I don't think Gilbert Arenas is buying his DVDs from a legal store

This caught my attention. From a Yahoo Sports post about a Gilbert Arenas interview on his time playing basketball in China:

There's a lot more in the full interview, including how Gilbert passes the time in China — he buys DVDs, apparently from a store and not bootleg markets — and how he negotiates the language barrier with teammates.

That's strange, I thought... Who in Shanghai buys legal DVDs from an actual electronics store? Shanghai has some of the best bootleg DVD shops in China; these shops maintain a huge selection of movie DVDs and TV show boxsets (a much, much larger selection than any legal electronics store ever maintains), these DVDs most always retain the special features content present in the legal DVDs (special features content is hit or miss in bootleg copies from other cities), and the quality of the video itself pretty high. So why is he buying his DVDs from legal stores?

Then I took a look at the actual interview. 

SLAM: I’ve heard you have been out and about around town, which is something that foreign players don’t do too often in China. They usually just stay in.

GA: Yup. China is known for electronics and I love electronics. I’m usually at the DVD store. I’m always the mall, at the electronics store, buying video games and stuff like that.

"DVD store." My money is on the 'DVD store' indeed being a bootleg shop, not an actual, legal store. 

Anyway, I'm glad Gilbert actually seems to be enjoying himself here, is adapting to the culture (he's using Weibo full time, not Twitter), and not making trouble (like some other previous NBA players have). 

Like being forced-fed Brussels sprouts on Christmas morning: Real Racing 3

I was so looking forward to Real Racing 3, the followup to the amazing Real Racing and Real Racing 2 games on iPhone and iPad. Those games not only looked amazing, but felt more amazing than all other racing games I have played on the platform. I became addicted to Real Racing 2's multiplayer. Don't tell mom, but at one point I was staying up until 2 or 3 am almost every single night for a month straight, laying in bed with my phone racing against people from all around the world. It felt like the future. Then previews of Real Racing 3 were released, showing not only beautiful cars but real-life racetracks. Real Racing 3 was just released and this should be one of the highlights of my year. 

Well the future doesn't feel so bright any more.

The game is downloading to my iPad as I type this but I'm already feeling a tinge of anger after reading various online reviews. I previously downloaded and played another racing game called CSR Racing. The game's story and concept wasn't that bad and I probably would have enjoyed it and continued to play it had it cost $5, $10, or even $15. Instead, it was free. Why was this bad? It was bad because it meant it was a freemium game; the game was free to download but players were encouraged (that's the nicest word I can think for it) to pay real money along the way. It is this freemium model that made me have to choose between literally paying real money for virtual gasoline or waiting 10-15 minutes every few races for my virtual gas tank in my virtue car to slowly refill. It was a terrible experience and I stopped playing a day later, having spent no money on the game. 

Guess what? New publisher EA decided to turn Real Racing 3 into a freemium game. F**k. From Eurogamer's review:

You can probably tell by the size of the yachts in Monaco's harbour, the opulence of the motorhomes that form a worldwide series' travelling circus or the amount of inbreeding evident around the paddock of Silverstone on a Grand Prix weekend that motor racing is a rich man's game. You can't just turn up to the races with a pair of fresh boots and a big heart: a single season in Formula Ford, one of the most junior of categories on the national scene, costs in excess of £120,000.

So kudos to Firemonkeys, the new outfit forged by EA from esteemed Australian mobile studios Firemint and Iron Monkey, for being the first developer to fully realise the crippling costs of motorsport in interactive form. Here's a game that's not shy about handing you repair bills at the end of a race and one that doesn't blush over an in-game car that costs almost £60 in real-world money.

Further on in the review:

At a time when the gaming world is finally comfortable with the idea of a triple-A mobile game, Real Racing 3 should have been a triumphant affirmation of a point made convincingly enough by the first game in the series. Instead, it's been strangled by the tentacles of gaming's next unconquerable: free-to-play.

If games like Dota and Tribes are the warm, welcoming faces of free-to-play, then Real Racing 3 is the grotesque polar opposite, the snarling grinch that's the embodiment of every sceptic's worst nightmare. It's cynical, it's nasty and it's hard-wired into the very fabric of the game, making it totally unavoidable.

There's an in-game economy comprised of credits and the harder-to-come-by gold, which would be fair enough if the economy wasn't so horrendously lopsided in EA's favour. Every part of Real Racing's make-up away from the track is a transaction where you're on the rough end of the deal.

Waiting 10 real-world minutes to repair your brakes? Yep. Waiting 10 minutes to change oil? Yeah. Waiting another 10 minutes to fix damage? Yes. Paying real money if you want to skip these waiting times every time they pop up? Yes Sir. Kill me now.

I have a better idea: I'll let you keep your freemium model to allow people to sample the game for free, but at least let me and other serious enthusiasts pay a lump sum, say $20 or even $30, to get rid of all these ridiculous micro-transactions and wait times. I will gladly pay you a fair amount to be able to play this game frustration free.

Unfortunately, no such option exists. I only have two avenues: 1) Pay an ungodly amount of money all the time and feel like I'm being used by a greedy corporation but be able to skip all the completely arbitrary wait times and have access to all the cars and tracks, or 2) play as much of the game as I can for free and refuse to pay a dime out of principle but suffer egregious waiting times and limited access to cars and tracks. Unless circumstances change, I can tell you now I'm almost certainly sticking with option #2.

You're beautiful on the outside but you have such an ugly heart.

And about the great multiplay from the last game that seems to no longer exist in this one? Kotaku has a conspiracy about its absence:

I mean sure, there's no longer any real online multiplayer, replaced by "Time-Shifted" multiplayer in which players race against AI clones of friends and strangers, but I convinced myself that this was a much more convenient way to encourage social play among the community.

Now I'm not so sure that was the reasoning behind the switch. Now it occurs to me that regular standard online play would have gotten in the way of crap like this:

From Kotaku's review

I imagine it would be hard to maintain a party of friends racing online simultaneously when at any given time one of them might have to stop and wait 15 minutes for his or her car to finish being repaired.

I've anxiously anticipated the release of this game for the past two year. Now it's here and it's a scary and beautifully pathetic minefield of micro-transactions and arbitrary handcuffs. I want to play this game, love this game, have babies with this game, but there is no way I'm draining even a dime from my iTunes account if it means EA feels any sort of vindication that this is an acceptable way forward for the future of gaming. 

My mother just gave me a Christmas morning ultimatum of only being able to open the big present under the tree if I eat a huge bowl of Brussels sprouts without complaint. 

No present under the tree is worth a big bowl of Brussels sprouts, especially when that big stinking bowl is being forced in your face by mother. 

Update: Even more nonsense. From the last paragraph of the Eurogamer review: 

Let's finish with a little maths. You notice the car you've just bought in a £13.99 pack is suspiciously slow in races, so you want to acquire the first of three engine upgrades that costs 44,000 credits. If you get 3500 credits for winning a race after getting tail-ended just once by another car, get handed a 2855 credit repair bill for the damage and then have to pay another 500 credits to get the oil changed - a job that takes 20 minutes to do, unless you want to hand over a little more cash - what's the final number?

Mother just dumped broccoli on top of the Brussel sprouts.

The Olympics are becoming a joke and I'm depressed about it

Well this is monumentally depressing news. 

Wrestling, one of the earliest and most elemental Olympic sports, was dropped from the Summer Games on Tuesday in a stunning and widely criticized decision by the International Olympic Committee.

Apart from track and field, wrestling is considered by many the oldest competitive sport, one that made its first appearance at the ancient Olympic Games in 708 B.C. and thrives on its rudimentary attractiveness — one athlete trying to subdue another, not with equipment but with the fundamental use of the arms, upper body and legs.

Yet it was precisely the traditional nature of wrestling that appeared to doom it. A shift in priority has occurred in an era of outsize television contracts as Olympic officials seek to add more telegenic sports and more widely visible stars in hopes of maintaining a sense of relevance, modernity and youthfulness in the Winter and the Summer Games.

This from Dan Wetzel at Yahoo Sports, who I completely agree with:

The Olympics are special when they offer the ultimate global competition for a group of athletes, where everyone builds to this singular moment. It doesn't matter if it's a millionaire such as Michael Phelps or Usain Bolt, or a teenage gymnast with a dream, or a poor courageous middle distance runner out of Central Africa, the Olympics are an accomplishment that brings joy and tears and importance and everything.

Rory McIlroy will win a gold in Rio and then head off to his next event. Yes, it will be cool. Yes, he'll say the right thing. Yes, he'll enjoy it – the way the professional tennis players enjoy it – but it isn't bigger than the British Open or whatever major is next.

Two of my most memorable Olympic moments are wrestling related. The first was the monumental upset of Alexander Karelin of Russia (who had been undefeated the prior 13 years) to little known American Rulan Gardner in Sydney 2000. The other was just this pass summer when I watched Jordan Burroughs defeat Sadegh Saeed Goudarzi of Iran.

Watch both of the matches below and try to tell me how this sport, these athletes, and these moments don't deserve a place in the modern Olympics. I have no problem adding golf to the Olympics. I have a major problem adding golf to the Olympics when it comes at the cost of cutting the Olympics' most historical event. Yes, it is idiotic to expect the Olympics never to change. Venues will change. Audiences will change. Advertising and revenue models will change.

Cutting wrestling to include golf as an Olympic event? That's change that should have never happened. 

Windows Phone is still nowhere to be seen in China

Back in September I wrote:

As a side note, Nokia says their largest market thus far for Windows Phone has been China. I saw a woman with one in Hong Kong today (just one), but I have yet to see with my own eyes any pedestrians on the mainland walking around with one. Where are all of these supposed Chinese Windows phones?

Just read this from Computer World about Nokia in China:  

In China, things are even worse. The Financial Times reports that Nokia made a deal with with China Telecom for the carrier to sell a customized version of Nokia's Windows Phone Lumia, so you would expect that to help sales boom. That didn't happen. The Times says that Nokia sold only 4.6 million phones in China for the fourth quarter, compared to 14.7 million in the fourth quarter a year previously. This massive drop in sales occured even though the Chinese market is going like gangbusters, and will be the world's largest for smartphones in 2012.

I will repeat my same statement from September - Where are all these Windows Phones they're supposedly selling? (single digit millions is a small number in a country of a billion people, but it's not an invisible number) I was shocked/fascinated to see a Lumia 920 next to me in the subway the other day. It was bright red and in the possession of a girl about a foot taller than me. Part of the fascination was because outside of electronics retailers I hadn't seen a Windows Phone in the wild for months. 

Guessing it's difficult to sell many Windows Phones when the below is a typical type of advertisement from China Telecom. That's 14 (extremely) cheap Android phones, one lone Nokia Windows Phone, and one I-look-like-an-iPhone-so-believe-me-that-I-work-just-like-an-iPhone phone.

Advertisement at a bus stop in the high-tech district of Nanshan, Shenzhen. 

So why didn't I end up buying a Lumia 920 as I was originally thinking about doing in my September post? The sad fact is the phone is a tank of a phone. I had heard this stated in reviews but when I finally got a chance to see and hold one in person... man, it's an absolute tank, both in size and weight. 

Baby got back. 

Why can't Android and WP phone makers produce high end phones that aren't bricks or phablets. There must be people out there like me who aren't built like the Hulk and don't carry around a purse and want to easily use their phones one handed while walking around. That's the main reason I stuck with the iPhone. 

HTC has a "solution"...

Remembering

From a July post about guns: 

I remember exactly where I was when I learned of the Columbine shooting. I also remember what happened the morning of September 11, 2011 - That morning I arrived to my high school and went to my fantasy literature class. I was only the 3rd student to arrive and the TV was turned on showing the twin towers billowing smoke. My teacher turned off the TV just as class started, saying, "it's not like there's going to be a war over this." Once class ended, I ran as fast as I could all the way across campus to my physics class. As I arrived, I saw the entire class gathered around the TV. I looked up and within seconds was immediately confused as it seemed there was only one tower. "How could that be?" I thought. Five minutes later, there were screams of "No!" from the classroom as the second tower fell. 

Eleven years ago and still as vivid in my mind as it was the day after. Something I never told my mother - I was scolded in my AP European history class the next day for reading the New York Times during the teacher's lecture. I guess something inside me said it was more important to read about and remember the victims of the attack than memorize the beginning and end dates of a 17th century French monarch's rule. 

"They never forget the baijiu"

By way of The Daily Dish comes this piece from Michelle Nijhuis detailing her experience drinking Baijiu, the traditional Chinese liquor, during a recent trip here. I have always been a defender of baijiu against those foreigners (or even native Chinese) who denounce it. My first year in China was spent in Beijing learning to drink 6 rmb (about 1 dollar) bottles of cheap Erguotou (二锅头) brand baijiu. Thus I can drink the stuff and hold it down if needed. But I know how difficult it can be to drink if you have no experience doing so. I had a college friend come to China and I bought her a small bottle of baijiu to try without explaining to her what it was. She twisted the cap off, took one smell, and immediately gagged. She refused to even take a small taste. 

For Michelle, it all started with the appearance of little shot glasses:

During a recent reporting trip to central China, I went to a banquet honoring a group of visiting foreign scientists. I’d heard about these banquets: red tablecloths, elaborate dinnerware, a procession of courses long enough to turn eating into an athletic event. But what were these miniature wineglasses, filled so deftly with clear liquid? The woman next to me, an American energy expert with long experience in China, looked at the sparkling glasses with a mixture of amusement, disgust, and resignation. “Baijiu,” she sighed. “They never forget the baijiu.”

I'm probably different than other foreigners because on the outside I might be sighing at the first appearance of baijiu at a banquet but on the inside I'm shouting to high heaven with anticipation and relief. Yes, the stuff is as different as can be from water and is a chore to drink, but you also know that when the baijiu comes out, real friends and relationships are about to be made and good times are on the horizon. Michelle covers this in a later paragraph:

Among the business and government classes, baijiu is social fuel, used not just to loosen up a banquet crowd but to cement relationships and prove one’s mettle in China’s male-dominated power networks. Refusing any one of the dozens of toasts during a typical banquet is considered an insult or a sign of weakness — and definitely bad business.

After participating in enough of these banquets, you learn the intricacies of how and when to avoid some shots/toasts. You have to, because it's not possible to stay coherent (or alive) if you drink a full shot to every toast that is directed at the table or to you personally. Your mission is to make it out of the restaurant with enough left in the tank to continue on to karaoke or whatever the next activity may be (much less be able to make it home). Thus you start discovering small but effective methods for pretending to drink or for forgoing a toast without showing your 'weakness.' For example, if a person sitting next to me turns my way and proposes a toast and I know full well I need more time to recover from the last shot before taking this one, I'll start waving other people over to take part in the toast. This action 1). spares me a few additional seconds to prepare for the inevitable shot and 2). increases the possibility that the toast-maker will get into a discussion with one of the people I have waved over and allow me to either stand there listening to them (but not drinking) or to slip away unnoticed to another part of the room/table before the toast can be completed. 

The only real crisis is if one of the people at the table hands full-sized glasses to everyone (or, as usually happens, just to you) and pours a quarter, half, or full amount of baijiu into it. Suddenly it becomes almost impossible to sip your drink or avoid toasts, as everyone around you can clearly see how much you have left and it quickly turns into a game of, "how fast can the foreigner drink the whole glass?"

A blurry photo of the table of policemen toasting us with baijiu. 

This happened to me last week when two Chinese friends and I were at a restaurant and were spotted by a table full of baijiu-drinking off-duty policemen. They were very nice, especially the younger policemen and policewomen, and we did a few baijiu shots with them (we didn't really have a choice). Suddenly, an older policeman who has clearly been drinking baijiu since two hours previously takes out a large glass, fills it half way, and hands it to me. Suddenly all eyes are on me. It's an almost impossible situation to get out of. I end up, though a little slowly, drinking the glass. My Chinese friend from across the restaurant resorts to calling my cell phone and I pretend it's a business call and step away. We then leave the restaurant as quickly as possible before another large glass can be offered. 

Point is, if you want to do business and have relationships with very interesting people here, you need to learn how to drink baijiu. For women, even simply drinking two or three of these shots and no more will do wonders. Remember, don't be negative or afraid if the little baijiu shot glasses come out; be excited. This isn't some conspiracy to get you as a foreigner drunk (unless it's an already drunk group of policemen, I guess); it simply means the people around you respect you enough to have a toast with you and wish to get to know you or reenforce existing friendships. You'll not only be making valuable relationships and having some fun while doing it, but you'll be meeting some great people, having some very interesting discussions, and showing yourself to be an open and approachable person. 

So next time, don't regret that they didn't "forget the baijiu." Pick up that biajiu shot glass with pride and confidence and anticipation, not horror and trepidation. Save the horror for the full glasses. 

It's you, not them

Last night at a birthday party I met a gentleman from the UK. He was very educated, thoughtful, and well spoken. He has previously lived in the Philippines and (I believe) South America. He has lived in China for about two years and will probably move away soon. He had written a thesis about China-Africa relations during school and is fluent in a few languages. So again, a very smart guy.

He then started talking about Chinese attitudes towards Westerners, specifically the treatment of foreigners at nightclubs. He said almost every time he and his friends are out at night clubs, Chinese guys start fights with them. He said that all of these fights were completely unprovoked. I honestly had to tell him I've been in China almost six years and have been to Chinese night clubs hundreds of times and have never had any Chinese guys try to provoke a fight or make threatening actions against me or my friends. 

We tried to identify some reason, some cause for our vastly different experiences. What could possibly cause him and his friends to almost get beaten up every time they go out, while I've never once had a glass or a punch thrown my way? All he could say was he and his friends have never provoked any of these fights. All I could say was that I've never had Chinese people start any fights with me or my friends in the 6 years I've been here. We both shrugged our shoulders and got back to the party. 

A few hours later I went with him and his French friend to a Chinese club. As soon as we enter, I see his friend walk towards a table that is occupied by a group of Chinese guys. He gets really close to the table, almost as if he wants to join them. I'm not sure if he says anything to them or not. I see the Chinese guys looking at him and then at each other, their facial expressions silently conveying a "who is this guy and why is he standing so close to our table?" They looked to be getting annoyed pretty quickly.

It was at that moment I said to myself, "oh, that's why you guys are having fights with Chinese people every time you go out." Chinese guys don't just start fights with foreigners at clubs for the fun of it; if they're starting fights with you, it's because you're acting in a way you shouldn't be or are ignorant of your social surroundings. Just because you don't think you're actively provoking people doesn't mean your actions aren't.

You can have all the smarts in the world, but if you don't have the social common sense to not annoy every Chinese man in the room, you're going to get into fights. 

Why screen size is a bad metric for measuring the worth of a phone (oh, and Apple is losing smartphone marketshare)

My original reason for writing this post was to back up my prediction that Apple will be releasing the new iPhone in China on the same day as the US. From the Financial Times:

According to IDC, Apple’s share of the Chinese smartphone market by shipments fell by nearly half to 10 per cent in the second quarter from three months earlier. The company came fourth in a ranking topped by Samsung and Lenovo, the Chinese company that is also the world’s second-largest PC vendor.

Apple needs the iPhone 5 to have a big impact in the Chinese market as soon as possible. They can't afford to release the iPhone four months after the US release (as they have historically done). The need to get it to this market on day one. I'm seeing more and more Samsung Galaxy S III's, a phone available directly from China Mobile. This led me to my other prediction - that the iPhone will finally be 3G capable on China Mobile. From the same Financial Times article: 

Another headache has been Apple’s reluctance to customize the device for TD-SCDMA, the Chinese homegrown 3G standard used by China Mobile, and thus making itself unattractive to subscribers of the world’s largest mobile operator.

That problem could go away when the iPhone 5 is launched later this year. The device is expected to come with a Qualcomm chip that is TD-compatible.

Apple needs to not only make it capable with China Mobile's 3G standard, but also needs to get it into China Mobile stores. I had a long discussion with my Chinese teacher this morning about China Mobile and China Unicom. She has been a long time costumer of China Mobile and is unwilling to move to China Unicom. She doesn't want to give up her phone number and China Mobile has better service outside the large cities. 

I then came to the article's final paragraph and got very annoyed very quickly:

But there are other disadvantages. With a screen expected to measure 4 inches, the iPhone 5 is no longer cutting edge. “That would still be smaller than many of its Chinese competitors, which have 4.3-inch or 4.7-inch screens,” says Wang.

How is screen size an accurate measure of how 'cutting edge' a phone is? I've seen this methodology espoused by a lot of sources and it's a stupid, childish argument. Do we measure how cutting edge a computer is by it's screen size? If we did, everyone would be walking around with a 20 inch monitor. Instead, most of the current cutting edge computers have smaller screens (like the MacBook Airs) or high pixel-density screens (like the new MacBook Pro). Using Mr. Wang's methodology, the only way Apple can be more cutting edge than its competition is to release a gigantic phone with a 5.5 inch screen that is stupidly big and needs two hands to operate (oh, wait...). 

I only use my iPhone with a single hand (except when typing). The iPhone's smaller screen makes one-hand-use very easy. I've walked around before with an HTC One X and found my thumb having to stretch very uncomfortably to reach the outer margins of the screen. Giganto phones might be comfortable to use for people with big hands or those who prefer using two hands when operating a phone, but for me it's neither. I want a phone for a phone, not a tablet with phone functionality. I want a phone that fits easily into any pocket, that's easy to operate with one hand, that's fast and responsive, and has a screen with great pixel density. It is the pixel density that I believe to be a much more powerful determining factor for measuring screen quality than simply the screen's size. For that matter, the screen's contrast, color balance, and proximity to the outer layer of glass is also very important. Compare the screen on the iPhone 3G and iPhone 4; I doubt anyone would argue the iPhone 4's screen is not more cutting edge than the 3G's simply because both are the same size.

If rumors are true, the iPhone 5's 'pathetically small 4-inch screen' could be the most 'cutting edge' screen to date of any smartphone:

Additionally, the screens will use in-cell panels, which embed touch sensors into the LCD instead of using a display comprising of a number of separate layers, as on the current iPhone screen. Compared to an "on cell" display, which layers the back light, LCD section, glass and capacitive touch technology on top of each other like a sandwich, an in-cell screen eliminates that middle layer of glass, combining the LCD and touch sections of the display into a single layer. The advantage? A smaller, slimmer smartphone.

I guess none of that matters though. My small hands will forever exclude me from enjoying truly 'cutting edge' smartphones. I guess I'll have to make do with the extremely unsatisfactory, second-rate, unsexy phone pictured at the top of this post. What a pity. 

How is the USA ahead of China in the gold medal race?

Coming into these Olympic games I had assumed China would easily win the gold metal count as it did during the Beijing games. In 2008, the USA still held its advantage in overall medals but China easily beat the US, and the world, in gold metals, winning 51 compared to only 36 for the US. Why would this year's Olympics be any different? I figured China would maintain its dominance in weightlifting, shooting, diving, gymnastics, badminton, and table tennis, while advancing into American dominated sports such as swimming. 

Well here we are three days from the end of the 2012 Olympics and the US not only leads China in overall medals, but also in gold medals. It current stands at 39 for the USA and 37 for China. How could this be?  

First, I found this article from the USA Today:

The USA likely will finish atop the medals table, just as the Americans have done in the previous four Summer Games. With three days of competition remaining before Sunday's closing ceremony, the USA leads China 90-80 in the overall medal race. However, the gold medal duel is too close to call. The USA had 39 golds compared with China's 37 through Thursday...

China traditionally dominates diving, table tennis and badminton — sports that had mostly wrapped up before the final weekend. In the Games' final days, the USA likely will continue to pile up medals in track and field and basketball.

On Thursday, this story line rang true. The Americans won four medals in track, the gold and the silver in both decathlon and men's triple jump. In diving, China continued its dominance as Chen Ruolin won the 10-meter platform by 55.80 points, a blowout. China has won six of seven diving gold medals, with only the men's platform event remaining.

That's good information, but doesn't really tell me why China has such a deficit from it's 2008 showing. I decided to dive into the numbers and compared the results from the 2008 and 2012 Olympics for both China and the USA. He's what I found (this is based on eyeballing the 2008 and 2012 wikipedia entries. I tried my best):

Events China won in 2008 but not in 2012

1. Archery - Woman's individual
2. Canoeing - Men's C-2 500m
3. Diving - Men's 3 m springboard
4. Fencing - Men's saber
5. Gymnastics - Men's individual all-around
6. Gymnastics - Women's team all-around
7. Gymnastics - Men's horizontal bar
8. Gymnastics - Men's pommel horse
9. Gymnastics - Men's rings
10. Gymnastics - Woman's uneven bars
11. Gymnastics - Woman's trampoline
12. Judo - Women's 52 kg
13. Judo - Women's 72 kg
14. Rowing - Women's quadruple sculls
15. Sailing - Women's sailboard
16. Shooting - Men's 10 m air pistol
17. Shooting - Woman's 25 m pistol
18. Shooting - Men's 50 m rifle three positions
19. Shooting - Women's 50 m rifle three positions
20. Weightlifting - Men's 56 kg
21. Weightlifting - Men's 62 kg
22. Weightlifting - Men's 85 kg
23. Weightlifting - Women's 69 kg
24. Weightlifting - Women's 75 kg
25. Wrestling - Women's 72 kg

Events China won in 2012 but not in 2008

1. Track - Men's 20 km walk
2. Badminton - Men's doubles
3. Badminton - Mixed doubles
4. Fencing - Men's individual foil
5. Fencing - Women's team epee
6. Gymnastics - Women's balance beam
7. Sailing - Women's laser radical
8. Shooting - Women's 10 m air rifle
9. Swimming - Women's 200 m individual medley
10. Swimming - Women's 400 m individual medley
11. Swimming - Men's 400 m freestyle
12. Swimming - Men's 1500 m freestyle
13. Weightlifting - Men's 77 kg
14. Weightlifting - Women's +75 kg

Events China won in 2008 that are not yet finished in 2012

1. Boxing - Light flyweight
2. Boxing - Light heavyweight

Events US won in 2008 but not in 2012

1. Track - Men's 400 m
2. Track - Women's 100 m hurdles
3. Track - Men's 400 m hurdles
4. Track - Women's discus throw
5. Equestrian - Team jumping
6. Fencing - Women's sabre
7. Gymnastics - Women's balance beam
8. Sailing - Women's laser radical
9. Swimming - Men's 200 m freestyle
10. Swimming - Men's 200 m butterfly
11. Swimming - Men's 4x100 freestyle relay
12. Volleyball - Men's beach
13. Volleyball - Men's indoor

Events US won in 2012 but not in 2008

1. Track - Men's 100 m hurdles
2. Track - Men's triple jump
3. Track - Women's 200 m
4. Track - Women's 400 m
5. Track - Women's pole vault
6. Track - Women's long jump
7. Boxing - Women's middleweight
8. Gymnastics - Women's team all-around
9. Gymnastics - Women's floor
10. Judo - Women's 78 kg
11. Shooting - Men's double trap
12. Shooting - Women's 50 m rifle three positions
13. Shooting - Women's skeet
14. Swimming - Men's 100 m freestyle
15. Swimming - Women's 200 m freestyle
16. Swimming - Women's 800 m freestyle
17. Swimming - Women's 200 m backstroke
18. Swimming - Women's 100 m butterfly
19. Swimming - Women's 4x200 freestyle relay
20. Swimming - Women's 4x100 m medley relay
21. Tennis - Men's doubles
22. Tennis - Women's singles
23. Waterpolo - Women's team

Events US won in 2008 that are not yet finished in 2012

1. Track - Men's 4x400 m relay
2. Track - Women's 4x400 m relay
3. Basketball - Men's
4. Basketball - Women's
5. Wrestling - Men's 55 kg

Important events not yet completed in 2012

1. Basketball - Men's and Women's
2. Track - Relays
3. Boxing - Men's
4. BMX - Men's and Women's
5. Diving - 10 m platform
6. Volleyball - Women's indoor
7. Wrestling - Freestyle

So what do these numbers tell us about each country's performance when 2008 and 2012 are compared?

Let's start with the USA. By far the largest improvement for the 2012 US delegation was with the women's swimming team, winning 6 more gold medals in 2012 then they did in 2008. The US was also able to add a fair amount of gold medals in track events, shooting, tennis, judo, waterpolo, and gymnastics. For the event types the US did worse in compared to 2008, each of these only resulted in the loss of a medal each and thus didn't impact the USA's gold medal count in too negative a way. The US will certainly add more golds in these last three days, with two golds all but assured in basketball and possibly a few more in the track relays, volleyball, and wrestling. 

Now on to China. So what changed since the 2008 Olympics to cause the 2012 China team to fall short of its previous gold medal count? The bulk of this loss comes from three sports: gymnastics, shooting, and wrestling. Both the 2008 men's and women's gymnastic teams were exceptional, winning the all-arounds and numerous individual events. 2012 was a disappointment in comparison, especially for the women. Chinese gymnasts won 9 golds in Beijing but only 4 in London. The Chinese weightlifting team lost many of the weight classes to North Koreans and the shooting team won 3 fewer golds than in 2008. The event the Chinese contingent most improved in was swimming; they won 4 more golds than they did in 2008. Unfortunately for China, there are few events left in the last three days for them to make up ground. They may have a chance for a few golds in boxing and wrestling, but unlike some of the events still left for the US, these are not a given. 

Here's SB Nation's take on the remaining events:

The United States extended their lead in the medal count on Thursday and they will look to widen the gap even further on Friday. Team USA won four track & field medals on Thursday and they will go for another strong day on the track on Friday.

Six track & field gold medals are up for grabs Friday and the United States figures to be in the middle of the action. They are among the favorites in the women's 4x100m relay and the men's 4x400m relay. They will also be medal contenders in the women's 1500m and men's pole vault.

In addition to the track and field events, American Connor Fields should contend for a medal in men's BMX.

Add in the basketball medals, and the competition for the most golds may be over very quickly. Anything can happen, but probably not. 

In conclusion, my prediction that China would run away with the gold medal count turned out to be false due to the excellence of the American women swimmers, the surprising efforts of the US track team, and the disappointing results for Chinese gymnastics, weightlifting, and shooters. After the domination in Beijing, what will Chinese be thinking if/when the final results are unveiled and the Chinese team fails to win more golds than the US? 

At least I wasn't alone in thinking the Chinese had a good chance of retaining their gold metal crown. From The Christian Science Monitor:

Amid these rising and falling Olympic fortunes charted during the past two Summer Games, the United States remains the historical constant, once again likely to win the overall medal count and slot in behind China in the gold medal count.

Whether this hierarchy becomes the new normal won't be clear until the Olympics in Rio and perhaps not until 2020, when the echo from Beijing dies out, and China will have to decide whether to continue its high spending or take its foot off the Olympic gas. For now, the medal table will bear witness to the two different ways that China and the US target Olympic glory.    

In short, the US targets overall excellence, trying to qualify as many athletes as possible. China targets winning, focusing a larger share of its efforts on athletes who can take gold. This was clear in the Beijing medal table...

And as in 2008, the US and China aren't likely to see much of each other. The US makes its mark in swimming and track and field – two sports in which China does poorly. China, meanwhile, spreads its golds over events far from US view – such as weightlifting, shooting, table tennis, and badminton – in addition to gymnastics and diving.

Update: I just found an interesting predictions table put together pre-Olympics by Top End Sports using different types of methodologies to predict the final gold and overall medal counts. It will be interesting to read about the different methodologies and see which comes closest to the final medal tally. 

There are quite a few analysis models that have provided a prediction of the final medal tally for the 2012 Olympic Games. Here are the gold medal tally from the top 10 positions from each prediction model that we have found.

Most of these predictions have the US leading the final gold medal tally, with China next, followed by Russia. The benchmark analysis is based on results from major international events held in 2010 and may not reflect most current performances. The number of predicted gold medals varies though, and the order for the following countries varies with each system. Only time will tell which model was closest to the actual results.

Review: McDonalds' new Chicken McBites

Headline: McDonalds has brought American style KFC Popcorn Chicken back to China. 

Score: Four out of Five hao's - 好 好 好 好

Background

One of my favorite fast food items has always been KFC's Popcorn Chicken. I remember as a child how this menu item would pop up every so often in KFC, only to disappear again a month later. I remember being really happy when it was announced KFC would start selling Popcorn Chicken permenantly. Popcorn Chicken and I have a long history together. 

Upon moving to China, I was glad to see local KFCs not only had Popcorn Chicken, but the menu item itself was very similar to that on the US menu. I didn't eat it everyday, but every few weeks it was a nice snack after a night out.

Unfortunately (or fortunately if it's my waist line speaking) KFC China changed the receipt for Popcorn Chicken shortly thereafter. I don't know why the change was made; maybe the original receipt wasn't selling well and the new style plays more to Chinese tastes? Here was what KFC Popcorn Chicken used to look like 5+ years ago:

Here's what it turned into a year after moving to China:

Gone were the tiny little morsels of crunchy heaven, replaced by bland balls of chicken cubes. The new receipt did bring a little spice with it, but that couldn't make up for the change in consistancy and texture. Thus when I have returned to the US for the past few years, each time I make my traditional visit at a KFC and pay homage to the Popcorn Chicken I grew up with. 

Discovery

Yesterday I was on my way to the Futian Fedex/Kinkos when I saw this sign outside the McDonalds across the street:

"Woah," I thought, "that looks a lot like the old KFC Popcorn Chicken. Could it be..." My plan for the day was to stay healthy and eat nothing but fruit, but how could I resist this new discovery? I bought a small sized serving of McBites (9 rmb / $1.40 for a small box) and took the metro back home. 

Okay, I lied. I bought two boxes. Sorry, but from the advertisement they looked amazing. How could I buy just one?

Upon arriving home, I opened the small box to discover would looked to be proper American KFC Popcorn Chicken, except made by McDonalds and in China and called Chicken McBites. 

I took the first tentative bite...

Taste/Flavor

Tender, juicy chicken meat encased in fired, crispy, peppery, extremely unhealthy coating. It was perfect. For the first time in 5 years I was eating genuine American popcorn chicken bought from a fast food joint (not from an expensive sports bar) and it was really good. So often you come across popcorn chicken whose crust is a little soggy or not up to its Full Crunchiness Potential (FCP), but each McBite sustained its FCP even after the 20 minute ride home. It was really good, no matter how unhealthy it probably is. 

Every child proclaims at some point one food item they wish they could eat everyday for the rest of their life. For me that item was tuna casserole, but if I morphed back into a child today, I'd be proclaiming to my mother that it's my mission to eat Chicken McBites every single day for the rest of my life. I don't want to stop eating them until I feel absolutely sick and disgusted (which may take a while). 

Presentation

They look just like American popcorn chicken. Not much else to say. McDonalds could have designed a better box; the top is very flimsy and difficult to keep closed. 

Value

A small box of McBites is 9 rmb. Comparatively, this is the same price as a 5 piece McNugget box. For me, this makes the McBites a better value. You get an equivalent amount of chicken from each but the McBites are made from whole (not processed) meat and they contain enough flavor on their own not to necessitate the use of dipping sauce. The McBites are also at FCP, while McNuggets usually only reach Medium Crunchiness Potential (MCP).

The only value downside is each small box was only 3/4 filled with McBites, which you can see from my photo above of the opened box. Opening it is like when you open a bag of potato chips and realize half the bag is filled with air. KFC's Popcorn Chicken boxes (which unfortunately in China house inferior popcorn chicken) are bursting at the seems with chicken and can barely be closed, making it appear you are receiving a gracious amount of chicken. In contrast, each small McBites box still had space for 4+ chicken pieces, depreciating the value of the purchase in my mind. 

Positives

Taste - I can't complain. They taste really good. 

Convenience - Unlike the McNugget box, the McBite box is made for easy eating while walking. The intrinsic flavor of the McBites also means dipping sauce is not necessary. 

Value - The McBite box isn't filled with as many McBites as it could be, but it costs the same and has a much chicken as a 5 piece McNugget and is less expensive than any sandwich item on the menu.  

Negatives

Piece Size - There are not enough smaller pieces. It's always nice to find those few small pieces which are 20% chicken and 80% crunchy coating. Each McBite was about the size of a chicken nugget, with only one or two satisfyingly smaller pieces in each box. That's not much of a complaint though when the larger pieces were cooked to their FCP. 

Healthiness - It's a given: don't eat these everyday. Why don't we yet have the technology to make something that tastes just as good and has the same consistency but is also healthy? That's the dream. 

Menu Item Stability - McDonalds has recently been experimenting with their menu, with many new items disappearing after only a few weeks. I discovered the Mexican Crispy Sandwich from the same McDonalds in May and this was taken off the menu two weeks after. Yesterday while buying the McBites I also saw advertisements for a mushroom chedder double hamburger, surely another menu item that might disappear soon. 

This creates a conundrum... Eating McBites is surely bad for your health and waste line and I should eat these sparingly. However, this item may disappear from McDonalds' menus at any time, and so I should enjoy them as much as I can while I can. But if McBites don't end up disappearing and become a permanent menu item, then I've eaten a lot of popcorn chicken in a very small amount of time for no reason at all. But if I don't eat a lot of popcorn chicken now, McDonalds may think it's an unpopular product and get rid of what I now consider to be the best fast food menu item in all of China.

If they get rid of them I'll be sad. But if they don't get rid of them, I'll be tempted every time I walk by a McDonalds to pop in and buy a box, a temptation I really don't need right now. This is a true Catch-22. 

Conclusion

Score: Four out of Five hao's - 好 好 好 好 

Chicken McBites are amazing. Their crispy, juicy, flavorful, and convenient on the go. They're everything I wish KFC popcorn chicken would still be. If I had to choose, I would have them become a permanent menu item and trust my own will and self-restraint not to endulge in them every single day. 

Maybe it's best I'm leaving this Sunday for a month back in the US. If McBites are still here upon my return, then great. If they aren't, at least I haven't spent two straight weeks eating two boxes a day for fear I'll wake up one morning and they'll be gone. 

(McDonalds commercial below. Talk about false advertising - I had to reach two inches down into the McBites box before I hit the first McBite. Below, the box isn't big enough to contain all of them.)

Why were so many people so eager to believe it?

Citizen Journalist travels to China (Shenzhen no less). Citizen Journalist walks into Foxcon and interviews workers making the iPhone. Citizen Journalist discovers underage workers, debilitating injuries, and draconian living conditions. Citizen Journalist creates one-man show based on his discoveries. Citizen Journalist is interviewed by well-respected radio show. Citizen journalist's story is picked up by the mainstream media. Citizen Journalist's findings are touted by general American public as further reason why China is an awful place. 

Real Journalist does an actual investigation. Real Journalist finds that Citizen Journalist is full of shit. Citizen Journalist admits he is full of shit. 

Meet the terrible episode that will go down in journalistic history as Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory

The This American Life podcast was released in January of this year featuring citizen journalist Mike Daisey. It quickly became one of the most downloaded episodes in the show's history, generating an incredible amount of negative publicity for Apple, Foxcon, and for China. It now turns out that many of the Mr. Daisey's most sensational findings were entirely fabricated and never actually occurred.

My reaction to the original podcast was very similar that of Evan Osnos', a staff writer for The New Yorker in Beijing: 

Several places in the narrative sounded fishy to anyone who has spent much time here: 1) the gun-toting guards (maybe, but not at the factories I’ve seen; in China, guns usually belong to soldiers or armored-car drivers); 2) driving down a highway exit that ended with rebar jutting out into thin air (local taxi drivers usually know which exits aren’t finished); 3) meeting workers who said they were twelve and thirteen years old (even if they were underage, they were probably too smart to blab about it in front of the gun-toting guards); 4) workers who were such innocents that they’d never considered what they would change about the factories until Daisey asked them (where do I start?); and, perhaps most of all, 5) his description of going to the factory gates and talking to workers as a radical innovation in journalism. When he told journalists in Hong Kong about his plan, he said in his piece, they replied: “That’s not really how we usually do things in China.”

That was a howler. Going to the factory gates is exactly what reporters do in China. But when I heard it, a part of me was embarrassed by the prospect that maybe Daisey had found stuff that we in China had not. Lots of people had reported over the years on underage workers and harsh conditions, but very often the stories require complicated qualifications, debates about the efforts that factories take to guard against hiring underage workers (and—more qualifications—about the ones who slip through anyway). But, I concluded, weird things happen in China all the time.

Some parts also seemed strange to me at the time, like the gun-carrying security guards and what Osnos calls the "innocents." And why would Foxcon resort of employing underage workers when there is a glut of adult Chinese workers actively pursuing these types of factory jobs?

But just as he says, "weird things happen in China all the time." I have never traveled to the Foxcon factory. While I've spoken to workers from other factories, I have never interviewed any Foxcon employees. His story was featured on This American Life, so I had assumed the show had performed proper due diligence on his claims before airing the story. 

I was wrong. 

So how did the story unravel? Turns out a real journalists decided to do some real journalism. Marketplace reporter Robert Schmitz also thought Mr. Daisey's claims seemed suspicious. So he seeked out the translator Mr. Daisey used when visiting Foxcon. This translator confirmed that many of Dr. Daisey's claims, such as seeing underaged workers and meeting with workers that had been poisoned, never actually happened. Cute. 

After listening to the podcast in January, I had an initial thought that I should simply go to the Foxcon factory myself (I live less than an hour away) and stand outside its gates. Would I observe the same type of people that Mr. Daisey did? Maybe I could be the one to uncover if his report was complete BS. I never ended up doing it.

I'm glad someone did. 

In the past two weeks alone, I've had personal discussions with multiple foreigners who believe a majority of Chinese parents beat their kids, all Chinese are morally corrupt, and the general Chinese population wants to overthrow their government at this very moment and would do so if not for the monstrous oppression, domination, and persecution they experience every day. 

With each accusation, I would calmly respond with logical arguments based on fact and real-world observations. But as is often the case these days, that doesn't work. People will believe what they want to believe, no matter the actual truth. And some people, within the deepest regions of their hearts and minds, truly believe China is a morally-corrupt civilization without an ounce of value for this world. 

Mr. Daisey's accusations played perfectly to these deep-rooted sentiments. Which is why so many people were so eager to believe. 

The Economist thinks you should be learning French instead of Chinese. I don't agree.

The Economist (or at least moreintelligentlife.com) thinks you should be learning French, not Chinese. The basic premise is that unless you already have an interest in China or some direct reason for needing to learn it (for business, etc.), it would be much more beneficial to learn French. The author poses the question, "If China is the country of the future, is Chinese the language of the future?" He believes that Chinese Mandarin is too difficult and that past history points to Mandarin not being a prolific language worldwide.

My take is almost the complete opposite of the author's - If you are an art student, in culinary school, an European literature major, or are planning to move to a French speaking country, then I agree that you should be learning French. But if you simply want to learn a foreign language and the above categories do not apply to you, there is no reason not to heavily consider choosing Mandarin.

1. China is not Japan

Remember Japan’s rise? Just as spectacular as China’s, if on a smaller scale, Japan’s economic growth led many to think it would take over the world. It was the world’s second-largest economy for decades (before falling to third, recently, behind China). So is Japanese the world’s third-most useful language? Not even close. If you were to learn ten languages ranked by general usefulness, Japanese would probably not make the list. And the key reason for Japanese’s limited spread will also put the brakes on Chinese.

But the important difference is not only the number of native speakers, but how many of these speakers live abroad. According to Wikipedia, over 40 million native Chinese speakers live outside the greater Chinese region. The US alone is home to almost 4 million native speakers. Many moderately to well-off families I meet wish to send their child/children to study overseas and there is a vaste flow of Chinese scientists, educators, and businessmen either traveling abroad, living abroad temporary, or taking up permanent residence in Western countries. This constant flow of international Chinese travelers is much greater than that seen from Japan. For comparison, it is estimated only 570,000 Japanese total live in Western countries.

2. Yes, there are a lot of characters in the language, but it's not as difficult as you may think.

The learner needs to know at least 3,000-4,000 characters to make sense of written Chinese, and thousands more to have a real feel for it.

3. The proliferation of Chinese imput methods in computers and phones is a positice, not a negative!

A recent survey reported in the People’s Daily found 84% of respondents agreeing that skill in Chinese is declining. If such gripes are common to most languages, there is something more to it in Chinese. Fewer and fewer native speakers learn to produce characters in traditional calligraphy. Instead, they write their language the same way we do—with a computer. And not only that, but they use the Roman alphabet to produce Chinese characters: type in wo and Chinese language-support software will offer a menu of characters pronounced wo; the user selects the one desired. (Or if the user types in wo shi zhongguo ren, “I am Chinese”, the software detects the meaning and picks the right characters.) With less and less need to recall the characters cold, the Chinese are forgetting them. David Moser, a Sinologist, recalls asking three native Chinese graduate students at Peking University how to write “sneeze”:

To my surprise, all three of them simply shrugged in sheepish embarrassment. Not one of them could correctly produce the character. Now, Peking University is usually considered the “Harvard of China”. Can you imagine three phd students in English at Harvard forgetting how to write the English word “sneeze”? Yet this state of affairs is by no means uncommon in China.

As long as China keeps the character-based system—which will probably be a long time, thanks to cultural attachment and practical concerns alike—Chinese is very unlikely to become a true world language

Learning 10 or 15 years ago would have meant needing to know how to write, by hand, every single Chinese character you learned. But the great thing about technology today is that it is now so much easier to write Chinese due to modern day computers and phones. As long as you know the Pinyin (Roman alphabet spelling) and can identify the characters when you see them, it is much easier for non-native speakers to communicate in written Chinese than in any point in history. I write all my class notes on my computer, send Chinese text messages to friends, and communicate by instant message (QQ). All of this is possible because of how easy it now is to write the language electronically.

I notice a lot of Western students that cannot write Chinese by hand. But even for most Westerners living in China, this isn't a necessary skill. Almost all current communication, both in business and everyday life, tends to now happen on computers and phones, and this allows us Westerns the luxury of doing exactly what the author thinks is so wrong: being able to easily and quickly produce Chinese text electronically.

Now unlike some, I do practice writing Chinese in class, but the fact is that outside of class and in real life, I RARELY HAVE TO WRITE CHINESE BY HAND.

Now to the article's point that calligraphy is a dying skill...

I had a long conversation with one of my Chinese teachers this morning about the fact that some Chinese do have problems regurgitating certain characters by hand. Even in some of my classes, I have seen teachers forget exactly how to write certain characters every once in a while.

How ironic that this happened to her right before we discussed this topic. She wanted to write the character 'tong' (统) but couldn't remember if the little triangle on the right had two legs or three (three legs such as this character - 流). She knew as soon as she had written it that it was wrong and did change it.

My teacher explained that from primary through high school (about 20 years), all students have to write characters by hand. No phones or computers are allowed in the classroom and handwritten answers are mandatory on all tests. So even today, all school students must be proficient in the written language. But she did confess that starting at university, students do take a majority of notes and produce essays and assignments on their computers. It is from this point forth that some might begin to lose a little of their hand writing skills. I would argue that it is no different from English speakers whose spelling may be worse over time.

4. Tones are difficult at first, but become more natural once you reach an intermediate leve.

Chinese, with all its tones, is hard enough to speak.

I remember when I first started learning a few years ago and my teacher and I would spend a fair amount of time learning the tones of words and how to pronounce them. They are important at a beginning stage in order to build a strong foundation for future improvement.

But I realized today that while each new word I learn is still presented with it's tones, it is not something we concentrate on in class. After you pass from a beginner to intermediate level, your pronunciation and use of tones becomes more natural and this isn't an area that requires a large amount of focus. There are still times when a teacher will correct your tone if it is completely opposite of how the word should sound and you have terrible pronunciation, but this is few and far between for most intermediate students.

I have witnessed foreigners out on the streets here with terrible pronunciation. And yet, native speakers understand them just fine. Take my father for instance. When he asks for the check at a restaurant, his tones are completely wrong. But he gets the check anyway.

So which is easier to learn? Chinese or English

What's difficult in Chinese:

Characters

Tones - As stated before, it is something teachers will devote time to when you start learning the language. But as you improve, it becomes much more nature and less time is spent on it.

Reading - If you have learned the character, it isn't too difficult to recognize it and read it. But you do have to have previously learned the character in order to know how to read and pronounce it.

What's difficult in English:

Grammar - Grammar in beginning Chinese is very simple. Beginning grammar in English is not. For example, just ad a 了 or 过 to any verb in Chinese to make it past tense. The actual form of the verb doesn't change. But in English, many of them do ('I go' verses 'I went'). I learned Spanish in school and this was incredibly difficult for me, as every verb had multiple tenses.

Words - English words can be more intuitive with a prior knowledge of Latin. But how many people now days actually know Latin? Thus, learning and remembering English words can be difficult.

Spoken Language - Chinese grammar and spoken language is very simple. There are not many indefinite articles and other filler words such as 'the,' 'a,' 'am,' and so on. Thus it can be difficult for Chinese speakers to remember to use these when speaking English.

What's easy in Chinese:

Grammar - While it can get progressively more complex, the grammar needed to speak at an elementary level is very basic and easy to use. What to say, "how much does it cost?" Simply put two opposites together ('a lot' and 'a little') which makes the question, 'how much,' and put 'money' at the end - so, 'a lot a little money' (多少钱) means, 'how much money is it?' Easy.

What's easy in English

Reading

Writing - English is much easier to write by hand than Chinese. I say by hand, because Chinese is actually very easy to write on a computer or phone.

Apple OS X: A rebuttal to myself?

My post last night ended with the statement:

[Note - The above was written with the assumption that integration with Chinese social sites will indeed be visible to all customers no matter the country of purchase.]

I wrote that post at 1 in the morning and after reading some further articles today as well as visiting Apple's own website, it seems some of these additions might only be visible to Chinese consumers. So I should reduce some of my enthusiasm that I had displayed last night. It could be the case that Apple just wanted to let the wider public know about its China intensions and thus made these integrations visible to Western media who received builds of the new OS.   

But even that in itself would be a very large change. When has Apple ever included an entire paragraph on it’s US OS X page dedicated to new functionality focused on one single country outside of the US? I think that’s still a huge change.

Final Prediction: If these Chinese services are indeed hidden for US users, I predict some won’t be for long. I still think US users will see QQ web services in their OS within the next 3 years. Right?

Does Mountain Lion signal a monumental shift in the exposure of Chinese social networks in the West?

From what I've read so far, both in the press and from blog commenters, it seems not too many people are giving much attention to the broad updates in 10.8 focused on the Chinese market (thank you Nilay Patel of The Verge for at least devoting a separate paragraph to these changes). 

This is obviously understandable as 99.9% of the people on these Western sites don't live in China and/or don't have to type in Chinese. I'm an American living in China, so of course these changes mean more to me personally than most.

But I do think it's a situation worth noting and signals a very important change within Apple that could spread to the tech community as a whole in the next few years.

You may correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing the implementation of systemwide integration with Chinese social networks, email services, and video sites is the most Apple has ever done to support any single population of users outside of the US. And this integration will not just be viewable by those in China. It seems both Western and Chinese social networks have been given equal placement in the OS and any Westerner sharing links/videos or setting up an email box will see these Chinese offerings alongside Western ones.

That's huge. HUGE. Chinese, especially those of the younger generation, have always been exposed to and known about the largest American/Western web companies such as Google, Facebook, MSN, Youtube, and Twitter (even if some of these services are 'officially' blocked).  But have Americans ever been exposed to Chinese offerings? Do any Americans know QQ, Youku, Weibo, or Tudou? Do many Americans know anything about China at all, other than it has a lot of people and is communist? Well China's main web companies are about to get a lot of first-time exposure in the US. And this is just the beginning.

This fundamental strategy shift shows not only that the Mac's position in China is just as important to Apple as that of the iPhone's and iPad's, but that China's importance to Apple as a business is almost equal (or possible already equal) to that of the US market. Apple could have simply made updates to the Chinese keyboards and called it a day. Or made Chinese social integration updates that would have only been visible to costumers in China. Instead, many Americans will now be reminded on a daily basis of Apple's push into China.

This is an important turning point in Apple's global focus and will be directly visible to all of Apple's American consumers. No longer are Western web properties such as YouTube, Twitter, or Flickr the sole social gateways built into our technology. Get ready to see a lot of QQ and Youku in the very near future. 

[Note - The above was written with the assumption that integration with Chinese social sites will indeed be visible to all customers no matter the country of purchase.]

How can people so smart seem so dumb?

Friend: "Hey you, come here buddy... Need to tell you something... Okay, ready? Want to go into business with me? I have a great plan to expand my American sports league. Let me tell you about it... I'm taking my sports league to China. The Chinese people love my sport. I already have a plan to build 20+ stadiums and investors have already provided $250+ million in funding. So we're publicly announcing our plans tomorrow!"

You: "That's great. Do you have any competitors in China?"

Friend: "Yes."

You: "Oh. Who?"

Friend: "There is a large national league of the same sport owned by the Chinese government." 

You: "Hmm. Have you spoken to anyone in the government about your plans?"

Friend: "No."

You: "Have you contacted the rival league about possible cooperation?"

Friend: "No."

You: "Is your plan even entirely legal under Chinese law?"

Friend: "Do they have laws over there? Haha, just kidding. I'm sure it'll be fine. So... do you want to be my partner?"

---

What would you say to your friend? Would you agree to be a partner? Is he/she starting the project with a good foundation? Does he/she and all involved know what the hell they are doing?

I would personally respond to my friend by saying, "This is a joke, right?.. Right???"

--- 

The 'Friend' in the above text is in fact the National Basketball Association. And according to a damning New York Times article, the NBA has been completely inept in its Chinese expansion plans. Besides its focus on the NBA, I believe the article offers valuable observations about doing any sort of business here. 

Foreign companies doing business in China must inevitably navigate the country’s distinctive brand of “state capitalism,” in which the invisible hand of the market is often hard to free from the tentacles of the authoritarian government. The companies that do best usually exercise patience, maintain a low profile and are careful not to give the state cause to regard them as a threat. When the N.B.A. revealed its ambitious plans for China, it was pursuing the logical next step to expand its already successful business there. But the logic of the Chinese state was very different. As Arthur Kroeber, the managing director of GK Dragonomics, a business consultancy in Beijing, puts it, “Foreign companies that come in here with announced, large, grand strategies — as well as these grand statements about what they are going to achieve — rarely are going to get there.” Stern and the N.B.A. owners were able to handle the players’ union in the lockout. The People’s Republic of China is proving much, much tougher.

Repeat after me: Patience. Low profile. Non-threatening.  

in late 2006, Stern mentioned during the Reuters Media Summit in New York that the N.B.A. was also considering having its own league in China. Privately, N.B.A. officials were exploring how to incorporate an N.B.A. subsidiary company as a separate Chinese entity. In 2007, they made presentations to prospective investors and raised $253 million from some of China’s most powerful private and state-owned companies, as well as from ESPN/Disney.

Patience. Low Profile. Non-threatening.

Stern’s comments [about the NBA's China expansion plans] at the Reuters Summit, delivered almost as an aside, were quickly picked up in the Chinese media and caught the attention of the man who then ran the C.B.A. [China Basketball Association], Li Yuanwei. A former college professor, Li was known as a reformer who admired the N.B.A.’s business model. I spoke with Li during my season following the Shanxi Brave Dragons, and he recalled being stunned when he learned about Stern’s plans for an N.B.A. league.

“He had never said this before to us,” Li said. “If he had said he wanted to cooperate with the C.B.A., then that would have been understandable. But he didn’t say a word, which meant he knew nothing about China.”

Some C.B.A. officials told me that they wondered if the N.B.A. fully understood Chinese law, which made it very difficult to form a league without approval from the government, which, after all, ran the C.B.A.

Patience. Low Profile. Non-threatening.

Surprisingly, the NBA's expansion plans went nowhere. They finally opened up communication with the CBA about cooperation, but progress has been very slow. 

Moral of the story? Think before you act. Look at the competitive landscape. Think about the various players. Consider actions and reactions, causes and effects. And have a solid plan to evaluate feasibility. Not even one of the most powerful sports leagues on the planet can simply walk into China and have its way. Don't simply be smart; be China smart. 

---

A few other take aways from the article:

But the top official in the Chinese league is a creature of the old age, an old-school Communist Party bureaucrat named Xin Lancheng, who put his foot down, prohibiting Chinese teams from signing N.B.A. players who were already under contract at the time of the lockout. Only free agents would be eligible — and they would have to sign that binding contract. This was partly about pride, and arrogance, but it was also consistent with an ethos that has prevailed since China opened itself to the outside world in 1978: foreigners are not invited to China to profiteer; they are invited to make the Chinese better. Even N.B.A. players.

Great quote. "Foreigners are not invited to China to profiteer; they are invited to make the Chinese better." The first thought that popped into my head after reading this is the foreign automakers that have to partner with Chinese automakers before being allowed to sell in China. The foreign automakers could not simply profit off of the Chinese economy. They had to share technology, in the process improving Chinese automaker's products. 

---

I have been somewhat unkind to Stephon Marbury in previous blog posts, but it seems from this article he really has improved his conduct and is gelling with both his fanbase and basketball officials. 

Having found that N.B.A. teams either no longer wanted him or no longer wanted to pay him what he thought he was worth, Marbury moved to China three seasons ago and is now the country’s most beloved foreign player, starring for the Beijing Ducks, professing his love for the country, riding the Beijing subway to show the common touch (and posting photographs of himself doing so on his microblog). Marbury has proved himself a good citizen and a shrewd marketer; he is now promoting his discounted line of Starbury sneakers in the Chinese market. When I mentioned Marbury’s name to Bai Xilin, the C.B.A. official, Bai jumped out of his chair and pantomimed Marbury — Ma Bu Li! — directing lay-up drills, as he has been reported doing by the Chinese press. “The other foreign players are just sitting on the bench in warm-ups and don’t take part,” Bai said. “It looks arrogant, extremely arrogant. He knows how to be part of the culture of a Chinese team and with Chinese society.”

---

Lastly:

It is a souvenir from Chandler’s unlikely Chinese adventure. He has visited the Great Wall and the Forbidden City in Beijing, ridden the bullet train to Shanghai and begun his own Chinese microblog (a version of Twitter, with Chinese censors)

Unlike the real version of Twitter, with American censors.