Gregarius » BetaNews.Com » décembre 18, 2009

BetaNews.Com (9 non lus)

Verizon: Even with higher termination fees, we still lose money

Publié: décembre 18, 2009, 10:11pm CET par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Verizon has filed its response to a December 4 Federal Communications Commission probe which examined the carrier's recent increase to early termination fees for subscribers with "advanced devices" such as BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, Android and Palm handsets. The FCC asked why such an increase was necessary, how customers are informed of the new fees, and why the fee is not prorated all the way down to zero.
Unsurprisingly, Verizon said the increased early termination fees reflect the higher cost of these advanced devices and their larger subsidies (a.k.a., cost differential), the higher costs and risks of providing mobile broadband services, as well as the costs of advertising, commission, store costs, and general network upkeep.
What is surprising, though, is how much Verizon says it loses when a customer cancels his contract early.
"The $350 ETF for Advanced Devices reflects the substantially higher costs and risks of providing mobile broadband service. Verizon Wireless incurs these costs with the expectation that customers will enable Verizon Wireless to recoup them over time. Indeed, a customer with an Advanced Device on a voice and data service plan typically agrees to pay substantially more in monthly service fees, as compared to a customer with a more basic phone on a voice-only plan. The $350 ETF does not fully compensate Verizon Wireless for all these costs, particularly for customers who terminate at a relatively early point in the contract term," the company's response to the FCC said.
"On average, customers who terminated early did so with more than twelve months still left on their contracts," the company continued. "Verizon Wireless estimates that, at the twelve month point in the contract term, its typical loss from the early termination is more than double the applicable remaining ETF amount for an Advanced Device."
In other words, if a customer terminates his two-year contract halfway through, he'll have to pay a $230 Early Termination Fee. Despite this, Verizon estimates that it's still losing $460 out of the deal.
Currently, the $350 Early Termination Fee is prorated by $10 a month until the end of the customer's contract, meaning it never reaches zero.
Verizon said, "Prorating the ETF to zero in the last month would mean that, to recoup the same amount of the losses caused by early terminations as a whole, Verizon Wireless would have to set the starting amount for the ETF higher than $350. Customers as a whole would be worse off if Verizon Wireless were to take this approach because early terminations occur disproportionately in the early part of the contract term and relatively few customers terminate near the end of the contract term."
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Cisco acquires 4G tech vendor Starent Networks for $2.9B

Publié: décembre 18, 2009, 7:05pm CET par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Today, Cisco announced that it has completed its acquisition of Starent Networks, a name that has been popping up in greater frequency as wireless networks evolve into their next generation.
Starent deals in core multimedia technology used in all types of mobile radio networks, and has made a strong showing in emerging technologies. Just this year, the company became a partner in Verizon's LTE deployment, it has worked with 3GPP on new Femtocell standards, and launched a new method of network traffic management for 3G/4G network operators.
Today's announcement completes the deal first publicized in October. Starent will become part of a new group in Cisco called the Mobile Internet Technology Group which falls under the Service Provider Group. Starent's president and CEO, Ashraf Dahod will become senior vice president and general manager of this new group.
Starent's aggregate purchase price was about $2.9 billion, and Cisco expects the investment to become accretive by 2012.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Slow performance may have triggered Visual Studio 2010 delay

Publié: décembre 18, 2009, 6:53pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

A delay of what Microsoft Developer SVP S. Somasegar calls "back a few weeks," in the final release of Visual Studio 2010 and its accompanying .NET Framework 4, is the apparent result of performance issues that beta testers would not let rest.
Somasegar's post yesterday afternoon started out by saying, certainly you've noticed how VS 2010 Beta 2 is faster than Beta 1: "As you may have seen, we significantly improved performance between Beta 1 and Beta 2." But then he transitions smoothly into an admission of just the opposite: "Based on what we've heard, we clearly needed to do more work. Over the last couple of months, our engineering team has been doing a push to improve performance. We have made significant progress in this space since Beta 2."
A Microsoft spokesperson declined to go into specifics this morning about the dates. Since the company was foggy to begin with about release times (up until yesterday, we were being told "Q1 2010"), a delay with a smaller frame of granularity than the release window could probably be interpreted as the next quarter ("Q2 2010") -- a shift which Microsoft would not deny today. In the meantime, there will be another "checkpoint release" added to the schedule, prior to the Release candidate. When one does the math, Q2 looks more and more likely.
The cause of the delay itself, as Somasegar described it, was apparent virtual memory problems reported by testers. A check of the forum for VS 2010 testers does not specifically mention virtual memory, although many may not have the equipment or experience to diagnose a problem they encounter as VM-related right away.
What they have been reporting is slow performance, and that is probably the VM problem. Developers reported noticeable delays in the IDE: simple things like scrolling problems, delays between typed characters, and IntelliSense popups (suggested completions of keywords with proper syntax, for example) that take whole seconds to be displayed.
Such problems have been consistently reported since last September -- actually during the Beta 1 period. Not all appear to be virtual memory related -- one tester noted performance improvements after changing out Intel video drivers, which a senior Microsoft developer discovered was causing difficulty with Windows Presentation Foundation's hardware acceleration. VS 2010's IDE has been migrated to WPF from the older GDI libraries dating back to Windows 95.
Many testers had been reporting general performance issues under "Suggestions" and not "Bugs," evidently because they've been unable to detect any specific issues -- other than architectural ones -- that could be suspects for the cause. But up until yesterday, Microsoft had been closing those issues as "Resolved as Not Reproducible." Support personnel repeated their boilerplate responses to have testers run diagnostic tools for reporting the circumstances that led to the issues they were having.
But testers responded by saying Beta 2's sloth was across the board, not just one reproducible element. "Sorry to be negative guys, but if anything, 2010B2 seems worse than B1," wrote contributor James 12345 in mid-November. "Build times are always painfully slow bordering on unusable with a modest WPF solution (reminds me of developing in the '80s, I don't think that comment in a product review will make MS marketing folk happy), and there are occasional stability issues. Occasional glitches can be forgiven with WPF controls ghosting in foreground (hovering outside VS or WPF app above all other windows, I have to log out to clear these)...This isn't a viable platform for prime time."
James and others waited for Microsoft to respond, saying nothing in the interim. Microsoft personnel did respond last week...by closing the thread due to what it described as inactivity: "Given that we have not heard from you in 2.5 weeks, we are closing this bug due to inactivity...We have made a variety of performance fixes since Beta 2, so you should see a better experience in VS 2010 RTM...If you have further questions or comments about this or any other issues in VS 2010, please don't hesitate to post again here and we'll be happy to help."
If the RTM delay truly is only a few weeks, as Somasegar suggested, then it's notable that those few weeks could have been scheduled a few weeks ago -- during those weeks that support personnel were meeting testers' complaints with silence.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Add-ons make Google Chrome for Linux beta competitive against Firefox

Publié: décembre 18, 2009, 5:37pm CET

By Jack M. Germain, LinuxInsider

Download Google Chrome Dev version 245.1 for Linux from Fileforum now.
Google finally released a beta version of its Chrome Web browser for Linux on December 8, slightly more than one year after releasing its Chrome browser for Windows. The wait was worth it, especially given the more than 300 extensions already available to customize the new browser.
Because Linux distributions are numerous, Google ported the Chrome code to a select handful of the most popular distros. Chrome for Linux is so far only available for the Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, and OpenSuse distros.
Similar to Google Chrome for Windows and Mac (also just released), Google focused on speed, stability and security in building the Linux version. However, Google also wanted a high-performance browser that integrated well with the Linux ecosystem, according to Brian Rakowski, product manager.
"This includes tight integration with native GTK themes, updates that are managed by the standard system package manager and many other features that fit in natively with the operating system where possible," Rakowski said.
In developing the Linux version of the Google Chrome browser, company officials decided not to keep the project exclusively in-house. Instead, it sought help from the open source community that was already well-versed in the Chromium Project, said Rakowski. More than 50 open source contributors that worked on Chromium were helpful in delivering the Linux version of Google Chrome, he added.
Chromium is an open source browser project with a goal of building a safer, faster and more stable way for all Internet users to experience the Web. Like the Windows version, Google's Chrome browser for Linux is fast, secure, stable, simple, extensible, and embraces open standards like HTML5, according to software engineers Dan Kegel and Evan Martin.
"Google Chrome works well with both Gnome and KDE and is updated via the normal system package manager. It has also been developed as a true open source project, using public mailing lists, IRC channels, bug tracker, code repository, and continuous build and test farm -- following in large part the trail blazed by Mozilla," they wrote.
Where they noticed problems in system libraries, the Chrome developers pushed fixes upstream and filed bug reports. This open approach to development seems to be working, noted Kegel and Martin.
Google Chrome Beta for Linux has much of the look and feel of the established Windows version. However, under the hood are telltale signs that the code is carefully tuned to integrate with the Linux architecture.
I use Chrome for Windows on several of my PCs. Thus, my first exposure to the Linux version of the Chrome Beta on my Ubuntu desktop and Ubuntu-based netbook was a simple venture into familiar territory. The user interface is largely the same.
Installation, as expected, was fast and sure. Browser settings and bookmarks were imported from my Firefox browser painlessly.
I thought I had lucked out in being able to port the Google Chrome Beta over to my two computers that run the Puppy Linux distribution. One of the Puppy community members recompiled the binary code to convert the .Deb package of Google Chrome into a .Pet package for Puppy Linux. However, a key library was missing, causing Google Chrome to flash on the screen and then disappear.
Speedy, tabbed browsers are becoming the standard today. So a new browser candidate needs some extra oomph to give users enough reasons to switch from their current browser of choice. Google accomplishes this with its gallery of extensions.
The vast array of extensions available in the Firefox and the Seamonkey browsers push their usefulness high up on the browser list. Google Chrome jumps to the top of that list with its more than 300 browser extensions developed specifically for Chrome.
I found Chrome versions of many of my favorite Firefox add-ons. This makes it much easier to switch my work routine from one browser to the other without missing anything.
When Google first launched the Windows Chrome version in September 2008, the plan was to make it easy to customize the browser with extensions. Google also wanted to make extensions easy to create and maintain, while also preserving Google Chrome's speed and stability, noted Rakowski.
Mostly, Google met that goal. Each extension runs in its own process to avoid crashing or significantly slowing down the browser.
Google Chrome beta for Linux has a lot of nice features. It did not take me long to find my favorites.
For instance, the pin tab feature locks a Web site in place with a right click. It reduces the size of the tab for the pinned URLs so they are quickly found among a growing list of opened browser tabs.
Another gem is the ability to preselect URLs to open when the browser loads. Sure, a few other browsers have a similar feature, called a "personal tool bar." But Chrome lets me do it with a right click of the mouse.
I also like the ability to use the system title bar and borders within the browser by right clicking on tab bar.
This story was originally published on LinuxInsider.
© 2009 ECT News Network. All rights reserved.
© 2009 BetaNews.com. All rights reserved.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Live Poll: Should Facebook give you your privacy?

Publié: décembre 18, 2009, 5:28pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

Now that Facebook has altered its privacy policy for users, what statement best reflects your personal stance on social networks' privacy policy?(polls)
Last week's change to Facebook's privacy policy resulted in tens of thousands of users being directly confronted with a choice over how Facebook should change its stance. The initial result was confusion, but as folks worked out what the question really meant, they came to a discovery that they were not only being asked, but encouraged, to turn off their privacy settings altogether as a benefit to "Everyone" -- Facebook's new default class.
Now, the group that helped focus the US Federal Trade Commission's attention on Google has turned its sights on Facebook, initiating a complaint action yesterday that could lead to a federal investigation of the subject. Expect Congress to follow suit at some point, perhaps calling Facebook executives to the witness stand. In advance of the coming debate, where do you stand on the subject? That's Betanews Live Poll for this Friday.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
The hang-up with the Google Phone

Publié: décembre 18, 2009, 4:24pm CET par Carmi Levy

By Carmi Levy, Betanews

Have you ever noticed that the next great über-device is always something ahead that people want, but rarely -- if ever -- something in front of them that they have? It almost doesn't matter what that device is, just as long as the rumor mill is so overhyped and over-amped that device-tech followers can't focus on anything else. It's almost as if the device is sustained by its lack of existence, by its mythology rather than its technology. As long as it's "out there," rather than right here, it becomes the single focal point for anyone who lusts after it, and fans literally count the days until it hits the shelves and changes their lives forever. "Forever," in this case, being about 38 minutes, until the rumor mill cranks back up again.
It's like a great party, where reality doesn't seem to matter much as long as everyone's having a good time.
And almost three years after Apple announced the iPhone and kicked off a new era in über-device worship, Google's taking a crack at the iPhone killer crown with its rumored upcoming handset, the Nexus One. Is it or is it not an iPhone killer? Should we even care? And while we're at it can we please retire the phrase "something-something-killer?" It's getting old.
A strange shift in direction
I'll apologize now for not having gotten it in the beginning. I thought Google's strategy was to quarterback the Open Handset Alliance, to get a broad-based consortium of handset vendors, carriers, and software developers together to redefine how the typical mobile device is designed, coded, and sold. I assumed Google's stewardship was the first significant effort to make modern mobile platforms open and less expensive. I felt this way right up until the moment that the near-mythical Nexus One/Google Phone/Latest Jesus Device emerged from the shadows, and all but confirmed Google's intention to go for Apple's and RIM's respective jugulars.
I do understand why Google would want to have its own branded phone. No one, after all, enjoys letting someone else get all the accolades -- and the Android project is designed from the outset to let the handset vendors and carriers control the shots, and ultimately brand themselves more closely to end-users than Google can.
There's a reason why Apple and Research In Motion own both the hardware and OS for their respective platforms: They can define every aspect of the end-user experience without giving anything away to anyone else. If closed environments are the domain of the control freaks among us, then projects designed to be more open often leave quarterbacks like Google forgotten while everyone else celebrates in the end zone. Sure they designed, initiated and controlled the play, but they were way on the other end of the field when points were scored.
Google, from where it sits, is tired of letting Motorola, LG, Samsung, et al, own the stage and drink in the fans' adulation. The company hopes that by jumping across the software/hardware divide, its upcoming self-branded phone might allow it to capture some marketing mojo.
More specifically, Google also wants absolute control over how it connects services to advertisements to audiences. In its traditionally delivered Web services world, it doesn't answer to handset vendors who customize their own devices for their own purposes. While it has to ensure its services play nice with Internet Explorer and Firefox, no other players stand between it and its advertising targets -- namely, us. Its Chrome browser and Chrome OS project are designed to strengthen that connection still further, while enabling it to more closely control the technologies that drive its ever-growing spigot of ad-based revenue. The same thinking now applies on the mobile side.
From friend to foe
All this brings no comfort to LG, Motorola, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, and the other handset vendors who, as part of the Open Handset Alliance, either are or will be leveraging Android in their own products. Their partner since day one has now emerged as a competitor. And it's not just any company -- it's the 800-pound gorilla of every market it touches.
For Motorola, the last thing it needs after delivering its first serious hit following years of wandering in the smartphone desert, is the vendor equivalent of the Borg now breathing down its neck. I wonder if the handset vendors' respective decisions to join the Alliance and place their bets behind Android would have been any different had they known back then that Google would someday try to move into their territory. I also wonder if this opens the door for Alliance members to start hedging their bets elsewhere, in case Google uses this initial device as the foundation for a more aggressive push into mobile hardware.
I'm probably being just slightly too hard on Google. As a publicly traded company, it has every right to competitively pursue whatever avenues it sees fit to drive revenues, profits, and ultimately, shareholder value. Its earlier efforts to break a carrier-controlled model it has long characterized as unfairly expensive, complex, and punitive to consumers (remember its position on 700 MHz spectrum?) highlight a very real need to change the way consumers and businesses acquire, use, and pay for mobility. Its ability to efficiently generate advertising-based revenue from online activity should evolve nicely from its roots on the desktop to the rapidly expanding mobile environment. Its very future depends on it, frankly, as conventional PC growth flattens and mobile take-up explodes.
In short, Google has no choice but to be aggressive in everything it does in the wireless space. And if that means becoming a hardware vendor, too (well, through its OEM proxy, HTC), then that's what it intends to do to make it happen. Along the way, though, it risks alienating partners it worked years to get to this point. It also risks derailing Android's momentum just before it truly breaks into the mainstream as a credible alternative to the iPhone and BlackBerry.
The fans will doubtless get their new phone before long (look for an official announcement during CES). But once the fever of a hot new device wears off, Google may find itself dealing with the longer-term implications of ticking off the very partners it needs to ensure the new platform's ultimate success. No one ever said the handset business was easy. Google's about to learn this first-hand.
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
As 'Operation Chokehold' approaches, readers sound off on AT&T service

Publié: décembre 18, 2009, 6:45am CET par Joe Wilcox

By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

What started out as a joke, or perhaps simple mad rantings, has turned into something bigger: "Operation Chokehold," which is scheduled for 3 p.m. ET today. Dan Lyons, writing as Fake Steve Jobs, has called on AT&T users to show their service dissatisfaction by trying to overwhelm the network with data-intensive tasks. The joke may be if no one participates or AT&T's network survives the data assault.
But questions remain about AT&T service quality. Ten days ago, I asked Betanews readers to share what they think about AT&T's service. I've picked a constellation of comments that hopefully reflect how Betanews readers feel about AT&T. By the way, please do stop and take Betanews poll: "Would wireless carrier quality kill the iPhone?"
With that, here are some of your comments about AT&T service quality. Please feel free to leave even more.
fkmalone: "I have AT&T currently and I am getting ready to switch next month. To be clear, I don't have an iPhone and don't want one. I don't like the arrogance of Apple and I hate AT&T...I have occasions every day where I will get a call and answer it only for it to disconnect 10 seconds later and tell me I have a missed call. What the heck? I just answered it and actually started talking to someone. I even purchased a new phone thinking it was the phone. What a waste of 2 years. Never again...I don't know about the true extent of AT&T coverage, but the quality is terrible here."
tigreseis: "Never had a problem with AT&T (I have been using them for 7 years). I have always had great customer service. I live in the country as well."
dhjdhj: "The fact of the matter is that AT&T coverage has progressively been declining, it's not just the occasional random failed call anymore. While driving on a trip yesterday, I had 4 calls to the same person get dropped within 20 miles, and two of those drops were in an area with 5 bars displayed."
nightops: "I have been a customer of Cingular/AT&T Wireless now for about 13 years. I travel across mostly the midwest, but have been to Hawaii, Mexico, and a chunk of the western US. I have owned multiple types of phones while on their service...Overall, I'm very satisfied with my experience. Support has always been top-notch for me. Even with the lack of 3G penetration, I've been very satisfied."
gawd21: "Here in Louisville, KY, AT&T is the worst carrier. You can't even drive down 71 without it dropping. That is a major highway! The cheap Cricket, has better coverage in this area."
Peteorius: "I've been with the iPhone for a few months now and have lived in Manhattan my whole life. Rarely a txt won't go through, occassionally data is a little slow, and I've only had one dropped call in months. All in all, the iPhone is by far the most efficiently run, most effective phone/computer I've ever had, and I don't mind being on the Nation's fastest 3G network."
epobirs: "My personal observation is that you can have a dozen different makes and model of cell phone in a room, all on AT&T, and only the iPhone user will have serious connection issues. This is certainly true at my house. Everybody here has different phones and we're all on AT&T. Only my brother has major issues with service on his, you guessed it, iPhone. My five year old Samsung 427 connected far more reliably and my new Blackberry Curve 8310 does the same. I think there needs to be some investigation into the iPhone side of the issue."
aduffbrew: "As I watch at&t's consumer ratings drop, I can't help but wonder how much of that is due to actual personal consumer experience and how much of it is the media fanning the flames. Both are influencing the numbers, that much is a certainty."
Jeffyo: "Switched from ATT to Verizon and got the Eris. No dropped calls and better and faster 3G coverage than my friends using the 3Gs iphone(we competed network speed). My eris rated faster in all aspects of data transfer."
johnrc2: "I have been on AT&T cell phone service for several years. I don't have an iPhone; I have a Nokia whatever, but I have friends at work who have iPhones, and a son who has an iPhone. None of them have complained about the service."
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Mac fan blogs miss the point about Android, iPhone and Windows Mobile

Publié: décembre 18, 2009, 4:43am CET par Joe Wilcox

By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

It amazes me how Mac and tech blogs can take data touting Google Android phone gains and turn it into an iPhone beats Windows Mobile phone foo fest. Give it up. The data reveals much more interesting findings than that.
Earlier today, ComScore announced availability of report "Android: Crashing the Smartphone Party" and issued a press release about some of the data. The press release doesn't contain mobile operating system usage, but FierceDeveloper published the data, presumably from the nearly $5,000 report (That's too rich for my blood, dude). FireceDeveloper's two charts show iPhone OS overtaking Windows Mobile OS usage among U.S. mobile subscribers in October.
It didn't take long for the bloggers to start writing iPhone beats Windows Mobile stories: Apple 2.0, The Apple Blog, Boy Genius Report, Engadget, Gizmodo, ReadWriteWeb, Seattle PI, Silicon Alley Insider and The Unofficial Apple Weblog, among many others. Of the blogs here listed, all sourced Comscore, but, with the exception of the Apple Blog, they used data and chart(s) from FireceDeveloper. So, the real source was FierceDeveloper, except for the Apple blog, which used Daily Tech. Does nobody do original reporting anymore?
Half of Future Smartphone Purchasers want BlackBerries
The data publicly released by ComScore -- the stuff overlooked in the iPhone-beats-Windows-Mobile blog posts -- is rich and revealing. Even the charts released by FierceDeveloper show trends overlooked by the aforementioned blogs.
Based on a survey of 2,300 U.S. consumers, among those planning a smartphone purchase in the next three months, 51 percent said one of several BlackBerries. By comparison, 20 percent plan to buy either an iPhone 3GS (14 percent) or iPhone 3G (6 percent). More surprising, 17 percent plan on buying one of several Android-based models. Almost half of these, 8 percent, said the Verizon Droid.
BlackBerry is iPhone's ceiling and Android the floor, and they're squeezing iPhone between. In an August survey, 21 percent of U.S. consumers planning a smartphone in three months purchase told ComScore they would buy an iPhone, but only 7 percent an Android phone. ComScore attributed the change three months later to the increasing number of available Android handsets.
"With handsets on multiple carriers, from multiple manufacturers, and numerous Android device models expected to be in the U.S. market by January, the Android platform is rapidly shaking up the smartphone market," Mark Donovan, ComScore's senior vice president over mobility, said in a statement. "While iPhone continues to set the bar with its App Store and passionate user base, and RIM remains the leader among the business set, Android is clearly gaining momentum among developers and consumers."
ComScore found that media usage among Android phone and iPhone users are about the same, except one category: E-mail. Over the three months ending in September, 87 percent of iPhone users used e-mail compared to 63 percent for Android smartphones. The difference is quite surprising, because Android phones require a Gmail account, which is activated or synchronized during initial device setup. Gmail is free, while Apple charges $99 for MobileMe, although consumers can easily set up another e-mail service. Based on my experience with Android handsets and iPhone, third-party e-mail setup is easier on Apple's smartphone.
While media consumption is about the same for Android phones and iPhone, it's quite a bit higher than other smartphones. That trend makes sense given how many other smartphones are BlackBerries (According to IDC, BlackBerry shipments grew five times faster than iPhone during third quarter). Ninety-four percent of iPhone users and 92 percent of Android handset users used mobile media, compared to 80 percent of other smartphone users.
ComScore's assessment of Android's potential rings well with what I asserted in October: "iPhone is to Android -- and somewhat Symbian OS -- handsets as Macintosh was to the DOS/Windows PC in the 1980s and 1990s." Gartner predicts that Android OS shipments will exceed iPhone OS by 2012.
Apple's Android and BlackBerry problem is the Real Story
So what about mobile operating systems? I'll make some observations based on the FierceDeveloper as published. It's too late at night to confirm the data with ComScore. Hereafter then, I'll refer to it as the data published by FierceDeveloper. The data reveals an important trend that has little to do with iPhone or Windows Mobile OSes. Based on the data published by FierceDeveloper, U.S. consumer usage of smartphones with X, Y or Z mobile operating system increases after the release of new, subsidized handsets. It's not rocket science, simply what the data shows.
The data published by FierceDeveloper covers four months: February, May, July and October. Apple's iPhone OS jumped dramatically in July (6.63 million) and October (8.79 million), following the release of iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 3G price cut to $99. Symbian OS increased following AT&T's release of the Nokia E71x -- July (1.04 million) and October (1.28 million). After declining in July (6.66 million), Windows Mobile picked up in October (7.13 million), around the time major new models debuted.
By comparison, Android OS and BlackBerry OS showed consistent gains over the four months, with Google's OS going from 427,914 in February to 1.02 million in October. BlackBerry: From 9.7 million in February to 15 million in October. Whether looking at the data publicly published by ComScore or the FierceDeveloper data attributed to ComScore, the real stories are Android and Blackberry rather than iPhone and Windows Mobile.
The question everyone -- bloggers, carriers, handset manufacturers, journalists, retailers and software developers -- should ask: "Why?" Apple offers 100,000 or more applications than either Google or Research in Motion. Other than e-mail, BlackBerry media consumption simply isn't in the same league as either Apple or Google smartphones.
The answer is likely different for both devices. BlackBerry has huge distribution in the United States, while iPhone is available only from AT&T. BlackBerry's physical keyboard is as good as, if not better, for texting as e-mail. Who do you see using BlackBerries? I mostly see business people and young women (teens or twentysomethings). It's e-mail for one group and texting for the other.
The reasons for Android gains are probably many -- HTC and T-Mobile marketing, G1 and MyTouch handsets and the Google brand, among others, for the first three quarters of the year. More recently: New Motorola devices, Droid release with Android 2.0 and Verizon Droid marketing. But the "Why?" is a topic better flushed out in a future post.
For today, the fanboys can claim victory -- with more Americans using a handset with iPhone OS than Windows Mobile. But BlackBerry usage is greater and many more people plan to buy a RIM smartphone over the coming three months than iPhone. Meanwhile, Android is coming on fast.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Privacy group urges FTC to stop Facebook from sharing 'Everything'

Publié: décembre 18, 2009, 12:11am CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

When Facebook implemented changes to its privacy system last week, users were invited by way of a "wizard"-like control panel to change their current privacy settings. But the only option they were given besides leaving privacy where it was to begin with, was an option called "Everyone." And what many users may not have been aware of, was that the "Everyone" setting effectively turned privacy controls off.
"Facebook's 'Everyone' setting overrides the user's choice to limit access by third-party applications and Web sites," reads the text of a complaint today filed before the US Federal Trade Commission (PDF available here) by the Electronic Privacy Information Center -- the same group that filed a complaint against Google's cloud-based privacy policy last March. EPIC is urging the FTC to charge Facebook with unfair and deceptive trade practices -- perhaps emboldened by the FTC's unexpectedly bold charges against Intel, filed yesterday.
EPIC also points out serious changes to Facebook privacy policy that effectively grant the developers of Facebook-supporting applications access to all personally identifiable data, by way of Facebook's API. Conceivably, developers might even be able to determine specifically which data Facebook users have opted for the service to keep secret from other Facebook users.
"Facebook's changes to users' privacy settings and associated policies in fact categorize as 'publicly available information' users' names, profile photos, lists of friends, pages they are fans of, gender, geographic regions, and networks to which they belong," reads EPIC's complaint. "Those categories of user data are no longer subject to users' privacy settings."
A vast category of data is opened up to developers through the API, and Facebook's marketing to users says that they have control over just how much information that is.
Sure, if you don't mind controlling each and every application individually, as EPIC explains: "Users can block individual third-party applications from obtaining personal information by searching the Application Directory, visiting the application's 'about' page, clicking a small link on that page, and then confirming their decision. A user would have to perform these steps for each of more than 350,000 applications in order to block all of them."
But even then, there's a way for developers to get around that problem: pay more. As EPIC explains, "With the Preferred Developer Program, Facebook will give third-party developers access to a user's primary e-mail address, personal information provided by the user to Facebook to subscribe to the Facebook service, but not necessarily available to the public or to developers."
Although Facebook said on December 9 that it would be listening to, and responding to, users' own responses to the new privacy settings, Facebook has yet to issue a public statement since that time. However, Facebook's own Facebook page, as of early Thursday evening, contained more than 1,500 responses from users, a great many of which are not printable here.
Here is one response that can be printed: "I'm deleting my profile this Friday, Dec. 18th due to Facebook's new invasion of privacy settings that took place on Dec. 10th. Facebook has had one week, and tens of thousands of complaints to resolve this, yet has failed to do so ultimately in their greed to sale everyone's information to the highest bidder. Therefore I am deleting my account."
Another reads, in part, "That is the most ignorant thing! We want our friends on our profile, [you ****], and not exposed for the whole world to see!...We should have control on what we want people to see and not to see, not only for our own safety but our children...Facebook sold us out."
And another: "You can't force people to have their friend list visible to all friends. Just imagine the mother who wants to protect her children from some weird contacts. This is an open door for stalkers, serial killers, pedophiles, an agency of a repressive government, telemarketers, or similar... Facebook, please let people control their privacy settings!"
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009