Gregarius » BetaNews.Com » janvier 28, 2010

BetaNews.Com (8 non lus)

Hands-on with TweetCaster for Android

Publié: janvier 28, 2010, 11:31pm CET par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Those who say there are no decent Twitter apps for Android simply haven't found the right one. When the Android Market first opened, you could sign in, watch the handful of new apps being uploaded every day, and generally know everything that was available on the platform. There really were only a couple of Twitter clients.
But now that the Market has been revised, and there are more than 25,000 apps by the last unofficial count from Androlib, there are plenty of Android Twitter clients to choose from.
Frequently, they'll differentiate themselves by highlighting a unique feature that users can latch onto. Twitspeak, for example, uses Android's Text-to-Speech engine to read tweets aloud. Swift claims to be the "fastest, leanest Twitter app with the most features per KB." XeekuTweets Pro claims to be the only Twitter app that supports the (854x480) WVGA of the Droid and Nexus One. Loquacious, meanwhile, uses the simple approach of offering a UI with "no turquoise anywhere!"
Though there are more than twenty full Twitter clients available on the Android platform, only a couple of apps continue to dominate the space. Twidroid, one of the first Android Twitter apps, is frequently featured as a must-have app for the platform, and is a suggested download from Verizon. Seesmic is somewhat newer than Twidroid and is one of Google's top six featured apps along with Pandora, Facebook, and YouTube in the Nexus One campaign
Today, another new Android Twitter client launched, called TweetCaster from Handmark. This one has been in a limited beta for the last couple of weeks and has already received high praise. After using Seesmic on my G1 and Twidroid on my Droid for the last few months, I thought I'd give Tweetcaster a spin today. Rather than give you the whole story first, I'll cut to the punchline and tell you that I have deleted Twidroid.
Because TweetCaster is free, there are ads for other Handmark software (specifically, the $9.99 Zagat to Go app). In fact, the ads are the first thing that load when you start the app, and though they're simple banners across the bottom of the screen, they're quite prominent. Fortunately, they can be X'ed off. But every time you switch screens -- from your timeline to your mentions, for example -- the banner comes back. An ad-free "Pro" version of TweetCaster can be downloaded for $4.99.
Why did I delete Twidroid? The main reason is that Twidroid is bloated and TweetCaster is not. The free version of Twidroid does not have all the features that TweetCaster has and yet it still weighs in at a whopping 5.24 MB. For those of you who are unaccustomed to Android apps, that is huge. The largest of Android's applications on either of my devices is the Browser, and that's 7.84 MB. By comparison, TweetCaster is 1.63 MB.
The freeware Twidroid lacks multi-account support, bit.ly URL shortening, video posts, lists of followers, and location-based searches. TweetCaster supports multiple accounts, lists, threaded conversations, URL shortening from bit.ly or is.gd, has automatic image hosting from either twitpic or yfrog, and offers location-based filtering.
So it's got the features I need right there, it's lighter than Twidroid, and the interface is big and easy to navigate. Unfortunately, TweetCaster has a kind of goofy cartoon look to the interface and you can only see about four tweets on-screen at a time when in "normal" size. The sizes actually only go up from normal, you can't make it any smaller. I prefer the clean design used in Seesmic where there are fewer onscreen icons and you can see more tweets in the main window.
Ultimately, the reason why TweetCaster replaced Twidroid and not Seesmic for me was that both come close to offering the perfect layout, but neither one actually delivers perfection. Ideally, in addition to the buttons for Timeline, Mentions, and Direct Messages which are standard in both, there need to be buttons for "Refresh" and "Compose" on the main screen.
Seesmic has Refresh on its home screen, but you have to hit your phone's menu key to find the Compose button. Likewise, TweetCaster has a Compose button, but you have to hit Menu to find Refresh. This is unfortunate because the Refresh button could have easily been put in the spot where "favorite tweets" currently lives.
The bottom line: TweetCaster is free, relatively lightweight, and feature-rich. The interface has a little room for improvement, but the presentation of retweets and threaded conversations is very nice. It's a surefire Twidroid replacement at the least.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Beyond obsolescence: What Microsoft Office can become

Publié: janvier 28, 2010, 11:22pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

The original reason for Microsoft Office's existence was to provide retailers with an incentive to move product that wasn't moving. The bundle created a discount deal that enabled the momentum behind Excel, which was hot, to help push Word, which was not. It had hardly a tenth of the sales volume of WordPerfect, and Word was a product that retailers had to actively work to sell. This was at a time when software consumed shelf space in stores and was sold like automobiles -- a time which is now essentially gone.
The idea that Office could be a platform came later, with Microsoft's realization -- albeit a late one, and a hard sell for a lot of us outside the company to have made -- that there was more to this multitasking thing than linked and embedded objects. I was a very early believer in the ideal that an application could be customized to suit the functions, requirements, and even tastes of the businesses that use it. I'm proud to say I've had more than just a voice in helping to bring that reality about. It would be a false statement for me to say I predicted this from my seat on the sidelines and it came about; I got off the sidelines, took my tools with me, and worked to bring it about.
My wife and I have been very, very active beta testers of the forthcoming Office 2010, in recent days concentrating on Outlook. History will reveal that Outlook was never my most favorite Office component. Early on, I was skeptical about it even being included with the bundle, wary of Microsoft's consistently irritating tendency to duct-tape one product onto another and call the result a "platform-by-extension." It started out slow and bulky. But it bothered me that so few companies ever dared to compete against Outlook once it started being seen as fused into Office; only in recent days has Mozilla been able to cultivate Thunderbird into a fully feature-competitive alternative.
What I can say from tinkering with Outlook 2010 is that somebody at Microsoft gets it. Regardless of where we work, how we get to work, how much work we do when we work, or whom with work with, all of our workplaces are becoming more like virtual offices than physical ones. We're supported by the structure of our business connections with one another, as much as by steel beams and concrete. Geography is not the barricade to production that it used to be.
As Outlook matures, it's providing information workers with newer and more efficient ways to get together with one another, to share tools and not just data, actually becoming the conference room, rather than just a way to notify folks to come to the conference room. But the direction of Outlook's maturity helps cast a light on where the rest of Office is going as well. Unlike anything I've seen that purports to be its competition, or future competition, or slightly categorically similar, Office components are being developed now with the understanding that they are the interconnected conduits through which documents move, rather than the separated silos from which documents are manufactured.
A look at the calendar sharing feature from the public beta of Outlook 2010, which is reliant upon Microsoft Exchange.
So my counter-argument to anyone who thinks Office is obsolete as a platform is that they should experiment with the product not in an enclave, in the separate enclaves where, it seems to me, Google's developers think we live and work, but in a business full of people who do things.
I don't want to make the mistake of saying that simply because I use Office myself, and expect to continue using it for the foreseeable future, you must therefore use it as well, and thus we all must use it, and consequently, Office's place in the workforce is secure. If there is anything I see already in front of the horizon, preparing to change Microsoft's best-laid plans, it is a force it hasn't had to feel in some time: competition. With the rapid evolution of tools, it is becoming easier for smaller development crews to produce more innovative alternatives.
That said, I've yet to see a whole lot of people doing it, which concerns me. All things being equal and open, you'd think there would be a lot of good ideas out there by now. But things in reality are rarely both equal and open at the same time. If I were to approach an investor today with the single best concept for an applications package to dethrone Microsoft Office, I would laughingly be told to go back to my basement and write my little blog.
Where there tends to be obsolescence with respect to Microsoft Office is in the work processes of many of the businesses that rely upon it. We're all welcome to watch Microsoft's marketing videos of spritely folks making easy work out of connecting with one another and exchanging data like cheerleaders in a parade line hurling batons at one another. But the business practices of too many workplaces today are so entrenched in what worked ten years ago and even 25 years ago, that it is their failure to evolve in kind that may be more of a drag on Office's evolution than Microsoft's failure to perform or innovate. There are record-keeping and data sharing features that have been part of Excel for over a decade now, that companies are always shocked, shocked to discover once they're finally pointed out to them...and yet they continue to save data in single rows of long tables in individual sheets in Excel, and cut-and-paste revisions of textual documents from one template to another to another to another in Word. Why, oh why, dear Microsoft, can't you make it easier for us to do what we do?
Complaining about the lack of change with anything -- applications, handsets, PCs, music, hairstyles, government -- can become dangerous in itself. Whining breeds whining.
I foresee the following very realistic possibility: There will be an application that enables me to graphically describe the elements of my business, to assemble them in a working model, and to run simulations on the economic stability of that model, all using graphical tools gleaned from the realm of illustration programs. It will go by the name "Excel." I will compose a series of documents on how best to use this product. I'll be able to study several drafts sequentially, along a timeline, with animations showing where I made changes, and notes I left to myself as to why. I'll see editors' suggestions for alterations as they come in, and I'll be able to accept them at will. The tool for my composition will be called "Word." And I will communicate that composition in progress with my fellow colleagues who will help me to produce and publish it. And we all will be using "Outlook."
That is, unless anyone else has some brilliant ideas. I'm not being sarcastic here. Everything I've ever seen from the open source community, from competitors such as Corel, and elsewhere, insist on maintaining the silo-centric model of document production that looked obsolete to me way back in Office XP's time. Every competitor tries to be a different flavor of Office, when Office is effectively already done. It's like trying to invent another cola, when what the world needs is a real refresher course in innovation. If Microsoft Office were truly to become obsolete, there's a good chance that, in the face of no original, game-changing competition from elsewhere, few would ever know it.
[FULL SEC DISCLOSURE: Microsoft developers and representatives and Scott M. Fulton, III maintain an exchange of viewpoints and advice on Office and other products, as part of a working relationship that spans 25 years. During that time, Scott has authored, co-authored, edited, or assisted in the production of, several dozen books that have been partly or completely about Microsoft Office. Scott is an active participant in Microsoft's MSDN software development program, through which he is given access to beta software in its development stage. No money has ever exchanged hands between these two parties. Scott is, as always, fully responsible for his content.]
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Microsoft reports $19 billion quarter, lifted by $1.71 billion deferral

Publié: janvier 28, 2010, 11:17pm CET par Joe Wilcox
By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

A year after global recession sapped Microsoft sales and the company announced its first-ever massive layoffs, real signs of recovery can be seen. The holiday quarter was as good to Microsoft as could be expected, given how much sales are dependent on large businesses -- the majority of which are still tightfisted with IT spending or are renewing licenses for fewer seats because of layoffs.
"We reported record revenue and record profits," Peter Klein, Microsoft's new CFO, asserted during a conference call this afternoon. He praised consumer sales, particularly for Windows 7 PCs. But Klein warned that "we have not seen a return of enterprise spending growth."
The quarter's results are a bit complicated. Because of technology discount upgrade guarantees for Windows 7, Microsoft carried forward $1.71 billion from previous quarters. Still, even without the deferred revenue, Windows 7 had a great holiday sales quarter.
For fiscal 2010 second quarter, Microsoft reported revenue of $19.02 billion, for a 14 percent year-over-year increase. Operating income: $8.51 billion, up 43 percent. Net income: $6.66 billion, or 74 cents a share. Net income rose by 60 percent and earnings per share by 57 percent year over year. However, Microsoft reported these results including the aforementioned carryover. Without it, Microsoft revenue would have been $17.31 billion or 60 cents a share.
For about a year, Microsoft provided no guidance to Wall Street analysts, so there is none for fiscal Q2. Analysts average consensus was $17.9 billion and 59 cents earnings per share. Revenue estimates ranged from $15.91 billion to $19.18 billion.
Q2 2010 Revenue by Division
- Windows & Windows Live: $6.9 billion, up 70 percent from $4.06 billion a year earlier.
- Server & Tools: $3.8 billion, up 2 percent from $3.76 billion a year earlier.
- Business: $4.75 billion, down 3 percent from $4.88 billion a year earlier.
- Online Services Business: $581 million, down 5 percent from $609 million a year earlier.
- Entertainment & Devices: $2.9 billion, down 11 percent from $3.26 billion a year earlier.
Big question for this quarter: What about Windows 7? The answer is surprisingly complex. Fiscal first quarter was Microsoft's best sales period ever for Windows license sales -- the majority to OEMs stocking the channel for holiday 2009. Would Microsoft sustain the momentum in fiscal Q2? Apparently it did. In a statement, Microsoft CFO Kevin Turner, called fiscal Q2 another "record quarter for Windows units." The company claims more than 60 million Windows license shipments through end of the quarter.
The really good news came about two weeks ago from Gartner and IDC, which reported that PC sales were much stronger than expected during fourth calendar quarter (which corresponds to Microsoft's fiscal second). Better still: Mac market share dropped dramatically, as sales for several PC manufacturers surged.
Worldwide PC shipments rose 15.2 percent year over year, according to IDC, and 22.1 percent, according to Gartner. IDC put US PC shipments up 24 percent year over year and Gartner 26.5 percent. After years of market share gains, Apple dramatically dropped, presumably with Windows 7 sapping Mac sales momentum. Gartner put Apple's US share at 7.5 percent, down from 8.8 percent in fiscal Q4 2009 and 7.7 percent in fiscal Q1 2009. Both analyst firms ranked Apple fifth in US market share, a one-rank decline below Toshiba. While Mac shipments grew a respectable 31 percent, according to IDC, HP shipments grew by 45.1 percent and Toshiba by a stunning 71.5 percent.
Q2 2010 Income by Division
- Windows & Windows Live: $5.4 billion, up 99 percent from $2.7 billion a year earlier.
- Server & Tools: $1.5 billion, up 8 percent from $1.38 billion a year earlier.
- Business: $3.01 billion, flat with $3.02 billion a year earlier.
- Online Services Business: Loss of $466 million, down 46 percent from $320 million loss a year earlier.
- Entertainment & Devices: $375 million, up 188 percent from $130 million loss a year earlier.
Segment by Segment Results
Microsoft reports revenue and earnings results for five divisons: Windows & Windows Live, Server & Tools, Business, Online Services and Entertainment & Devices.
Windows & Windows Live. Revenue rose 70 percent year over year and income by 99 percent, bolster by $1.71 billion carried over from earlier quarters, as part of Microsoft's upgrade guarantee program. The division derives about 80 percent of its revenue from license sales to PC OEMs. OEM revenue increased by $2.3 billion or 72 percent when including recognized deferred revenue. Without it, OEM revenue grow by a more modest 21 percent, or by $664 million. Microsoft estimates worldwide PC shipments grew 15 percent to 17 percent during fiscal Q2.
Server & Tools. The division is most insulated against economic maladies, because 50 percent of revenues comes from contractual volume-licensing agreements -- that's a decline of 5 percent from fiscal first quarter. Because of corporate layoffs, Microsoft is seeing customers renewing license contracts at lower levels. The division's revenue grew just 2 percent year over year, while operating income grew by 8 percent.
Business. Next to Windows, Microsoft's other cash cow division reported revenue declines of 3 percent and flat income (really slightly down) year over year. Consumer revenue increased $95 million, or 12 percent, which Microsoft largely credited to increased PC sales. However, commercial Office 2007 sales declined, which isn't surprising. Microsoft is beta testing Office 2010, which launches within about six months.
Online Services Business. The division's loss widened, with ad sales in decline -- starkly contrasting with results from Google, which reported solid earnings for the same quarter. The majority of the Online Services division's sales come from advertising, which fell 2 percent, or $11 million, year over year to $516 million.
Entertainment & Devices. Xbox 360 and console game sales declined by $295 million, or 12 percent, year over year. Microsoft shipped 6.2 million consoles during the quarter.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Let's stop the iPad whining: It's not about the hardware

Publié: janvier 28, 2010, 8:53pm CET par Carmi Levy

By Carmi Levy, Betanews

It's almost embarrassing...Correct that, it's big time embarrassing, for me to read some of the public's response to yesterday's announcement of the Apple iPad.
Yes, we know that the name is thematically close to a certain feminine hygiene product. No, we don't need to read the obvious over and over in the comments section of every tech and mainstream Web site, blog, Facebook page, Twitter stream, and (gee, thanks, Brian Williams) nightly newscast. We get it. It may have been funny when we were in the second grade, but now that we're all supposedly adults, it strikes me as needlessly juvenile.
The world already thinks that geeks live in their mothers' basements and emerge into the real world only when their carefully managed stashes of snack cakes and Mountain Dew run low. This isn't going to help erase the stereotypes anytime soon.
Missing the point
The fact that so much of the harsh criticism seems to focus on the name suggests not everyone fully understands why Apple is unique among manufacturers in its ability to grab and keep our attention. It isn't, and never was, about the hardware.
While Apple is exceptionally adept at leveraging the latest principles of industrial design to create products that elegantly fit into our day-to-day lives, its experience with the iPod, iPhone, and now the iPad reinforce its belief that great hardware can only get you so far. Eventually, someone else will introduce a competing device that looks better, has a more compelling feature set, massages those features together more effectively, does so at a more affordable price point, and makes anything that came before it look like yesterday's news. If you're banking on the sexiness of the device itself (which pretty much describes most hardware-focused vendors these days) you're missing the big picture.
So let's stop whining about what wasn't included in iPad v1.0, shall we? Because things like memory card slots and a USB jack can easily be added to v2.0 or 3.0. Apple never gives away the store with the first release of a product: You'd think we would have all learned from the iPhone experience, which was introduced with glaring hardware gaps (lack of 3G, anyone?) that have since been largely addressed. Indeed, three years since it was first announced, complaints about the iPhone's hardware capabilities are almost inaudible. The App Store gets all the bouquets and brickbats these days, as it should. Because the device is little more than a channel to bigger and more lucrative things for Apple and its carrier/developer partners.
So if it isn't the hardware, then what is it? From where I sit, the glue that keeps it all together once the newness of the physical device has worn off is the surrounding ecosystem. The iBooks Store now that now joins the iTunes and App Store ecosystems promises to do for book publishers what iTunes did for the music industry. Apple's masterstroke lies in how it extended an already successful platform, giving itself a natural head start that one can imagine has already sent Google's Android team scraping the cupboards for a very different type of tablet.
It's all potential for publishing
Is Apple's new offering fully baked yet? For book publishers, not even close. So far Apple's got deals with only book five companies, and availability of both the device and the software/content distribution landscape that surrounds it will be US-only for now.
But the potential is there for all of us to recognize once we stop trading moronic jokes about the name.
Also still firmly in the potential pile is the iPad's capability to transform the newspaper and magazine industries. I was impressed with the brief demo delivered by The New York Times because it showed, however fleetingly, the possibilities inherent in transitioning a traditional paper into tablet form. It isn't enough to dump the paper-based version into an electronic device, and yesterday's demo reinforced that the Times and Apple get that. From what little we saw from the Gray Lady this week, there's at least some value-add there, and I look forward to trying it out on my kitchen table sometime soon.
Despite the promise, the business model that would, indeed should, surround it was nowhere to be seen yesterday. There was no mention of other publications, no sign of this becoming an open platform that'll be made easily available to other publishers, no mention of a subscription model that would make it a no-brainer for readers to finally make the switch from paper to screen. And please don't tell me you read it for free on the Web...we all know that experience is ridiculously lame.
I'll forgive the omissions because Apple needs to leave a little in reserve to allow for future growth. What matters here is that Apple will in all likelihood become the first vendor to successfully sell tablets in a market sector where other vendors have gone to die for the past 15 years. And while the juveniles among us mock its name, it becomes increasingly apparent that there has been a need for in-between, tablet-like devices like this all along, but no one's figured out the secret sauce that will get mainstream consumers to buy in.
Because laptops suck
If we're being brutally frank, laptops and desktops are great at getting work done but lousy tools for exploring content. We've held on to our paper-based subscriptions and physical books for as long as we have because the tech revolution has failed to offer us a compelling alternative. While everyone else has been trying to sell modified laptops or tweaked smartphones to fill in this middle ground of sorts, the iPad finally gets close enough to the usability mark -- with the obvious exception of balancing the thing on your lap for an entire two-hour movie -- to get the tablet party started in earnest.
The iPad won't replace netbooks, laptops, or any other device in our personal and business inventory, so I won't waste anyone's time drawing comparisons. Because it's a net new category, it'll be a tougher sell to post-recessionary consumers wary of adding yet another costly doodad to their lives. But once we look past the childish jokes about its name, we'll be able to focus on how Apple's growing ecosystem could potentially change the way we acquire and consume all forms of content. That, more than any slick piece of hardware, is the big story here.
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. 2010
Cable, wireless industry propose another DTV transition, broadcasters object

Publié: janvier 28, 2010, 6:22pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

As time steadily runs out for the US Federal Communications Commission to present to Congress its proposal for federal investment in broadband Internet communications -- a proposal that's expected to be heavily focused on wireless, which falls under the FCC's purview -- major players in the debate keep dropping show-stopper bombs into the debate. One such bomb, which erupted last December, was AT&T's plea to set a firm timetable for the discontinuation of wireline telephone service in the US.
As it turns out, another bomb was dropped at around the same time, though with a longer fuse: The wireless industry association CTIA last month joined with the Consumer Electronics Commission to propose to the FCC what they characterized as an alternative solution to the problem of finding room in the nation's wireless spectrum for broadening broadband. Specifically, the two groups suggested that DTV broadcasters don't really need all the spectrum they were given during the transition process, which finally ended last year.
"The goal of the proposed reengineering concept would be to free up spectrum by grouping full power TV licensees into a smaller portion of the existing television broadcast allocation and reducing the spectral separation between licensees. With this approach, initial estimates indicate that 100-180 MHz of spectrum may be freed for mobile broadband use across the country," reads the group's proposal last month (PDF available here). "The value of the new spectrum made available through such efficiency gains could range from approximately $35B and $70B. Notably, this concept would leave consumer equipment intact, and preserves the entire 19.4 Mbps digital data stream currently available to full power television stations."
From a practical perspective, the new transition would not mean the distribution of more government coupons towards the upgrading or replacement of converter boxes, as CTIA and CEA perceive it. Rather, they argue that under the new DTV system already rolled out, DTV receivers and converters already in the field are capable of being reprogrammed (a bit like re-flashing one's BIOS) to rescan the frequencies they use, so that "virtual channels" (the ones used in station identification) map to new physical channels. It's an easy enough process, they point out, adding that it's actually been done once already anyway post-transition.
The groups propose moving DTV channel allocation in such a way that there's less "white space" between them, while preserving each channel's bandwidth of 6 MHz at 19.4 Mbps. They say that this rescanning could be done at no cost to broadcast stations. But as the National Association of Broadcasters pointed out in its rebuke of the groups to the FCC, that's a bit like calling the distribution of high-priced commercial software a "free download."
For the CTIA and CEA proposal to be pulled off, a very big transition would need to take place, not in the broadcast spectrum but in the way broadcasting actually works. The reason for white spaces' existence, you see, was to enable broadcasters to erect high-wattage transmitter towers, to cover a broader geographic area without the fear of interference with channels in other cities. If channels were moved closer together, the probability of station interference would dramatically increase.
A diagram from the CTIA's and CEA's proposal to the FCC suggests that current DTV transmitters use too much power, and aren't fair to tightly-bunched cities.
But that could be offset by the group's proposed replacement of the nation's broadcast transmitters, with lower-power, lower-coverage area antennas in a network they call distributed transmission system (DTS). It would amount to, the NAB argues, a cellularization of the nation's TV airwaves that could convert the Great Plains of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas -- the home of the tallest and most powerful manmade structures on Earth -- into huge transmitter farms.
The current modulation system for US DTV is called 8-VSB, which the NAB says was chosen because it fits the current transmission model -- single, big towers that cover broad areas, with frequencies separated by big buffer zones. The DTS proposal, says the NAB in its own comments to the FCC filed yesterday, would result in smaller towers everywhere whose signals bump into one another. "On paper, a carefully engineered system, with all transmitted signals properly synchronized and with signals from multiple stations being received with the proper amplitude relative to one another, could reduce this interference," reads the NAB's response (PDF available here). "But in the real world, signal variations due to radio propagation effects and tower siting problems make such perfection unattainable. The inevitable result of these real-world problems would be that viewers would receive signals with improper amplitude or subject to delays relative to one another -- in both cases causing substantial loss of service to American consumers due to interference.
"Wide-scale deployment of DTS for broadcast television is not practically achievable with a single-carrier system such as 8-VSB without causing additional interference. DTS cannot be implemented to 'cellularize' DTV nationwide, but may be used primarily as a means to provide 'fill-in' service where high-power DTV signals were blocked by terrain or buildings, or other constraints," the NAB continues. "While DTS may work well to solve limited coverage problems, a complete cellularization of entire DTV service areas using 8-VSB is extremely technically challenging and impractical. Signals from different DTS transmitters will reflect off buildings and other obstructions and other propagation factors and will cause signals to lose synchronization and/or be outside the equalizer range of DTV receivers. (Or they may be at varying signal strengths, so that adequate signal-to-noise in the receiver will be unattainable.) And, given that all existing DTV receivers now in the hands of consumers may not function properly in such an environment, many viewers will lose existing service due to interference."
In a strangely familiar sounding counter-argument, the NAB takes the CEA and CTIA to task for -- in the two groups' own words -- taking an extreme position on a subject, but then in a disclaimer, confessing that viewpoint may not be their own, and that they only made the comment to see what people would say.
Indeed, the groups' own proposal concludes with this paragraph: "The purpose of this white paper proposal is to stimulate discussion and study of a potentially achievable way of rendering current spectrum available for important wireless broadband needs while ensuring no disruption for consumers and no injuries to over-the-air full-power broadcast television capabilities while, at the same time, potentially enabling next-generation television services along with next generation wireless spectrum. CEA and CTIA recognize that there are many challenges and complexities associated with this proposal, but offer this contribution in the spirit of stimulating respectful and thoughtful discussion by all interested public and private parties."
Oh, really? "CEA/CTIA have offered their DTS proposal 'to stimulate discussion,'" reads the NAB's own closing. "It is in this spirit that we raise the following concerns. Our initial assessment shows that DTS, while it can be used as a fill-in technology under certain circumstances, cannot, for a host of technical and practical reasons, be adopted as the sole architecture for delivering over-the-air DTV. Use of DTS in this manner would cause the viewing public to suffer significant service losses and would be cost prohibitive. Because of various serious technical complexities that CTIA and CEA have acknowledged, the proposed system is simply impractical. Moreover, implementation of DTS would not fulfill the ultimate goal of the proposal: to free up large contiguous blocks of spectrum for use by other services, particularly in the most heavily populated areas in the country."
In the coming months, this debate is only liable to get hotter, for one important reason: Comcast, the nation's leading cable provider, is building up its own wireless Internet service. So far, its interests and that of the CTIA have been seen as mutual, and Comcast made itself heard loudly and clearly at last year's CTIA event. It's working out the details of its proposed acquisition of NBC Universal, parent company of the nation's first broadcast television network. Up to now, NBC's interests were closely aligned with those of the NAB, which represents not only broadcast networks but their affiliate stations and affiliate owners -- the groups who would be responsible for replacing all those big transmitters with smaller ones. The implication of a shift in alignment has already captured the attention of Congress, which could very well run a stake through the acquisition deal.
But doing so could devalue NBC, whose current parent company General Electric is now perceived as wanting to divest itself from money-losing broadcast interests. A devalued NBC could, in turn, hurt the profitability of its affiliates, which was already put in jeopardy by the monumentally mishandled prime-time/late-night programming shuffle. This brewing situation will certainly "stimulate discussion" in the coming months.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
12 reasons why I won't buy an Apple iPad

Publié: janvier 28, 2010, 6:14pm CET par Joe Wilcox

By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

Yesterday, I asked Betanews readers if they would buy and Apple iPad. You responded with a resounding, "No!" I won't buy one either, and I've got 12 reasons why. I couldn't limit the list to the usual 10. I've got a dozen.
For me, there's relief in yesterday's iPad announcement. After nearly a month of insanity -- with geekdom acting like Jesus was coming on the clouds to set up his heavenly kingdom -- the aura is fading. Apple's tablet didn't live up to the hype or the lofty "it will change the world" expectations so many people attached to it. Some pundits called Apple's smartphone the Jesus phone. I don't expect that many will assign such aspirations to iPad, which isn't the slightest bit category changing.
I agree with Samuel Axon, who writes at Mashable: "The iPad isn't going to be a phenomenon with either netbook users or power users. It's not better than existing devices at anything, and it's too expensive for most people to use it as a secondary device." My prediction: Apple's tablet will be Jack of trades and master of none.
With that, I present my dozen reasons for not buying iPad, despite the allure of its pretty user interface. Perhaps as some Betanews readers asserted, iPad will be a version 3 success. That product is years away. Now to my reasons:
1. The iPad isn't good enough to replace smartphone or laptop. Apple's tablet offers too much functionality that overlaps the smartphone below and laptop above. The overlap makes the $499 to $829 price hard to justify. The iPhone 3GS, many Android smartphones (like the Nexus One) and Nokia N Series handsets offer most of the important, similar capabilities, with benefit of persistent data connection. The smartphone is a device always and easily carried, while the iPad is too big for the pocket.
A Windows laptop would offer way more functionality -- and for about the same price, or even less, than iPad. Sure, iPad costs less than a Macbook or MacBook Pro, but those laptops run a real desktop operating system, while iPad packs iPhone OS. From that perspective compared to Windows laptops, iPad costs even more for much less.
More importantly -- and this should have been a separate point -- there's no multitasking. My smartphone and laptop allow background applications to run. From that perspective, iPad is functionally inferior to the two other devices.
2. Persistant data connection costs too much. The cheapo, 16GB model sells for $499 with 802.11n wireless. For 3G, buyers must pony up between $629 and $829 plus another $30/month to AT&T for data service. Well, there's a 15-buck plan for 250MB of data. Amazon's Kindle and Barnes and Noble Nook ebook readers come with free 3G service. Sure, iPad does so much more, but the user not only pays about twice as much for the device but $15 or $30 month, instead of nothing. The bigger question: Why pay for two 3G services -- smartphone and iPad? My answer is none.
3. Web experience is inferior to other devices in its size class: Apple's promotional Website claims that iPad is "the best way to experience the Web." But the device doesn't support Adobe Flash, for starters, and that means the experience is no better than iPhone or iPod touch and less than comparably sized PC slates or netbooks running desktop or desktop-class browsers. Hell, my smaller Nokia N900 smartphone, with 800 x 480 screen resolution, packs a full Mozilla browser that runs Flash.
4. Screen resolution is inadequate: iPad's native screen resolution is only 1028 x 768. That's simply too little for the size and price, particularly when many PC slates, netbooks or laptops offer higher screen resolution for about the same price. Pixel density is 132 per inch. By comparison, my N900 is 267 pixels per inch -- granted with only 800 x 400 display. But iPad ships with a LED display, for which I want more ppi, not less.
5. Aspect ratio is 4:3 in a 16:9 world. Widescreen everything is today's video consumption standard. But iPad's aspect ratio takes you back to the last decade. My smartphone not only displays video in 16:9 ratio, it shoots photos that way, too.
6. It's nothing more -- and some things less -- than a big iPhone (without cellular voice) or iPod touch. Like its small siblings, iPad runs iPhone OS, accesses iTunes Store and built-in App Store, displays photos, plays movies and music, etc., etc., etc. OK, so there is iWork and bigger screen. I'm not pining for the differences.
7. There's no camera. But there should be two, one pointing outwards for taking photos and supporting applications and another inward facing for video conferencing. Camera is one of the greatest utilities on most portable devices, whether cell phones, laptops or even netbooks. Camera already is important on cell phones for using third-party services like Amazon product search, barcode search and location informational services.
8. Connectivity options are limited without paying more money. In the Apple world of giving users less they pay more to get what they need. The iPad uses the same connector as iPhone or iPod touch, and Apple ships the same USB cable as comes with the smaller devices. There's no HDMI port or any other useful one. It's either pay Apple more for the connectors -- gasp, even for a digital camera -- or make do with wireless options, which should be good enough for printing but not connecting to projectors or TVs.
9. Accessories tell the real story -- iPad isn't good enough at any of its price points. Reiterating #8, iPad demos well as a slick tablet, but to use many of its features users will need to pay more to Apple for accessories, like the aforementioned camera connectors (there are two) and the keyboard dock. During yesterday's iPad launch event, Apple CEO Steve Jobs emphasized the ease of using the virtual keyboard like a real one. But writing for Gizmodo, John Herrman asserts: "The iPad's onscreen typing solution Isn't a solution at all." The thumbs are important for typing on smartphones, but iPad's virtual keyboard needs to be more touch-type ready. Hermann writes: "Seriously, this thing's got its own version of iWork -- you're supposed to type on it. That explains the giant hardware keyboard attachment, I guess!"
10. The iPad requires a Mac or PC. That USB connector comes with iPad for a reason. The tablet would make more sense as a standalone device connecting to cloud services. In #1, I dinged iPad for not being a smartphone or laptop replacement. Sadly, that's by design.
11. There's no GPS on three models -- not without 3G radio. No-3G limits the device's mapping capabilities and its ability to spatially orientate for using augmented reality applications. The accelerometer and compass are OK -- as they are on iPod touch -- but 3G makes a big difference when also orienting location. GPS is available on three 3G iPad models, but buyers will pay more for the device and for monthly data service fees.
12. It's a closed system. Actually it's a step backwards. Apple has brought back the onerous developer non-disclosure agreement. Apple had lifted NDAs for App Store, but they're b-a-a-a-ck! At a time when Google and Nokia are pushing open-source operating systems and mobile applications stacks, Apple's approach ranks of last-century software development practices. We've been there with Microsoft. Must we trade Microsoft closed for Apple closed? Something else: Everything is tied to iTunes Store, which is as closed as Apple is secretive about new products.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

A look at the iPad's competition by operating system

Publié: janvier 28, 2010, 6:25am CET par Tim Conneally

The iPad.

It's not a Tablet PC, despite the exclusive version of iWork it will be getting, and it's not an E-reader despite the iBooks and Kindle reader software it will also feature. The device is really a jack-of-all-trades device meant to grow Apple's iTunes-based ecosystem, by providing another screen for applications developers to publish on.

But if you watched today's presentation from Apple, and you watched the company's iPad promotion video, you heard Apple executives use a term that we're quite familiar with already: "Internet Tablet."

We've heard the term applied to a number of devices from Nokia in the last few years, The N800, N810, and the Maemo-driven N900 which is actually more of a phone than a tablet. It's also been applied to the Archos 5 and Archos 7 portable media players, and the WiMAX-enabled Samsung Mondi.

These devices all have different core uses and work on different operating systems; so how does the iPad shape up against them?

	iPad	Archos 7	Nokia N900	Viliv X70 EX
OS	iPhone OS 3.2	Linux (Android version pending)	Maemo	Windows XP Home
Processor	1GHz Apple A4 System-on-a-chip	600MHz ARM Cortex A8 + 430MHz 32 bit DSP	600MHz ARM Cortex A8 TI OMAP 3430	1.33 GHz Intel Atom Z520 (Silverthorne)
RAM	unknown	128MB DDR SDRAM	256MB RAM, 768MB Virtual	1GB DDR
Storage	16GB, 32GB, or 64GB Flash	160GB, 320GB HDD	32GB Flash +MicroSD	16GB-32GB Flash +SDHC
Screen	9.7" LED backlit touchscreen (1024 x 768)	7" TFT LCD touchscreen (800x400)	3.5" (800x400) touchscreen	7" LED backlit touchscreen (1024x768)
Connections	802.11n, Bluetooth 2.1, HSPA 3G, 30-pin iPod connector	802.11b/g, USB 2.0	802.11b/g, Bluetooth 2.1, Quad-band GSM, EDGE, WCDMA, A-GPS, FM, AV out	802.11b/g, HSPA 3G, GPS, USB 2.0, AV out
Profile	9.56" x 7.47" x .5"	7.48" x 4.33" x .629"	4.36" x 2.35" x .7"	4.6" x 8.25" x .89"
Weight	1.5 lbs (1.6 with 3G module)	1.4 lbs	0.4 lbs	2 lbs
Cost	$499.99-$849	$349.99	$549.99 (unlocked)	$599-$899

Betanews readers say 'No!' to Apple iPad

Publié: janvier 28, 2010, 1:26am CET par Joe Wilcox
By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

Mid-afternoon today, I asked Betanews readers: "Will you buy an Apple iPad?" The responses are in, and the majority of readers say: "No!" I'm with you. Apple's iPad does absolutely nothing to advance the tablet category. The category is part of the problem. Twenty-five days ago I asserted that the "world doesn't need an Apple tablet, or any other." The iPad, like other tablets, suffers the middle child syndrome. The device overlaps features of smartphone below and laptop above.
Perhaps iPad would make more sense if it could replace either smartphone or laptop -- although I expect some early adopters to try the latter. To you I say, "Good luck!" You'll need it if for no other reasons than the virtual keyboard and limited storage -- 16GB to 64GB. I don't see these reasons as limitations on a smartphone, because it's always carried and has constant data connection. The iPad is an extra carryall with overlapping functionality and either no constant connection or 3G service for extra $30 monthly cost. Sadly, iPad is exactly what I expected: Traditional tablet form factor with a prettier user interface. Yesterday I pined for more, but Apple didn't deliver it.
With that scathing introduction, I present randomly chosen Betanews reader reaction -- much of it even harder than my reaction:
Jeremy Reeves: "@Joe, If I understand correctly, you believe the iPad is a waste, to put it bluntly...I would agree there are more reasons to not buy one than to buy one. ;]"
Taylor Wickens: "If you ducktape the keyboard that is shown with the iPad, you have a netbook. Woopty-doo. I'd rather have a full OS on a netbook with a non-ducktaped full keyboard than the iPhone OS that can only do one application at a time. The iPad is all iHype and will certainly be a niche market item before people realize how iStupid it is."
Roger Kay (industry analyst): "Apple may just have sailed straight into the Sargasso Sea. Meanwhile, there's this video they should have found before naming it: [bit.ly]."
hoozdaar: "Yes, I will buy one. I'll wait a while until the price drops $100 like Apple products always seem to do. I see people are disappointed that this device is not a laptop, I don't think it's intended to be. It is a really big itouch [iPod touch] with major improvements. I love my itouch. I kill time with it, look up info and email with it, read the news and sports, etc. Even listen to music. It is always with me...I don't read ebooks today, but that seems to be the future. Several organizations I belong to want to get rid of their magazines and newsletters. I don't want [to] carry a laptop or even a netbook around with me to read things."
Kelson64: "Rather pricey for something that doesn't really do anything. The only reason I might have purchased this prodect is for the ebook capabilities (I am a very avid reader) -- but I already have a Kindle, and I am beyond happy with it. Don't get me wrong, the iPad looks really nice . I just don't see any practical use for it. Frankly, with all of the things it is MISSING (that others have pointed out here), it just seems like a waste of money."
Sarah, iMensch (responding via FrendFeed): "newp."
Sudbury: "Why would you want to buy an iTablet? So you can show to your friends that your iPod touch is bigger than theirs? :P"
ece:
I always save my final judgement till I get my hand on it. But based on hardware specs, it would be a no for a few reasons:
- No USB 2.0 support
- No SD Card Slot
- No Verizon support
How does one print out a document that they developed in Pages? Do I have to e-mail the document to myself so I can print stuff out? How does one efficiently upload all the photos and video I just took from my vacation? Do I upload them to my laptop and then sync them to the iPad? I can't switch off Verizon so I wouldn't get 3G. As an e-reader like for text books, how heavily discounted will these text books go? I mean 3 engineering text books cost me $300 in grad school, even more in undergrad. Will the discounts on ebooks be enough to justify the cost of this as an e-reader.
jc_lvngstn: "I don't need a tablet, I'm immune to the hype machine, etc. And even if I DID decide I'd get a tablet, it would have to have Windows 7 on it, and support multitasking."
Pwnd0z3r: "Apple creates a glorified Speak'n'Spell -- the Apple iMaxiPad -- the sad part is that probably a lot of people will buy it because they are brain dead from watching WWE wrestling. People who buy Apple products can't spell productivity or they wouldn't buy them in the first place."
Kevin Baron:
I like it and might just buy it. I would love to play iPhone games on a giant touchscreen. There are other perks. But playing Peggle or Bejeweled on the iPad will be pretty cool. Sure I can and do play both games on the computer and the iPhone. Among many other games. But I like the idea of a big touchscreen for gaming. That said, I do have things i don't like. What's the deal with no Flash? I mean will it never make it to the iPad or iPhone? I mean really this isn't rocket science. I've heard the many reasons Apple might not want it on the phone. But really this is 2010, enough already. iChat would have been way cool also. Jailbreaking will give us multitasking, but really they need to give it to us at this point. It's a toy, but one that I want.
conan007: "I'm not clear who needs this. We already have smaller versions of iPad (i.e. iPhone), regular laptops (as light as MacBook Air), netbooks, Slate PCs (with real functioning OS), and ebooks (does iPad has e-paper screen?)."
OneToOne: "Apple has jumped the shark here, plain and simple. Nothing to be particularly ashamed of, it happens from time to time to those who think they are above all judgement and can do no wrong."
macbook: "Never... It's a waste of money."
Cool Guy:
Can someone please confirm whether the below is correct?
- No USB slots
- No Memory Card slots
- No Ethernet Port
- No Video Out
- No multi-tasking
- No camera
- Not light
- No Mac OS X
- No optical drive
If the above statements are confirmed then no, I wouldn't buy one. I am a tech and I need something light and portable that I can carry with me and troubleshoot things. At the moment, I use a laptop.
Faisal Islam: [In response to Cool Guy] "Yeah! CORRECT 100%."
bijuishere: "It is such a disappointment mainly because of all the big hype. No camera, no media card reader, no multitasking, no phone services, no USB ports -- will wait for the 3rd gen which will do all this. Meanwhile Apple fans can have at it."
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010