Gregarius » BetaNews.Com » novembre 12, 2009

BetaNews.Com (12 non lus)

'A pivot from war to peace:' The AMD + Intel armistice, in their own words

Publié: novembre 12, 2009, 11:27pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

For much of its history, AMD's image in customers' minds has been established, or at least reinforced, by its very public stance with regard to Intel. The company that AMD has tried to be, it has explained for years, begins with everything that Intel -- at least from its perspective -- is not.
So it must have been a bewildering feeling for AMD executives to approach this morning, perhaps after not very much sleep last night, in an environment that can no longer be framed by the legal and intellectual property conflicts between it and its sole rival. The legal war is gone. Only the market competition remains, the sole differentiator between the last two producers of CPUs for PCs in the world. It was what AMD said it has always wanted.
It's no wonder then, that the first words this morning from AMD's chief legal executive, Tom McCoy, were at times laced with poetic metaphors, and at other times flying loosely in the breeze, like this could still be a dream: "What's important about the agreement, to us, is that it signals a new era. It's a pivot from war to peace, and we're trying to redefine not only the path to a fair and fierce competitive fight in the marketplace, but also one of tonality with Intel. We're all trying to get this behind us and move forward in a very respectful way -- a way that will make everybody proud of this industry in which we operate, that is so fundamental and vital to innovation, to productivity, and to great fun, using technology in the world."
What's fair and what's not
The agreement between the two companies, as explained to the US Securities and Exchange Commission this morning, spells out a new set of guidelines for what both CPU producers can agree to be "fair competition." With federal regulators worldwide having used AMD's situation as a model case for a manufacturer treated unfairly by its dominant rival, the fact that AMD signed off on these new guidelines will make it difficult for them to continue pursuing their investigation of Intel the way they have been, although they will project the image of stubborn persistence for at least the next few months.
"The key points are, for us, that Intel will not be able to condition doing business with them on not doing business with us," McCoy explained this morning. "They can't use inducements in order to force exclusive dealing, to delay customers from using our products, delaying or prohibiting companies from marketing or advertising our products or systems with our products, withholding benefits from OEMs in the event that they elect to use AMD processors. We've also agreed to certain technical practices...particularly in the compiler business, so that compilers will not unfairly, artificially impair the performance of our products. We're never looking for any help; we're just not looking to be unfairly hurt. Intel has no obligation to help us; they do have an obligation not to do things that are simply designed not to hurt us."
What it was obvious that Intel needed at this point was an addition to its cost-cutting program -- a way to stop spending vital resources and capital on defending its image among lawmakers. It needed an exit strategy that enabled it to save face; and this morning, Intel CEO Paul Otellini stopped just short of saying exactly that:
"In most lawsuits between businesses, there comes a time where both sides step back and look at whether spending all of that time and money makes sense. That's what happened here. Intel and AMD took a step back. We look at the claims AMD was making, and they looked at our claims that they had breached their license rights to Intel's patents. After a lengthy negotiation that began last spring, we found a way to put these matters behind us and move forward.
"People can honestly disagree about business and marketing practices," Otellini continued, as he pursued his metaphor of stepping back and moving forward simultaneously. "We continue to believe that our discounts are lawful and in the best interests of consumers and the marketplace, although we understand that others have a different perspective. At this point, the best path forward is to bring closure to all disputes between the companies."
How can Intel effectively agree to stop doing what it says it never did, and keep a straight face about it? That's the essence of a question asked this morning by a Wall Street Journal reporter.
As Intel Executive Vice President for Legal Affairs Andy Bryant responded, "They [AMD] believe we conduct business certain ways that we don't believe we do. So it's been a contention for a long time...one of the examples they gave was, if a customer doesn't buy a certain amount from us, we punish that customer. We don't do that. We understand they believe that. What made sense for us was to say, since we all agree it shouldn't be done, let's write it down and agree to it. And we'll monitor it and have talks about it. So what we've really done is, taking where the two sides have a different conception, and codify what we will and won't do -- mostly what we won't do -- and hopefully, then, we can track that going forward, and everybody understands that competition has been fair and will be fair."
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, representatives from both companies will meet once every quarter to discuss possible points of dispute, perhaps in writing. This gives both sides the opportunity to propose solutions prior to any future litigation taking place.
Why was AMD willing to grant Intel some lee-way on what appeared to have been, up until today, the central point of its dispute -- for example, Intel's ability to bargain for exclusivity? In response to this question, AMD's Tom McCoy actually went so far as to state that certain elements of its case against Intel that seemed critical, really weren't.
"The key issue for us is the conditionality," McCoy said, not being nearly as poetic as at the start. "That is, that structures or inducements, or the opposite of inducements, that are provided to customers, are conditional on whether, and to what extent, or how, customers can also deploy AMD technology. That is the key practice that, in our view, has constrained our access to the marketplace, whether it be at the computer manufacturer level or the channel level; and Intel has agreed to cease those practices, consistent with what are already several regulatory decisions."
But a so-called "narrow set of practices" (which aren't so narrow after all; for instance, fairly bidding for exclusivity if an OEM offers it) remains permissible even under this agreement. As AMD's McCoy explained, "As to these other, narrow set of practices, bear in mind that there is also a decision that exists against Intel from Brussels, and that Intel is undoubtedly going to try to comply in good faith with that decision. So we believe that we, through the actions of the regulators, already have significant protections against these practices, and that our customers therefore are going to enjoy freedom of action to deal with us."
Next: The cases against Intel going forward, or backward...
The cases against Intel going forward, or backward
The most recently developed picture in consumers' and investors' minds about Intel's conduct during the early part of this decade came from the State of New York's antitrust suit, filed against Intel last week. There, State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo cited multiple e-mails, some from then-COO Otellini, which appeared to indicate that Intel was not only eager to enter into exclusivity deals with Dell and Hewlett-Packard secretly and separately from AMD, but was aware of the leverage those deals had in influencing those manufacturers' purchasing decisions and behavior.
It's clear this morning that Otellini remains personally disturbed by the New York A G's allegations, which are by no means settled: "We strongly disagree with the New York Attorney General's case, and believe the complaint is entirely without merit. Discounting and rebates are standard business practices, and perfectly legal, and it's unfortunate that the New York Attorney General chose to distort the facts. We would have preferred to have engaged in a dialogue with the Attorney General."
When pressed for further "color" on the subject by another reporter, Otellini turned up the volume: "On some of the statements in there that were attributed to me, yeah, I wrote some of those, at least the ones I remember. On the other hand, many of those documents are taken broadly out of context. When the full nature of the e-mails is exposed, I think that you'll see there's another way to interpret some of these statements."
The cross-licensing agreement
If AMD's complaints against Intel have been clear, emotional, and the stuff about which producers make movies, Intel's complaints about AMD are made up of the type of legal licensing language that keep attorneys in business. Under the terms of the two companies' long-standing licensing agreement -- the complete, non-redacted text of which has never been made public to this day -- neither company was allowed to license the other's intellectual property to other manufacturers. With AMD spinning off GlobalFoundries as part of its restructuring, that became another company that could do business with innovators other than AMD, putting Intel's IP in jeopardy. As a safeguard, the existing agreement stipulated that any foundry that AMD should hire to produce its chips should be a majority-owned subsidiary of AMD at the very least.
When the cross-licensing agreement was announced this morning as part of the two companies' settlement, evidently some red flags went up as though they were entering into some mysterious, Microsoft + Novell-like covenant. (If disputes can't be made more mysterious than they truly are, perhaps we can make hyperbole out of agreements).
But as AMD's Tom McCoy explained, the new cross-licensing agreement was essentially an extension of the existing one that's been under our noses since 1976: "It is an important feature of our agreement with Intel that we have resolved all disputes that have divided the parties. On the intellectual property side, AMD and Intel have had patent peace with each other since 1976 -- meaning that each company has had design freedom to innovate, respecting each other as great contributors to the intellectual property portfolio in the industry. And that continues unabated. So we have the continued design freedom, as do they, and we have now the flexibility...for full use of foundries. So now we can have 100% of our output produced in foundries that do not have to qualify as subsidiaries of AMD."
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
PS3, Xbox to soon get Twitter, Facebook integration

Publié: novembre 12, 2009, 9:01pm CET par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Microsoft has kept few secrets about its upcoming Dashboard update, which will give Xbox Live Gold members Twitter, Facebook, and Last.fm integration on November 17.
"Xbox Live's differentiator has always been our community, and we've already seen a tremendous response to these features in our public preview. It's the community that drives us forward and allows us to pioneer new ways of connecting people through the entertainment they love," Xbox Live general manager Marc Whitten said.
But accidentally leaked screenshots of Facebook running natively on the PlayStation 3 have caused a little more of a stir among the video game media. As usual, this is because of the element of mystery involved, and also Sony's track record of giving out for free what Microsoft charges for. Sony has not yet issued any comments on the leaked images, but Eurogamer today said that there will be more information on them "very shortly."
Betanews sent an inquiry to SCEA this afternoon, and will report on its response if and when it comes.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
The iTunes App Store at 100,000: Can we stop counting, already?

Publié: novembre 12, 2009, 8:46pm CET par Carmi Levy

By Carmi Levy, Betanews

Ever since Apple launched its App Store barely 16 months ago, we've paid a lot of attention -- indeed, too much -- to the number of applications it contains. As the App Store crossed the 100,000 title barrier last week, it occurred to me that the bigger this number gets, the less it actually means.
I get that Apple has won the sheer-number sweepstakes. I appreciate that no other mobile storefront can even come close. I also understand how broad software availability (in terms of sheer numbers as well as ease of acquisition) has helped fuel the growth of the iPhone/iPod touch universe. I just think we attach way too much importance to this single figure, and it distorts our ability to understand ultimate value to end users and developers alike.
So many titles, not enough room
Never mind that no one person could ever assess, let alone install and use, anything approaching a broad cross-section of this ever expanding library. Ignore the fact that the vast majority of these titles are near-dormant, gathering dust while the masses pay attention to newer, higher-profile offerings. Forget that this number is bloated by countless apps that replicate bodily functions, play visual party tricks, and otherwise consume time that could be productively spent...I don't know, composing e-mails to your mother.
Does the world really need fifty different ways to display the time? Or forty-five weather forecasting apps or a couple of hundred alarm clocks? At what point does the sheer size of the library become so large that successive additions become meaningless? I accept that there's a certain value in choice -- that in a tiny library, users would be ill-served by a product category with only a couple of feature-limited, badly integrated choices. A larger playground increases the size of the app-specific talent pool and ensures someone looking for an alarm clock will eventually find what he or she needs.
But there's choice and there's choice. When neighborhood supermarkets replaced the corner store, we all benefitted from greater choice and more competitive pricing. Economies of scale will do that, as stores that buy in larger quantities have greater buying power than those with smaller inventories. But as plain old supermarkets were supplanted by big-box megastores, we ended up with too much of a good thing. A thirty-minute cruise through the aisles easily doubled or tripled as many of us got lost in the cavernous new temples of conspicuous consumption. We'd stand in front of the ketchup shelves, unable to decide between the ten brands, fifteen different sizes, and packaging combinations, and even colors...remember green and purple? We'd end up with more than we needed, or stuff we hadn't intended on buying in the first place.

YouRememberThat.Com | MySpace Video
Lost in the wilderness
Apple's App Store has gone well beyond the big-box stage. Shopping there isn't the focused, quick and direct process it once was, and by the time most of us are done loading up on new code, we inevitably end up with stuff we didn't want or need in the first place. Worse for Apple, it can't simply build a bigger building to house all its new inventory. Computer and iPhone screens aren't getting bigger, and new and existing titles find themselves fighting for an ever dimmer slice of virtual storefront for consumers' increasingly ADHD-infused attention.
It hurts developers as well as consumers. We wrestle with the challenge of finding what we want without pulling our hair out in the process, while developers simply try to avoid getting lost in the ever growing ocean of offerings -- assuming, of course, that they can get past Apple's app approval process to get into that ocean in the first place.
I hesitate to blame Apple, as it's simply riding the wave of the most buzzworthy mobile device to hit consumers' radar since Ford's Model T. As long as we're content to measure the iPhone platform's worth by the number of available apps, Apple is perfectly content to trumpet each major milestone, and absolutely justified in doing so. For a company that has long prided itself on simple, easily understood methods for users, nothing's easier to articulate than a big number that dwarfs all competitors, and keeps getting bigger on a seemingly exponential path.
Even if, from where I sit, it's an ultimately meaningless number, it remains a marketer's dream, so don't expect Apple to stop flogging it.
New ways to measure
Still, it leaves the door open for measures of value that reflect actual utility. Google's Android platform may sport a software library that's an order of magnitude smaller than Apple's, but Google doesn't live in the same download-and-use universe that Apple does. Its core strength lies in its expanding universe of increasingly integrated Web-based services. And successive generations of its mobile platform will reflect this shifting reality, especially as 3G wipes GSM and CDMA off the map, and 4G-based technologies like LTE move into the mainstream.
It may seem laughable now given AT&T's and other carriers' troubles with network coverage of any kind, but at some point in the not-too-distant future, mobile bandwidth will be so abundant that the same paradigms of always-on Web services that we take for granted on our conventional laptops and desktops will seamlessly apply to our smartphones as well. And the download-and-use metaphor will fade.
So although the size of Google's library currently places it in a firm second place in the mobile online store rankings and gives it a fair degree of street cred, I doubt Google hangs on the daily figures as much as Apple does given the sea change that will fundamentally change how we get work (and play) done on mobile devices.
For now, though, we still measure our devices by the number of apps available for download, and we continue to focus on quantity when handicapping the various platforms against each other. As mobile infrastructure matures and consumers improve their ability to assess the value proposition of a platform's complete feature set -- and not just its simple library size -- simply having the biggest of anything may no longer be enough to sustain interest. Bigger, after all, isn't always better.
Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Analysis: The end of business-by-litigation?

Publié: novembre 12, 2009, 8:30pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III and Carmi Levy

By Scott M. Fulton, III and Carmi Levy, Betanews

The largest and widest ranging PC technology dispute, perhaps in the industry's history, came to an abrupt end this morning with Intel and AMD agreeing to set aside most of their differences, and all of their legal disputes. Is this a signal to the various litigators in the information technology industry that litigation is no longer the way to go, that it's too expensive a way for a company to continue protecting its market position? Betanews caught up with our contributing analyst Carmi Levy, by way of his trusty BlackBerry, on a train headed to Toronto this morning.
Carmi Levy: If litigation isn't too expensive from a fiscal perspective, then it certainly is onerous from a corporate attention perspective. Specifically, getting involved in years-long, tit-for-tat pitched legal battles that spill across global borders can often be the catalyst for losing focus on core competencies. While lawsuit-laden companies inevitably claim their legal processes do not impede strategic planning or day-to-day operations, it's clear that they're being overly optimistic. Litigation is a distraction. Never-ending litigation can split a company's focus for just long enough that it can easily lose touch with the needs of its market.
In a post-recessionary world, organizations are more vulnerable than ever to the consequences of this form of split focus.
Scott Fulton: Under the terms of this morning's agreement, Intel didn't have to acknowledge any wrongdoing, and it can continue offering volume rebates so long as they're not exclusionary...Doesn't that mean the cases of the New York Attorney General and the EC go flying out the window?
Carmi Levy: We may yet see pending cases in New York and Europe get tossed in the wake of this deal, but we'll have to wait and see how each jurisdiction weighs in. It's still early in that process, and it could take weeks or months before Intel gets the all clear in every venue where these is either current or pending litigation. Still, on the surface, it looks likely that Intel's ability to offer non-exclusionary rebates cuts the legs out from virtually all cases against it.
Scott Fulton: Is the business world ready for the dull, boring reality of competition between equal innovators everywhere in the spirit of openness and (yawn!) friendship? (Or put more directly, won't the rest of us in the media need to wake up to the new reality of business?)
Carmi Levy: I think it's time we -- both consumers as well as media, and while we're at it, the litigants and vendors, too -- moved on and paid more attention to what vendors do in the market with their products and services and less on what they're up to in front of a judge. In Intel's and AMD's case, they bring us technology that powers the information economy. They both have finally woken up to the fallacy of devoting endless resources to legal action that doesn't enhance their ability to design and market better products. Hopefully now they'll both be able to get back to business -- albeit an admittedly changed one.
And when they do, I think there's still ample opportunity for these two companies to slug it out where it matters most: in the market at large. Without the weight of seemingly never-ending litigation dragging them both down, we can look forward to more innovation and fewer antagonistic press releases and court filings.
Which means journos like us may have to change our approach to coverage as well!
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
The agreement: Intel and AMD 'wipe the slate clean'

Publié: novembre 12, 2009, 7:35pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III
By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

The complete text of this morning's agreement between AMD and Intel was filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, and was made public early this afternoon. The agreement explicitly brings to an end three different legal disputes: the 2005 AMD antitrust suit against Intel in Delaware; the 2005 AMD antitrust suit against Intel in Tokyo, Japan; and Intel's objections to AMD's restructuring plan, specifically to spin off GlobalFoundries from a subsidiary to an independent unit.
The agreement acknowledges the gist of AMD's complaints about Intel's prior conduct, but Intel does not in turn acknowledge having acted as AMD suggested. But from there, the agreement effectively acts as if to say, "You know what? Let's forget about all that and start over."
"To avoid the time and expense of litigation, and without any admission of liability or fault, the Parties wish to fully, finally and forever resolve, compromise and settle the Actions on the terms and conditions set forth below," the agreement explicitly reads. "Further, Intel and AMD acknowledge that for most of the last three decades, their relationship has been difficult, challenging and often acrimonious. Intel and AMD wish to change that relationship going forward, both by 'wiping the slate clean' as to all past grievances, and by approaching future grievances in a constructive manner designed to address and resolve such grievances amicably, if possible."
The business practices which Intel has agreed to abide by, are very carefully worded so as not to suggest that Intel never abided by them in the first place. For example, the agreement does not say Intel will "discontinue" any practice, or "refrain from" doing something, which would imply that it did so in the past.
It's a long section, but what it boils down to is the following:
- No rebates to OEMs for exclusivity. Intel won't enter into any deals with manufacturers that would give them benefits or awards for restricting their own freedom from being able to purchase parts from any other producer, anywhere in the world.
- Intel can make exclusionary deals, and no, that is not a typo. There are conditions that have to be met, one of which being that Intel must compete (presumably with AMD) for those deals. The explicit language states Intel is not prohibited: "...to lawfully compete on the merits for selection by the customer for any then-current design award or for satisfaction of any or all of the customer's then-current demand for microprocessors in a manner consistent with this Agreement." So if an OEM is offering exclusivity, it must offer it to both competitors, and in writing. And the winner must execute its agreement with the OEM explicitly, and in writing.
- Intel cannot reward a company for refraining from advertising AMD parts, or for not entering into marketing agreements with AMD, nor can it penalize a company by saying such an agreement with its competitor is against an existing agreement with Intel.
- Intel can't rebate anyone for using mostly or entirely Intel parts. That type of exclusivity doesn't constitute a "design award" or a marketing program, and is thus forbidden.
- Intel can compete for a design award by a manufacturer were mostly or all Intel parts are used, just as long as AMD can compete as well.
- Intel cannot create artificial technological impairments such as, for instance, a compiler state that would render some software better or faster on Intel multicores but defeated or dampened on AMD multicores.
- Both AMD and Intel may offer discounts to customers, especially volume discounts. That's been a point of contention with Intel, whose accusations against it in recent months have extended to include the ability to offer deep discounts to OEMs for high-volume purchases. As Intel executives have questioned, since when has discounting been illegal, even for a dominant player? Later in the agreement, it specifies that Intel's ability to offer retroactive discounts -- markdowns on current and future purchases based on volumes of past purchases -- may be preserved as well, depending on the outcome of current regulatory challenges worldwide.
The agreement explicitly states that Intel will not challenge the findings of the European Commission, the US Federal Trade Commission, and the New York Attorney General's office, although it may be free to challenge the language of those decisions. AMD will continue to argue against Intel's use of retroactive discounts with respect to these regulatory actions, assuming they continue.
As for any other Intel conduct, AMD says it's releasing its complaints against Intel; and Intel in turn is releasing its IP complaints. In the terms of a new covenant, neither party can hold the other party or its customers liable for past conduct.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
EC still holds Intel accountable even after AMD settlement

Publié: novembre 12, 2009, 7:03pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

Despite an historic resolution to AMD's and Intel's long-standing business practices and intellectual property disputes this morning, the official position of the European Commission -- which issued formal objections to, and fines for, Intel's alleged conduct last May -- is that nothing whatsoever has changed with regard to its ongoing prosecution of its Statement of Objections.
In a statement to Betanews this afternoon, EC spokesperson Jonathan Todd said: "The Commission takes note that Intel and AMD have settled all their litigation and that Intel is paying AMD compensation of $1.25 billion. Intel has an ongoing obligation to comply with the Commission's May 2009 Decision and with EU antitrust law. The Commission continues to vigorously monitor Intel's compliance with its obligations under the May 2009 Decision."
Although AMD is likely to continue cooperating with regulators worldwide, its active participation in their efforts is likely to subside, but not yet completely.
"The regulatory investigations and enforcement actions around the world are conducted by sovereign governments pursuant to law and their mandates to protect competitive processes and consumer value," said AMD Executive Vice President for Legal Affairs Tom McCoy this morning. "So the regulators will do what they are going to do; and what we would say is that, from our perspective, we are withdrawing, obviously, from all pending litigation. We will be withdrawing all complaints that have been lodged with regulatory agencies, and if asked, we will say that the agreement, to a great extent, resolves outstanding disputes between AMD and Intel under the antitrust laws. There are some exceptions, there are some practices that we believe are exclusionary, that we will, under the agreement, there are a narrow set which we will continue to advocate to the regulators should be addressed for the health of the industry; and Intel will have its own point of view of that, of course. So the regulatory agencies still have a role to play, but from our perspective, this agreement significantly resolves our concerns."
From Intel's perspective, all of the regulatory concerns that governments may have stem from AMD's original civil complaint. And now that that's over, Intel believes, the rest of it all should follow.
"In terms of regulators, I think in general, all of these comments that have been coming from regulators, and actions, have been as a result of the complaints between these two private parties," said Intel CEO Paul Otellini this morning. "Now that the issues between the private parties are settled, I think that should provide some degree of comfort for the regulators, at least in terms of our behaviors and how we're going to compete in the marketplace, and so forth. Beyond that, they may have their other concerns in areas like pricing, as we've mentioned, that we may still want to them and they may want to talk to us about."
Endpoint analyst Roger Kay later pressed the Intel executives for further clarity, including with regard to the New York Attorney General's antitrust complaint, filed last week.
"In the places in the world where AMD had complaints against us, those will be withdrawn," responded Intel Executive Vice President for Legal Affairs Andy Bryant. "In places where governments around the world were asking us questions, those will continue on. Actually the EU appeal will continue on...We are having discussions with the [US] FTC; currently, there are other countries in the world who have asked us questions, we will still continue to talk to them, answer their questions. And of course, we have the New York Attorney General situation to deal with."
This prompted a Fortune Magazine correspondent to ask whether A-G Andrew Cuomo's complaint -- which contained never-before-public e-mails from Intel execs, including Otellini, as evidence of improper conduct -- led Intel to conclude it must settle now with AMD to avoid embarrassment.
Otellini responded first by revealing that settlement talks with AMD actually began last April, before the EC's Statement of Objections. In fact, it's conceivable that had the EC suspended its operations for another month, it might have discovered it had less to complain about.
With respect to Mr. Cuomo's filed complaint, Otellini added, "On some of the statements in there that were attributed to me, yeah, I wrote some of those, at least the ones I remember. On the other hand, many of those documents are taken broadly out of context. When the full nature of the e-mails is exposed, I think that you'll see there's another way to interpret some of these statements. Remember, there were 200 million pages of documents produced, and these were four or five snippets out of 200 million pages. So we're anxious to talk about our side of the story and show our other halves of e-mails, and so forth, as we go forward."
Betanews has shared some of Otellini's statements with Attorney General Cuomo's office, and we may expect a response from him later in the day.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Boxee's first official hardware to premiere December 7

Publié: novembre 12, 2009, 5:54pm CET par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Boxee, the freeware multimedia management software based on the XBMC framework will soon be getting its own set top box.
Boxee's Avner Ronen today announced that the startup has signed its first partnership with a consumer electronics hardware company, and that the mockups of the upcoming set-top box will be shown off on December 7.
"This will be the first connected device running Boxee, but the idea is to provide consumers with a way to get Boxee in their living rooms, no matter whether it's on a Connected TV, game console, set-top box, BluRay player, computer, etc," Ronen said today. "Our goal is to be on every Connected device in the living room."
Last week, we saw the first shots of the upcoming Myka ION "nettop box," which is already running both Boxee and XBMC. We've sent out inquiries to find out if the two products are related in any way.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Windows Marketplace for Mobile now available in browser, iTunes' App Store still not

Publié: novembre 12, 2009, 4:48pm CET par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Sure, Apple created the most popular and well-stocked mobile app store in the market, but does Apple provide a Web-based interface to it? No. Through Apple's official channels, you can only browse the store's contents in iTunes or on your iPhone/iPod Touch.
There is an unofficial site hosted on Google App Engine which provides roughly the same experience Apple provides in iTunes, but it lacks search functionality, and if you try to download something, it launches the iTunes installer.
To prevent this problem, Windows Marketplace for Mobile, the app store for Windows Phones, launched a Web-based storefront yesterday. Users can now go to marketplace.windowsphone.com to browse, search, buy, and download Windows Mobile apps from within their browser.
When users select an application from the site, it's put a the download queue which will immediately run the next time the Marketplace client is run on the user's mobile device.
"Marketplace has been extremely active and I couldn't be happier with the reactions from both developers and customers," Microsoft's senior director of mobile services, Todd Brix said. "We've been open for just over one month and already we can see that there's demand for an application marketplace that doesn't compromise on quality or experience."
Out of the many app stores put up in the last year, only a few storefronts have been brought to the Web browser. The Web-based Android Market, for example, provides a weak overview of what is available instead of an actual database of the more than 10,000 Android apps available. Users cannot buy directly from the official Web interface, either.
The Web interface for BlackBerry App World, however, has a substantial catalog which can be browsed, and apps can be sent as emailed links to the user's device.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Breakthrough: AMD and Intel settle antitrust dispute, reach new cross-license agreement

Publié: novembre 12, 2009, 3:55pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

Intel has made a statement to Betanews this morning that it and Advanced Micro Devices are settling their long, outstanding legal disputes, including pending antitrust litigation in Delaware court, with Intel agreeing to pay AMD $1.25 billion.
Intel will also agree to abide by a new set of business practices, which may be announced in a matter of minutes. It's over.
"While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development," reads Intel's statement this morning.
10:55 am EST November 12, 2009 · "The agreement to us signals a new era. It's a pivot from war to peace," announced AMD Executive Vice President for Legal Affairs Tom McCoy, in a statement that could entitle the opening of a new chapter in the x86 computing era.
With poignant and historic language, AMD executives this afternoon announced the end of the intellectual property and business practices dispute with Intel that at one time, from a marketing perspective, defined AMD as a company. Intel's executives' statements remain forthcoming at this time. But AMD CEO Dirk Meyer explained today's agreement has three categories:
1. Intel will agree to new ground rules for corporate business practices.
2. A new, five-year patent cross-license agreement between AMD and Intel will give both companies broad access to each other's technologies.
3. GlobalFoundries, the manufacturing arm of AMD that was spun off as a subsidiary, may now be completely separated from AMD and operate independently. Under the previous cross-license agreement with Intel, GF had to operate as an AMD subsidiary in order for AMD to share Intel intellectual property with it -- the old agreement prohibited AMD sharing Intel trade secrets with another company. The new agreement permits such sharing specifically with GF.
However, we learned this morning, not all business practices to which AMD and certain other governments had been objecting, will be covered by Category 1 of the agreement. Specifically, from AMD's point of view, it appears only Intel conduct with regard to limiting end users' choices between AMD and Intel technology, will be curbed. But business practices such as volume rebates to OEMs may (perhaps) be allowed, so long as they are not exclusionary -- specifically, as long as they are not structured in such a way that OEMs promise not to purchase AMD parts, or to hold AMD purchases to specified caps.
We'll learn more from Intel's point of view in a few minutes. In advance of Intel's statement, that company has already released an update to its financial guidance, increasing its business expenditures to account for the one-time charge of $1.25 billion to be paid to AMD.
12:25 pm EST · Intel's business conduct agreement, we learned from Intel this morning, will not extend to the practice of volume rebates with OEMs such as HP and Dell. Without acknowledging any wrongdoing -- in fact, while continuing to defend its prior business practices with all OEMs, including Dell and HP -- Intel executives today stated they now openly promise not to do in the future any of the exclusionary tactics which AMD accused it of doing, while saying it never did so anyway.
Or maybe not. When directly asked by a Financial Times reporter this morning whether Intel's take on the agreement means it's not changing anything with regard to its business conduct, Intel Chief Administrative Officer Andy Bryant heaved a great, audible sigh, and responded emphatically, "No changes at all. Again, I'm just gonna say the same thing over again, so bear with me: AMD believes we have conducted business in some fashion that they believe is inappropriate. We have said we don't do what they actually accuse us of doing. We are confident that -- in fact, it's in the contract, we wrote down exactly what those provisions are, what we will and mostly what we won't do, and then those can be monitored at any time."
Then after what sounded like a pause for Intel CEO Paul Otellini to pick up where he left off, suddenly Bryant decided he needed to correct a little something: "I don't want to say there's absolutely no change to what we're doing. We have met with the EU, we have changed some business practices because of that. There are issues around pricing, which we think that the regulators may want to talk to us about -- we'll talk about those things. So I don't want to say we're not changing any of our business practices. The things that AMD was concerned about in the contract are things that we don't do, and we readily agreed to not do, because we don't."
The patent cross-license agreement reached today is a five-year extension of the existing agreement -- an extension that had been threatened by Intel's concern over AMD's restructuring. Specifically, if GlobalFoundries were to split completely from AMD ownership to become independent, AMD's sharing of x86 technology necessary for GF to produce chips would violate the previous licensing agreement.
That's important, because GF plans to do business with other companies; and GF's other current co-owner -- Abu Dhabi government-run investment firm ATIC -- reached an agreement last month to acquire Chartered Semiconductor. That makes GF, which was once just a manufacturing company, into a full-scale CPU innovator and manufacturer on the order of what AMD was in 2007. Chartered doesn't exactly expect its IP to be shared with Intel; and Intel would not want the reverse.
But borrowing the term "peace" from his AMD counterpart this morning, Intel's Andy Bryant told reporters that Intel was usually at peace with foundries, so striking an independent deal with GF wasn't too much of a problem. Intel isn't worried about losing its x86 IP, and is trusting GF just like it previously trusted AMD. This enables AMD to complete the last part of its restructuring: separating GF completely as an AMD subsidiary, into a firm that is majority-owned by ATIC, and minority-owned by AMD. That resolution also officially took place this morning.
Both Intel and AMD are expected to file paperwork with the Securities and Exchange Commission today, either or both versions of which should detail the complete agreement between the two companies. Betanews will continue reporting on today's breakthrough as we learn more.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Microsoft damage control after marketer claims Win7 inspired by Mac

Publié: novembre 12, 2009, 3:51pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

It's not like this sort of thing has never happened to someone at Microsoft before: a moment of clarity and candidness which may actually be close to, if not exactly, the truth, but which is nevertheless "off message." During a recent reseller's conference, a Microsoft marketing manager named Simon Aldous representing the Worldwide Partner Group gave credit to Apple for creating an operating system that folks in a Microsoft study appreciated. But then, according to PCR Online, a publication for computer and software resellers, Aldous went one step further and said Microsoft took that inspiration and, then with Windows 7, "create a Mac look and feel in terms of graphics."
It was exactly the phraseology that blogs throughout the Internet were looking for, and Aldous' comment became the latest water cooler conversation topic...even though the publication was incorrect in one very important respect: Aldous was not a "Microsoft exec," and therefore was not speaking on behalf of the company. The fact that the publication got Aldous' position wrong created suspicion in at least one person residing on planet Earth that perhaps it had gotten the quote wrong as well. Nonetheless, the headline "Windows 7 was inspired by Apple OS" rocketed throughout the Web.
The entire incident might have ended there, except for the fact that one of Microsoft's chief online evangelists, Brandon LeBlanc, publicly excoriated Aldous for having made the comment...rather than cast doubt on its authenticity. "Unfortunately this came from a Microsoft employee who was not involved in any aspect of designing Windows 7," LeBlanc wrote this morning. "I hate to say this about one of our own, but his comments were inaccurate and uninformed."
There is indeed one element of Windows 7 whose differences from Vista were probably inspired by Mac OS: the revised taskbar. When it was unveiled last year at PDC, Microsoft representatives were extremely careful not to characterize it as Mac-inspired. Staying on-message at the time, Microsoft design manager Samuel Moreau coined the term "delighter" to refer to visual elements derived from extensive examination of test results obtained from the opinions of people using Vista while being videotaped. The new taskbar was designed to be a staging area, he said, for several of these delighters.
But neither Moreau nor anyone at Microsoft at that time steered completely clear of the other "M" word, acknowledging the design impetus of Mac OS even when folks in the audience asked questions to the effect of, "You realize this is more like the Mac Dock, right?" No one said, however, that the taskbar had a "Mac look and feel."
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Facebook for iPhone developer goes from Apple supporter to 'I quit!' in 3 months

Publié: novembre 12, 2009, 2:30am CET par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

If you're an iPhone user with a Facebook account, chances are good that you have Facebook for iPhone. In fact, it has roughly 17.3 million users, or about 28% of the 60 million users accessing Facebook on a mobile device.
One of the developers who worked on that app is Joe Hewitt, who today tweeted: "Time for me to try something new. I've handed the Facebook iPhone app off to another engineer, and I'm onto a new project."
He's not just leaving the Facebook project, but abandoning the iPhone altogether.
Hewitt told TechCrunch today that he quit the project because of Apple's strict approval and management policies in the iTunes App Store.
He said: "My decision to stop iPhone development has had everything to do with Apple's policies. I respect their right to manage their platform however they want, however I am philosophically opposed to the existence of their review process. I am very concerned that they are setting a horrible precedent for other software platforms, and soon gatekeepers will start infesting the lives of every software developer."
This is quite a turn of events, considering Hewitt's last blog entry in August said: "No matter how annoyed I get, I will not stop developing for Apple's platforms or using Apple's products as long as they continue to produce the best stuff on the market. I never forget how deeply Apple cares about making their users happy, and that counts more than how they treat their developers. Besides, when I have a problem with a friend, I don't threaten to boycott our friendship until they change, so I'm not going to do that to Apple either."
The developer he's handed the app over to is Owen Yamauchi, a Facebook software developer and former Apple engineer.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Bing vs. Google rematch on video search

Publié: novembre 12, 2009, 12:08am CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

We've known that Microsoft still has work remaining in its itinerary to build Bing into a more competitive search engine -- we knew at launch time that not every feature would compete on an absolute par against Google. If it did, then MSN and Windows Live would have been far more popular. But when Microsoft steps forward to say, "Now, we really have something competitive in this department," it's difficult to give Bing the same number of "Mulligans" as we did at the beginning.
This morning, Microsoft rolled out some replacements to its old MSN Video search engine -- which had remained online all this time -- to produce Bing Video. Like Google Video and unlike YouTube, Bing Video is not a host; it's a search service for publicly accessible videos. So YouTube videos, although hosted by Google, should appear on Bing as well. The differentiator here, theoretically, should not be inventory, since both services should have access to the same material. Instead, it should be how the material is presented, and whether the search process provides access to not only what the user is looking for, but material that may also be pertinent, relevant, and interesting.
So this Betanews comparison does not pit Bing against YouTube -- let's be clear about that. This compares Bing Video against Google Video, similar to our initial test of the two services last June.
With today being Veterans' Day in the US, I decided to devote our search themes for this contest to the bigger, braver battles that Americans have fought in the interests of our freedom and prosperity, so that we're able to spend time dealing in more mundane things like browsing through videos. I began with an easy search for "D-Day" footage -- I want to see if I can locate the small amount of actual footage shot of the Allies storming the Normandy beaches.
What's D-Day to some of us who appreciate the extreme sacrifices of the Allies in saving the world, isn't D-Day to everyone, apparently. Since search engines trust the titles of videos to be truthful about their contents, 6 of the first 20 results returned by Bing actually showed amateur video of paintball competitions called "D-Day," and one was a stop-motion animation using plastic soldiers attacking a beach fortification made of Styrofoam.
By comparison, the first 15 items returned by Google were of legitimate historical D-Day footage, while #16 was the same silly Styrofoam recreation. (The title does say "D-Day Lost Combat Reels," but the word "stop-motion" might also give other clues.) In all, 17 of the top 20 videos Google returned contained D-Day footage, while one contained recent footage of the D-Day Memorial in Normandy.
You'd think adding material to the search would narrow things down significantly -- for example, making the query "D-Day" footage Normandy invasion. And for Google Video, it does, with the first 45 items retrieved showing authentic Normandy footage. Only item #46 in Google's retrieval shows footage from paintball competitors (even though "Normandy" is nowhere close to "Oklahoma"). Item #12 for Bing Video involves paintball, while #11 shows footage of a legitimate amateur D-Day recreation in Ohio (again, nowhere close to Normandy).
In browsing through selected videos, Bing continues to show one of its bright spots: the ability to play a segment of the video directly within the thumbnail, complete with sound, before the user actually selects it. This gives the user more of an opportunity to see whether this is actually something she really wants to be seeing. Google Video currently has no counterpart to this, and it really should, although one wonders whether Google's looking for an opportunity to roll the feature out when no one is noticing.
This is especially useful for previewing videos hosted by other sites, especially universities, where embedding isn't normally supported. For example, when we tried a search for the classic 1952 Edward R. Murrow See It Now documentary on "Christmas in Korea" (the query here being Korea Murrow "See It Now"), most of the sites with the longest relevant clips (some of them including the Korea show, some not) are on a non-embedding site, such as Kansas University's Journalism Dept. Pulling up the whole video would mean leaving the search engine.
However, a video's thumbnail alone doesn't often tell you whether it might contain a minute or two from the edition featuring Murrow's tour with US troops in the Korean War. So Bing's ability to preview even non-embeddable videos here is extremely helpful; with only a thumbnail to go on, the only way for you to test a video pulled up by Google is to travel off-site.
Next: Presentation is the key...
Once you've selected a video from a site that supports video embedding (so that you don't leave the context of the search engine), Bing is capable of displaying it in a more pleasing frame than Google. A dark grey viewing region, coupled with light grey text on dark for the description, is much easier on the eyes than Google's layout, which essentially hands over a pre-annexed rectangle to whatever service is providing the feed (YouTube, DailyMotion, MySpace, etc.).
Google Video does add an extra space below the playback region, for "Related Videos." Now, you'd think that your other query results would be full of related videos; but there's a good reason why these are here: A pre-catalogued index placed these items here, as belonging to the same general category as the video being viewed.
That's an important feature that Bing Video lacks, although the "More from the Web" section does present more items from the query in a more optimized layout: two rows of five each, rather than one long column of ten like Google.
Bing Video would still benefit from stepping aside even further, however, from its former role as a YouTube competitor. Like Google Video, Bing Video should realize that the user of a search engine isn't really a browser, or a "person who browses" -- he's someone who's looking for something specific. So showing "Recently Commented Videos" and "Most Watched" videos on unrelated topics to the search at hand, is not a help but a hindrance in this context. When I care about D-Day, I don't care about Lady Gaga. (Frankly, I don't care about Lady Gaga at any other time either, but that's beside the point.)
Another feature Bing Video could stand to lose is "Up Next," a holdover from the MSN days. Here, the service has pre-selected a queue of videos for you to watch -- not videos pertaining to your search, just something it happened to pull up. In our case with D-Day, Bing Video (or rather, MSN) pulled up an interview with the star of Fox Television's "Glee," and an award ceremony interview with Oprah Winfrey's friend Gayle.
If Bing is supposed to be a "decision engine," as Microsoft's ads put it, then there is no reason for these videos to be here unless they pertain to the search at hand. This is no longer MSN Video, the place to go when you have no place to go and you want the Web to take you somewhere -- the Internet equivalent of Sominex. Bing Video is a tool, and should be treated like one. For more on that subject, I would recommend that Bing's people pay a visit to Bob Muglia at the Tools division of Microsoft.
The verdict
Last June, in our initial test just after Bing's premiere, I gave a very slight edge to Bing Video over Google Video for presenting more sensible results. But I issued a warning to Bing about adopting strange, Microsoft-ian patchwork features like adding wild terms like adlt=strict to the end of queries to guarantee explicit content filters work. There shouldn't have to be "guarantees;" the feature should either work or not. However, Google, in a never-ending race not to be outdone even with questionable features, has since added a similar feature to Google Video.
The qualitative distance between the two video search engines remains very slight. In some cases -- like with the query "Civil War" Appomattox re-enactment -- the search results were essentially identical, just shuffled around a bit. However, for the most part, it does not appear as though Google has devoted as much effort into improving not only the video search process, but also the presentation, as Microsoft with Bing Video.
Now, those frivolous and unnecessary holdover features from the dark ages of MSN, such as "Up Next," can be let go anytime. But being able to preview videos as videos is a very compelling feature that still tips the scales toward Bing for now. For Google Video to catch up, it needs to add this feature, and it needs to rearrange the layout of its search results to something more functional. That's something that can happen tomorrow.
But that's the thing with Google these days, isn't it: These things can happen tomorrow, and they don't. You never know with Google when something will get back on-track, or fall back off the track. That uncertainty may be Microsoft's key to maintaining the edge in this and other key departments for Bing, and reclaiming search share one bite at a time.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009