Ask Paul: June 12 ⭐

Happy Friday! With the annual developer season finally winding down, we can turn our attention to more pertinent matters. Like the over/under on whether Xbox will ever be successful and when, if ever, I’ll actually use AI regularly. It’s all a mystery but you have to start somewhere. So let’s jump in.

“Skeptics Question Whether SpaceX Is Worth $1.77 Trillion”

And by skeptics, we mean people who understand how math works

✍️ A prompt engineer is not a real engineer

spacecamel asks:

Since you are an “AI expert” and a writer, do you have a thoughts on how to write a good prompt? You can find many tutorials on YouTube but they all have different ideas on what you should do. I think it’s a little bit about being able to write your thoughts down in an organized way but there is a little more to it. What are your thoughts?

Well. First of all, I have no particular skill in this area. And there are many others who spend a lot more time on this than I do.

It may not matter. This is not a plan per se, but I do feel that as AI improves, it continues to do a better job of inferring what it is that you want without you having to be so explicit. I am sure I wrote this somewhere, but I was describing this situation to my wife, how anyone who grew up in the 1980s with the first home computers was told that these things would only do exactly what you tell them, and that was often the source of what we perceived as bugs; AI, conversely, almost always does more than what we tell them, inferring our intent or otherwise filling the blanks based on probability and whatever data it was trained on.

I write about this, so it may seem that I use AI more than some, but I really don’t use it that often for much. I feel like I’m up to three major use cases, one being a bit nebulous, where AI is more an ingredient or sub-feature than it is at the center. And then the other two are more explicit interactions and more typical of the interactions we have with chatbots and, increasingly agents.

Other than for demo purposes, as in taking a screenshot for a book or article, I’ve never used AI to write. But AI assists with my writing to some degree, and pretty much everywhere, via grammar and spelling checking on PCs, tablets, and phones, and in apps of all kinds, not just writing apps but things like Messages or whatever. This may shift in the future, but if so, it will be more about research than actual writing, and that is something I’ve experimented with, largely to compare the performance/capability of local AI to cloud-based AI. The thought there being that local AI will eventually (i.e. quickly) become good enough to replace more expensive cloud AI for most day-to-day use.

So that’s the nebulous use case, what we might call implicit AI (similar to the language used by Canonical when it describes its plans for adding AI to Ubuntu). I don’t see myself ever using AI explicitly for writing.

But I do use AI explicitly in two ways. For image creation and for programming projects. And the way I do this does vary between the two.

For image creation, I’ve found that it’s better to be as specific as possible, though I’ve also gotten some fascinating and unexpected results in not doing this. For From the Editor’s Desk: Learnscrolling ⭐, for example, I wanted an image that was centered on reading and how this act can put ideas in your head. So I started with Gemini and prompted it with:

I need a photo of a scholar from an ancient time in a room stuffed with old books, manuscripts, and scrolls, pouring over a particularly large book open before him while images of all the things he is learning are suspended over his head as if from a dream

The image it created is fine, not necessarily ideal, and you can see a few elements that I didn’t specify, like the scholar being an older, balding man, which is in keeping with what most would likely think of in a scholar in ancient times. In case you missed it:

That said, I didn’t mean for him to be old, in part because learning is one way to keep one’s brain young, so to speak. Most people would probably ask the AI to revise the image accordingly. But I decided to try Copilot via Microsoft Designer first, just to see what that came up with. I used the same prompt as above, and it churned out just a single image (it used to routinely provide 3 or 4 choices).

To me, that’s even worse. It’s more of a stylized image than a photograph, I’m sure because I wrote “image” and not “photograph.” It’s another old man, and this time it looks like an Ayatollah or some Persian or Arabic cleric or whatever. And … yeah. I went with the Gemini version in this case. But here, too, I could have simply kept prompting the AI with corrections. For now, I have access to multiple AIs and I try to compare when possible, so I just didn’t bother.

The second explicit use case for me is software development, and that’s changing and expanding rapidly. There’s the “copilot” (side-by-side AI) model where you use a standalone chatbot in one window/app and whatever IDE, programming language, and framework in another. There are integrated approaches (inside AI), like GitHub Copilot in Visual Studio, that put the AI inline where you’re working and provide implicit (modern IntelliSense) and explicit (“I need to add this feature,” “I need to fix this problem,” etc.) interactions. There are AI agents that you can spin up in either of those two approaches after perhaps deciding on a plan (“outside AI”), where you keep interacting with AI as the agents go off and do whatever tasks. And now there are CLI-based interactions, where you either start an entirely new codebase from scratch or point it at a folder of source code files and explain what it is you want to do. And then whatever combinations of all those things (hybrid AI, I guess).

I have prompted AI for developer tasks in both simple/vague and highly detailed ways, in part because the latter did work better originally, as I find with images. But for fairly obvious reasons–the people working on these AIs are engineers and developers so this is where they do that first, perhaps, or where the improvements benefit them the most obviously–this has gotten so good so quickly that I’ve already settled into being less specific. And while I don’t often do this yet, mostly because I’m just experimenting with new ways of doing things across multiple platforms, developer environments, and AIs, that iterative approach does seem to make sense for AI code pair projects. That is, you start small, let it build whatever the thing is, and then iterate with the AI until you get exactly what you want. This is why some people say that programmers will essentially turn into project managers.

I usually provide the prompts I use in my articles about vibe coding, but consider the simplicity and vagueness of this prompt, which I used with Claude Code inside of Xcode on the Mac:

I would like to create a Markdown editor that looks and works much like iA Writer and Typora. It should be simple and minimalistic, offer a way to export to HTML and PDF, and have a WYSIWYG editing mode by default.

In 12 or 15 minutes max, this thing created a full-featured, fully functional Markdown editor. It had the features I explicitly specified (HTML and PDF export, that WYSIWYG default editing mode), and it works much like iA Writer and Typora. Like that image example above, it also used the vague information I provided to infer some functionality, and because this is a Mac, I got some nice system integration functionality that developers get automatically on that platform. But this is a good example of how this type of interaction has evolved dramatically this year, too.

You can use any of these code-centric AI systems to create a project and then specify your goals, describing what it is you want. These things also have different versions of the same ideas around point-by-point plans you can trigger as reports or infographics. And then you and the AI can use that to ensure that the result meets all the established goals. But the Xcode/Claude Code solution I used is an interesting example of the AI proactively suggesting a plan, and it asked me three pointed follow-up questions to clarify what it is I wanted to do. Once I answered each, it had a clear idea of what to do. And then it just did it.

(I don’t remember each question exactly, but one was whether I wanted an old-school side-by-side view, with plain text/Markdown codes on the left and the HTML preview on the right, in addition to the WYSIWYG default view. I did not.)

What I haven’t done with any of the recent coding projects, not yet, is keep going. For the most part, when each was compiled and ran correctly, I was done, and I moved on to the next thing. But that’s just because these things are all happening so fast, back-to-back with each other, and aligned with the Google, Microsoft, and Apple developer shows that all unfolded over a month-long period. And because there is so much else to experiment with and learn more about from these shows.

This will change. I’m not sure if I’ll have a vibe coding focus month this year per se, but I will continue to experiment with this. And one of the things I intend to do is literally finish a reasonably complex vibe-coded app, meaning one I will iterate on until it is exactly what I want, down to whatever details in whatever UIs. I know this would work well now, I just haven’t taken the time because there’s so much to digest right now.

Given how quickly this evolves, I suspect there will be notable improvements in the next three months, by the end of the year, and beyond too. It’s thrilling but also exhausting, and I keep thinking it has to slow down eventually. But I see no sign of that yet.

“Apple unveils next generation of Apple Intelligence, Siri AI, and more”

Did it technically ever release the first generation?

💻 Microsoft puts the WHIFF in WPF

martinusv2 asks:

Did you see anything about WPF during Microsoft Build? Just by looking at the .Net 11 previews, so little fixes been made to WPF. Not many things on their Github page too. Is WinUI the way to go now? I was hoping more fix to the experimental Theme property that was introduced to WPF in .Net 9.

I could not have been more excited to see Microsoft bring WPF back from the dead two years ago. And that’s because I had stepped through different versions of .NETpad over several years, making versions with Windows Forms, WPF, and UWP, plus an uncountable number of experimental variations in things like .NET MAUI and the Windows App SDK/WinUI that didn’t go anywhere. As the dust on that finally settled, I very much preferred WPF to all the rest, with the caveat that it was sitting there pretty much ignored for so many years and didn’t support many modern controls and technologies.

Modernizing WPF for .NET 9 was such good news. This triggered almost two years of further work on .NETpad, and while the initial modernization efforts went well, even I, a non-professional programmer, quick ran into limitations. Microsoft gave a WinUI redesign to existing controls and to window, but it never really added the missing bits (like content dialogs, the modern app-based tabs, and various other controls). It also shipped the WPF updates in .NET 9 in broken form in November 2024 and didn’t fix the issues until the next January. And then basically nothing happened after that. There were no meaningful WPF updates in .NET 10, and Microsoft has never even mentioned WPF throughout the .NET 11 development cycle so far.

Maybe we should have seen this coming. There is no big team in Redmond working on any of this, it’s all farmed out to contract workers in Pakistan, India, and wherever else. (That’s sadly true of the Windows App SDK, too, but more on that in a moment). It’s reasonable for Microsoft to focus on more modern technologies, and do the minimum for a legacy framework like WPF, where the only real goal is to let developers modernize existing apps. Few of these people would ever want to add major new features anyway. They just want the apps still in production to keep working and look good.

As with Xbox (see below), there are important differences between what Microsoft is marketing and what’s really happening. If you think about the pain points effort in Windows 11 or the “console is back” silliness at Xbox, the important thing to remember is that, fundamentally, this is mostly fan service with little in the way of fundamental change. That is, Microsoft is pushing “native” app development on Windows right now because that’s part of what fans want to hear, but it hasn’t changed anything, really: Developers are free to use any technologies they want to make apps that run on Windows, and most of those developers will choose cross-platform solutions not WinUI because targeting only Windows makes no sense. That has not changed and that will not change.

So, yes, Microsoft explicitly stated that WinUI, which is shorthand for the Windows App SDK app framework and the WinUI user interface framework, is the way forward. This is predictable in some ways, as there is no stomach or rationale for creating yet another framework for a platform no one is targeting unilaterally for new apps anyway. But it’s also astonishing because Microsoft has let WinUI sit still for years too, and it has always had a desperate need for improvements, including, among other things, so much complexity and so many missing features. So this suggests a major effort to finally right this ship.

I am told that this is not the case. I was (and still am) excited to see that Chris Anderson is engaged with this, because the half-hearted and then silently killed efforts to revive WinUI/WASDK last year went literally nowhere: The person leading that effort couldn’t get anything done because no one up the chain saw the need, and now she’s gone. Anderson, at least, has cachet and star power. But I’ve found out that his involvement is tied to other people I like coming back to help out with Windows, where these people had been sidelined before but can now try to fix problems, and are. But he’s just one guy, and there is no team in Redmond working on this stuff actively, just like WPF. It’s a side project.

Everything in this space is so screwed up.

Think back to that May 2024 announcement about WPF coming back. In addition to the WPF news, the other big announcement was for something called the Windows Copilot Runtime, which I said was not a runtime. This would rely on the Windows App SDK, which explained why Microsoft went on to never release it. The first APIs for this didn’t appear until the next January, over 8 months later, and they required an experimental WASDK version that couldn’t be used in publicly available apps. Then Microsoft killed the Windows Copilot Runtime and replaced it with the Windows AI Foundry the following May. Which became the Microsoft Foundry on Windows that November. Today, I guess we’re just using the umbrella term Windows AI APIs, though I find it amusing and sad that Microsoft Learn claims they’re available through the Windows AI Foundry, an out-of-date name. Anyway, there are new Nvidia-based PCs coming, so Microsoft is expanding the capabilities of these APIs, whatever they’re called now, to support CPUs and GPUs, not just NPUs. And who can even keep this all straight?

(I love that Microsoft Learn says that “powerful AI experiences with Windows AI APIs [go] beyond Copilot+ PCs for the first time” and these capabilities are “now available in preview.” I’m pretty sure the versions that targeted only Copilot+ PCs never even exited preview. What a mess.)

So, yes, WinUI is the way to go, in Microsoft’s view. But not really. Any framework that can create modern Windows apps is just fine, and maybe preferable, since most will be cross-platform too. If you have .NET/UWP apps you want to modernize, Microsoft is addressing that to whatever degrees, and AI/CLIs will help. But you can also look at things like Uno (which is cross-platform), and anyone starting a new app project should stick with a cross-platform solution like React Native or Flutter from the get-go. Staking your future on Windows-only developer technologies today does not make sense for almost anyone.

“Windows 11 Sucks Slightly Less Now, Thanks To A June Update”

Meanwhile, your writing sucks as much as ever

🎮 Triple-guessing the Xbox strategy

Will asks:

Wanted to get your thoughts on all the recent Xbox news. It seems like Microsoft may be rethinking a lot of its gaming strategy, including hardware, cloud gaming, Game Pass, and even some of the studios it acquired. For years it felt like Xbox was betting heavily on acquisitions, Game Pass, and the idea of building the biggest gaming ecosystem possible. Sort of spending their way to the top.

My take on this is that very little of substance will change. I don’t see how it could: XBOX Game Studios is a publisher of games across multiple studios that work across multiple platforms, and it can only be successful by continuing that. So Asha Sharma and her team can (and should) examine every part of this business, which is probably overly big and complex. And they can and will make changes, most small, and many like the pain points stuff in Windows 11 will fall into a category I think of fan service. Meaning, shut up the whiners so we can all move forward.

The problem here also has parallels with Windows 11: For all the gleeful exuberance from fans who felt ignored for so long, neither effort will address the real problems. In Windows 11’s case, that means that Microsoft is not fixing most of the issues that I identify as true enshittification, it’s bringing back esoteric and little-used UIs that some fans loved and it’s addressing performance issues I never experience even though I use Windows 11 all day long every single day. This is a classic magician’s sleight of hand trick. Look over here but ignore what’s really happening behind me.

The issue with Xbox is that the console strategy failed. We can play whatever people or decisions or whatever else, but it doesn’t matter. Xbox is in last place and it’s always been in last place, even for that one magic console generation, Xbox 360, that everyone points to as the apex of the platform. I guess we all forget the Red Ring of Death and the multiple console revisions that were required to fix that. Mostly, we forget that it lost.

Xbox is here today for one reason and one reason only: Phil Spencer convinced Satya Nadella that this business could make sense in a Microsoft that was hyper-focused on cloud computing. This is why we have Game Pass, and why Xbox is so gamer-centric and gamer-friendly as a platform. Spencer also convinced Satya and the senior leadership team that acquiring Activision Blizzard was the only way this business could be financially successful when the Xbox One and Xbox Series X|S tanked. Today, Xbox is not a console with a few in-house game studios. Xbox is a game publisher, the second biggest in the world, with a large range of game studios that produce cross-platform games. Xbox is meeting gamers where they are.

The strategy makes sense, and not just because the console failed. But the market is evolving, and not in a good way, and thanks to the component crisis, the hardware part of this business makes even less sense than usual for Microsoft. Which, unique in this market, was never able to make profitable hardware over time, a key component of the razer/model used by console makers. And yet, here’s Asha Sharma telling Xbox fans that the business is console-first and that the one thing they want really matters. Even when it does not.

After Sharma actually apologized for showing a PS5 logo on-screen during a game preview, apparently Xbox fans are so thin-skinned they would rather the business fail than have to be confronted by the reality of other, more successful, consoles, I made the following observation on Windows Weekly: This isn’t about not being able to please all people all the time, it’s about never being able to please any of these people any of the time. You will never make any Xbox fan who demands a return to the console-first days of the early 2000s happy. Never. And the reason you won’t is that it’s not financially viable to do that. It wasn’t financially viable in 2001, either. But now it’s much worse. Things have changed.

Anyway, things are unfolding as I anticipated for the most part. Lots of happy words. And then a lot of Xbox is just doing what it was already doing under the previous leadership. A leadership who, by the way, were actual gamers, gave a crap about the brand and about gaming, and they did everything they could to make Xbox make sense within Microsoft and the market in which it exists. The new team can’t do more than that. It can just make small changes. Lowering the price of one Game Pass tier. Changing the name, not to Xbox, but to XBOX. For some reason. Look! There’s a green plastic see-through Xbox Series X, like a radioactive OG iMac. The magician waves her hands, the fans are entranced, but she also keeps doing what really needs to be done.

When Microsoft was going through the regulatory process trying to buy Activision Blizzard, Sony claimed that this was all about getting Call of Duty off PlayStation. Brad Smith, Phil Spencer, and others argued back that such a strategy would be business suicide, since most COD players are on PlayStation, and that this was really about building a cross-platform publisher that would service all platforms, including mobile. You can think anything you want, but Sony’s argument did not make sense, did not reflect what it really believed–it just did not want Microsoft to get that big in gaming–and that Microsoft’s argument did make sense. So much so that the deal was approved.

Taking steps back from that strategy is a mistake. When I heard that Gears of War E-Day would now be an Xbox console exclusive, I couldn’t believe it. I play games on the PC, not an Xbox console, and artificially limiting the game to a device few people own is a mistake. Since then, Microsoft confirmed that the game would come to the PC, too, so I then assumed it was what the previous leadership more accurately called an “Xbox exclusive.” Except that it’s not. This game is also coming to Steam on PCs too. So it’s really an exclusive on consoles, meaning it’s not on other consoles. Even though it was being developed for the PS5 as well. This is the dumbest kind of fan service, and it’s wrapped in the worst communication I’ve witnessed in recent years. Terrible.

Between that stupid apology and this stupid “Xbox console exclusive” announcement, we’re seeing the first chinks in the new leadership and its inability to enact real change that would really hurt the business further anyway. But worse news is coming …

Now with more layoffs reportedly coming and possible studio closures, do you think Xbox was on the wrong path?

No. Xbox never made sense as a console business, so expanding it to include subscription services and cross-platform capabilities and then becoming a massive cross-platform games publisher was the right path. Consider the alternative: It could have pulled a Sega and just been forced out of the hardware business, and that would have been the end of the business.

Did Microsoft overestimate the impact of Game Pass and cloud gaming, or is this simply a case of the MS CFO stepping in and demanding better financial results?

Game Pass evolved over the years. It was originally like Netflix was at first, an inexpensive way for gamers to play legacy titles and a no-cost way for the makers of those games to make money on titles that had stopped delivering revenues otherwise. But it evolved into multiple tiers that included versions specifically for consoles and PCs, and with new capabilities like cloud streaming. It became a no-brainer.

And then Activision Blizzard happened. I never understood how putting each new Call of Duty game on Game Pass on day one would ever make sense given how much money they made each year. And I’m sure there were people doing the math on this and that they had ideas about how it might work. But COD broke the Game Pass model. It took a few missteps like that massive price increase on Game Pass Ultimate, but we finally got to where it needed to be, with COD excluded from the Game Pass day one releases. We can dislike it, but this is what always made sense.

The rumored requirement from CFO Amy Hood that Xbox somehow needed to deliver revenues that no game publisher or console maker has ever delivered is depressing. But Sharma seemed to address that recently, suggesting that the real goal is much lower and/or tied to other metrics. And it was never realistic anyway. At some point, yes, Xbox has to make sense as a business, but the point of becoming a cross-platform game publisher is that that business is profitable. It’s only the hardware dragging Xbox down. If the CFO demanded accountability right now, Xbox would have to kill all future consoles. But it’s too busy making happy noises right now.

And where do you think Phil Spencer fits into all of this? Recently they have been stopping some features (Copilot) and quickly deploying others (disable fast resume). Was his vision flawed, or was he trying to build something that Microsoft ultimately decided wasn’t worth the cost? Top that off with hints they are reworking their console strategy curious if now means others will build Xbox hardware vs Microsoft? Sorry for so many questions, there is just a lot there!

Yeah, there’s so much. Phil Spencer did all the right things at a high level, as noted above. We can debate certain specific decisions, I guess, but all this stuff feels like it was forced on the business from on-high. Hey, we’re pushing Copilot above all else, so figure out what that looks like in Xbox. Etc.

There is an obvious parallel here that may help this make sense. When Satya Nadella became the CEO of Microsoft, it was all about image and PR, and it helped the company escape from a decade of stock price stagnation and enter a new period of market cap growth that continues to this day. But everything he did, most notably the focus on cloud computing, came from his predecessor. All he did was pick up the Steve Ballmer playback and run with it.

If you’re into sports, there’s a parallel there too. During the 1980s, Pat Riley coached the Los Angeles Lakers and established the decade-defining dynasty with four championships. But he eventually left the Lakers, and he went on to successful stints with the New York Knicks and Miami Heat, in the latter case winning another championship as a coach and then two more as the team president. But why would Riley, one of the most successful basketball coaches of all time, even leave the Lakers in the first place? He said that he had been there too long, was too intense, and got too much attention, and that the players had just stopped listening to him. Just like Wall Street had stopped listening to Steve Ballmer, explaining that shift.

Asha Sharma will do with Xbox what Nadella did with Microsoft, she will pick up her predecessor’s playbook and run with it. Phil Spencer had been there a long time, he was surrounded by trusted colleagues like Sarah Bond that others might have resented because, and he has pushed through an astonishing series of changes, including those major acquisitions. Maybe it was just time. Whatever anyone thinks of Sharma, she is as different from her predecessor as Nadella was to Ballmer. But maybe that will be enough for her to make sense of what was already happening anyway.

Look, there will be more layoffs. More losses. And other bad news. And Microsoft will or will not make sense of Xbox. But nothing has changed fundamentally: Console hardware has never made sense for Xbox as a business. And it will not make sense now. There’s no amount of hand-waving that can change that reality.

“How Apple broke the mold to give its OS 27 updates a rock-solid foundation”

It finally focused on substance over style?

👾 Bungie jumping without a net

helix2301 asks:

I was wondering your feelings on bungie shutting down destiny 2 and now focusing on marathon which is very halo feel. It’s like when the new not working try go back to the old lol

Microsoft snatching up Bungie in 2000 was a master stroke: Steve Jobs had introduced the world to Halo during the Macworld 1999 keynote because it was going to ship on the Mac and the PC, something that was as rare then as it is now. And though that original title did still ship on the Mac, it was a console exclusive (there’s that term again) on, and the marquee title for, the original Xbox. It was precisely what that console needed. Plus, it was a great game.

Like many relationships, Microsoft and Bungie got along famously until they didn’t. For gamers, and for Halo fans especially, there is something undeniably special about the first three Master Chief-specific titles, which were made by the studio, something that was decidedly lacking in future games. But Bungie then went off on its own and left the Halo intellectual property with Microsoft. It’s a little more complicated than that, but Bungie eventually signed a publishing deal with Activision, released Destiny (notably across all major console platforms except for Nintendo) and then Destiny 2, later canceled that publishing deal, and was acquired by Sony in 2022 for $3.6 billion.

Destiny always felt a bit off to me. It was far too much like Halo, from the look and feel to specific in-game details like the floating ball robot who chats with you from the start. And that’s interesting because Bungie’s first big game, Marathon, very much felt like a copy of DOOM to me when it appeared on the Mac in the early 1990s. I’m not suggesting that this company has never done anything original, the first Halo is one of the best videogames of all time. But there is a lot of derivative work there too. (Bungie was also sued for plagiarizing the Destiny storyline and that was settled within a year.)

Worse, there’s not much actual work. Bungie released Destiny in 2014 and Destiny 2 in 2017, but its next game, a modern remake of Marathon, didn’t appear until this year. And while that game was widely anticipated, it came and went with a whimper. So this is a business that Sony acquired in 2022 for $3.6 billion and all it has delivered since then is a single game that has not sold well. (Pat Riley called, he has a theory about why no one cares anymore.)

I just feel when Bungie went up for sale for few billion Microsoft missed the boat they would been great to have back I think letting Sony get them might been a mistake.

Whatever anyone thinks of Microsoft, Xbox, and its various strategies for videogames, it’s likely that it remained silent on Bungie for a reason, and that it saw the controversies, the dwindling output and success, and just passed on it. The one caveat I would consider here is that Bungie’s successes with Halo, which really includes five games, the original trilogy plus ODST and Halo Reach, are undeniable. And it is possible that putting the team back together, so to speak, might have worked.

The problem is that a decade and a half has gone by. Microsoft/Xbox has a now giant game studio, now called Halo Studios (formerly 343 Industries) overseeing the games and, as important, the transition to the Unreal Engine that is so, so different from the older, Bungie-originated engine. And I don’t think these two teams/companies would have meshed. Sometimes, you capture magic in a bottle, like Id Software did with John Carmack and John Romero, two people who will never team up again, make a great new game, and set the world on fire once more. That time has passed.

I used to work as a teller in a bank called Bank of New England (BNE to locals) that eventually went out of business, forcing to me to find a job elsewhere. I ended up at Bank of Boston, and while I was training, I was speaking to an executive there who asked where I had come from. And when I told him BNE, he told me a story: Customers would come to him for a loan at Bank of Boston, and if they didn’t qualify for whatever reasons, he would recommend they try BNE. He called this “throwing the BoNE a dog.” Maybe this is what Microsoft did to Sony with the Bungie acquisition.

Second thing this not question but just comment love the twit+ extra stuff with you and Leo talking ai n price and you calling Leo ai slut great twit moment.

🙂 LOL.

“Q&A with Xbox Chief Strategy Officer Matthew Ball about how using in-game ads could offset development costs”

Oh, good. More ads. Just what every Xbox fan wanted