financial and power advantages. Political parties are in that
group, most lobbying organizations are in that group, big
corporations like MS and Apple and GM and Chase Manhattan
are in that group, Most are legal and ethical, tho not necessarily
friendly. And when things get illegal, lawsuits are filed. Of
course, be vigilant, but the boogey man is not right around the
corner. No matter what anyone says.
Maybe the conspiracy claims are the real conspiracy.
- There is something more dangerous...
- by Had_to_be_said August 31, 2005 6:08 PM PDT
- A thought-provoking article, however...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Perhaps....
- by Earl Benser September 1, 2005 2:58 AM PDT
- First, we are never short of 'conspiracy nuts'. Too many people
- Like this View reply
Processing -
(32 Comments)There is something worse than ascribing all powerful people, organizations, and businesses, with "conspiratorial" intent.
And that, is to simply ignore the sad, but very real, fact that "conspiracies" DO ACTUALLY HAPPEN all the time, ...especially where "money", and/or "power", are concerned.
Sometimes these manipulations are unethical. Sometimes they are illegal. Sometimes, ...they are both.
Furthermore, I have observed that, these days many of the most unethical, and manipulative groups, ARE in fact furthering their goals by dismissing, and publicly-ridiculing, their opponents as "...mere Conspiracy Nuts".
My advice, ...take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. Look at who, and how many, are pointing out such "conspiracies". What are their credentials. What do the have to gain, or loose, ...personally, emotionally, or financially. And then, make up your own mind.
Fear of open-discussion is really the greatest threat, and should be considered to be a warning-flag to any intelligent-person.
who really don't have a clue about what is going on are far too
willing to believe that some group out there is plotting against
them.
Second, history has clearly shown that attempts at conspiracy
are screwed up by having people involved. No matter what the
attempt is, it self-destructs long before getting anywhere.
Third, the classic conspiracies reported in the press, maybe
beginning with the Knights Templar, are in the category of Santa
Claus and the Easter Bunny - which some people also believe are
real.
Sure, there are always groups trying to execute a maneuver to
gain financial and power advantages. Political parties are in that
group, most lobbying organizations are in that group, big
corporations like MS and Apple and GM and Chase Manhattan
are in that group, Most are legal and ethical, tho not necessarily
friendly. And when things get illegal, lawsuits are filed. Of
course, be vigilant, but the boogey man is not right around the
corner. No matter what anyone says.
Maybe the conspiracy claims are the real conspiracy.