Gregarius &#187; BetaNews.Com &#187; mars 2010

MeeGo, the mobile Linux project that merges Nokia's Maemo with Intel's Moblin, has officially launched for developers today.

Both the MeeGo core distribution infrastructure and the operating system base are now available as downloadable images from the MeeGo project's Web site, here.

"The MeeGo common core includes the various key subsystems including the core operating system libraries, the comms and telephony services, internet and social networking services, visual services, media services, data management, device services, and personal services," Imad Sousou, Director of Intel's Open Source Technology Center and Co-chair of the MeeGo TSG said today.

The MeeGo architecture is meant to support a wide variety of devices, including netbooks, smartphones, in-vehicle systems, and connected TVs; but today's images correspond only to Atom-based netbooks, Atom-based smartphones (Moorestown), and the ARM-based Nokia N900.

It's pretty much exactly the same stuff that was offered when the two projects were separate: it's the same devices, and the new MeeGo UI is not included in the downloadable core. Instead, all of these images boot into terminal.

Sprint Nextel announces free 30-day trial contracts

Publié: mars 31, 2010, 7:33pm CEST par Tim Conneally

While most U.S. wireless carriers offer a 30-day grace period where users can return their new phone and cancel their service package without having to pay the exorbitant early termination fee, the subscriber who canceled his plan never really gets all his money back. There are activation fees, restocking fees, and fees for all the minutes/data used during that grace period.

Today, Sprint Nextel announced a new "Satisfaction Guaranteed or Money Back" program which gives users the customary 30 day grace period, but if they decide to cancel their plan and return their phone, they get all their money back. Sprint refunds everything included in its plans, but will not reimburse users for services above and beyond that. For example, if they sent a bunch of text messages without a texting plan, or if they used services with third-party billing, Sprint won't reimburse that.

The new plan goes into effect on April first, and includes both handsets and mobile broadband hardware.

This new plan gives customers a hassle-free incentive to try out Sprint's service in their area if there's a particular Sprint phone they might like, such as the upcoming EVO 4G.

...Of course, it also leaves the door open for people who want a free mobile broadband modem for their two-week vacation; so they can sign up and then return it when they get home for a full refund.

One more try to modernize US surveillance laws for the Internet age

Publié: mars 31, 2010, 7:01pm CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

You may think that your communications with other individuals over the Internet may be protected from unreasonable use by US law enforcement without subpoena and due process. The truth is, judges have been loosening the interpretation of a 1986 wiretapping law, almost pretending that it did apply to present circumstances. But perhaps the greatest problem with the current Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) lay with its definitions, which at one point appear to be applicable (after several stretches of logic) to the Internet...and then, upon further review, does not.

"Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce," paragraph 12 of section 2510 begins. Sounds fair enough, until you go on: "...but does not include (A) the radio portion of a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit; (B) any wire or oral communication..."

If you subscribe to the FCC's emerging definition of the Internet, as a global device that consumes spectrum, then the exceptions listed here would appear to exclude your smartphone as a component of electronic communication. That exclusion could conceivably give a crafty law enforcement officer or prosecutor the means for issuing a subpoena for information from a wireless service provider, without just cause as determined by a judge.

"'Subpoena' is Latin for 'no judge has ever approved this,'" said Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston, during a news conference yesterday. "To me, that's the distinction here. Subpoenas are issued without any judicial review, and we really need that check-and-balance, that critical protection."

The news conference was assembled by the Center for Democracy and Technology to announce the publication of a set of proposed (and revised) principles for members of Congress to consider. Congress will, perhaps this season, hold hearings (again) on the possible modernization of ECPA, to make it clear that the same protections that applied to wiretapped telephone communication apply to Internet conversations. CDT's leaders have once again assembled a policy coalition (its last try at this was in 2008) to promote a set of four principles that it believes new law must follow.

This time around, however, the Digital Due Process group has enlisted the support of Microsoft and Google, two names that have figured prominently in the debate over Internet users' rights. (Facebook also figures prominently in this debate by its conspicuous absence from this coalition.)

"All private communications content stored with a service provider should be protected just as if it were stored on a laptop, or printed out or stored in a file," stated CDT Vice President for Public Policy Jim Dempsey yesterday, listing the first of the new group's four proposed principles. "That is, it should be protected by the warrant standard issued by a judge, based upon a finding of probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed, and that the information is relevant to that crime.

"Currently, some e-mail stored online is protected by the warrant and some isn't," Dempsey continued. "And the rules as to what is protected and what isn't protected are pretty obscure and completely unknown to the average citizen. For example, there's the '180-day rule,' which says that after 180 days at the very longest, all of your stored e-mail loses the protection of the warrant and is available to the government, with a subpoena issued without a judge, and without a finding of probable cause. So we would say, one uniform rule across the board."

The second principle would apply a copy of that uniform rule to GPS and location information retrieved from an individual's smartphone or laptop. Third, a law enforcement body or government entity should be required to show just cause for requesting e-mail or information about the e-mail or other communication (e.g., the names of parties in the discussion). Fourth -- and certainly not least importantly -- the principles suggest new law should make clear that any subpoena issued under the existing Stored Communications Act should apply to an individual or an account belonging to an individual, and requests for information belonging to anything else (such as a company or group) must be approved by a judicial finding.

"Most laypeople don't realize this, but a subpoena is issued by the prosecutor, and often prosecutors hand it off to the FBI agents to fill in," explained Dempsey to a reporter who asked for a summary of how the law works today under the 1986 provisions. "They may be served in the name of a grand jury, or they may be administrative subpoenas, and a number of agencies have administrative subpoena authority. Those are issued at the discretion of an executive branch official with no judicial review. The Supreme Court has said that you can issue a subpoena...not because you believe the law is being violated, but merely to assure yourself that the law is not being violated. The standard is relevance to an ongoing investigation, and relevance is the lowest and broadest of the standards for compulsory access. It would be incumbent upon a service provider to challenge a subpoena when it's issued; often the subpoenas are issued with a delayed notice provision, meaning that the true party of interest, the customer, is not told about the subpoena in time to object to it.

"So there really are no checks and balances there that are meaningful," he continued. "A few service providers, in a few cases, have challenged subpoenas, or have pushed back. But that in and of itself is an expensive and unpredictable process."

Google's representative on the new coalition made a familiar case for Google: that the public's expectations for privacy rights have evolved faster than legislators have been able to keep up.

"This coalition is [in favor of] a very important initiative to advance what the legal protections are that cover the data that people are uploading to online services, those provided by many of the coalition members," said Google Senior Counsel Richard Salgado yesterday. "We're seeing tremendous change in the volume of data that people are uploading to services, the sensitivity of that data, and how that data and those services play a role in the day-to-day lives of people. Very different than how things looked in 1986 when the Web...didn't even exist...We're so far from that now, that you can hardly recognize the world of 1986; and yet, we've got a statute that envisions that bygone era. What we want to do is adjust some of the legal thresholds in the statute in a way that would make them more consistent with what users expect as their privacy right over the data that they've provided to these companies, and that they should expect, and doing so with thresholds that are very familiar to judges, very familiar to prosecutors, and that won't hinder the important work that government has to do."

For his company's part, Microsoft Associate General Counsel Mike Hintze yesterday pointed out that cloud technologies are preparing to rewrite the definitions yet again, and that any legal framework based squarely on 2010 could very soon look like 1986.

"ECPA...just hasn't kept up with technological changes. It doesn't reflect how people use online services and cloud services today. Therefore, a lot of the distinctions in the statute are illogical or unclear or inconsistent, which creates challenges in terms of compliance. It's unclear what the standard is, it creates friction between companies and law enforcement, and it creates confusion for the customers.

"More importantly than that, though, is the fact that, as more and more people embrace the benefits of cloud computing -- and Microsoft...has invested huge amounts in cloud technologies, and believe there are enormous benefits to the economy and to individual users...as that technological reality permeates our society, and people start moving documents from their file drawers and their individual computers into the cloud, we just don't believe that the balance between privacy and law enforcement should be fundamentally turned on its head," Hintze continued. "The US Constitution protects data in your home on your own PC at a very high standard; and as people take advantage of cloud services, we don't believe that that traditional balance of privacy vis-à-vis the state, should be fundamentally altered."

Next: Would revised surveillance law protect all personal data?

US Capitol building, Senate side

Would revised surveillance law protect all personal data?

Recently, content providers including Google and Microsoft have been racing to comply with dueling sets of governments' provisions worldwide: one that mandates how long they must retain information about their customers, and another that mandates they must anonymize that data, or get rid of it, after a given period of time. But as university researchers including Harvard's Christopher Soghoian demonstrated, anonymization with respect to single databases may be pointless, as engineers with only meager knowledge of how databases work could conceivably reconstruct personally identifiable data by linking records from multiple databases.

This gets into the larger question of aggregate data -- information that's discoverable through manipulation. The principles proposed by Digital Due Process yesterday appear, on the surface, to apply to law enforcement requests for specific records from specific databases applicable to specific investigations. But what happens when data those agencies may already have, reveal something they didn't know they needed to know, when it's all pieced together?

We asked the CDT's Jim Dempsey: "Our principle #4 addresses this issue: It says that when the government seeks aggregate data, it must get a court order; it cannot use a prosecutor's subpoena," he told Betanews. With regard to requests for personally-identifiable data (PID) versus non-PID -- data that can be compiled to reveal PID -- Dempsey said, "ECPA does not distinguish between personally identifiable and non-personally identifiable data. Even the current law covers data that is aggregate and supposedly not personally identifiable."

But even as the principles are currently written, could new law based on those principles effectively omit aggregate data, creating a loophole? For instance, could a law enforcement agency thwart the new rules by mining data collected in the course of other, unrelated investigations; in so doing, determine new connections between elements of data; and then characterize the resulting evidence as "plain sight" discoveries?

"Nothing in current law or in our proposal limits the government's use of data already collected," responded CDT's Dempsey. "If the government lawfully acquires data one day, it can use that data months or years later in another case. ECPA and the Fourth Amendment [of the US Constitution, pertaining to citizens' protections against unreasonable searches and seizures] address forcing companies to disclose customer data; they do not address how long the government can keep the data."

In a statement issued yesterday, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D - Vt.), who currently chairs the Judiciary Committee, promised to hold a new set of hearings to consider the new group's proposals...some of which have been considered before, including in committees headed or steered by Leahy.

"I applaud the announcement today by Digital Due Process and the Center for Democracy & Technology that a coalition of privacy advocates, legal scholars, and major Internet and communication service providers have joined together to release a consensus set of proposals to modernize the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. I look forward to reviewing these ideas," stated Sen. Leahy. "While the question of how best to balance privacy and security in the 21st century has no simple answer, what is clear is that our federal electronic privacy laws are woefully outdated. In the coming months, I plan to hold hearings on much-needed updates to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act."

Microsoft's Hohm smart grid service pairs with Ford's 2011 electric car

Publié: mars 31, 2010, 5:16pm CEST par Tim Conneally

Microsoft and Ford have worked closely for more than three years on the Sync in-car communication, navigation, and entertainment system, and today the companies announced their partnership has branched out into energy management for electric vehicles.

At the New York International Auto Show today, the two companies announced that the 2011 Ford Focus Electric will be the first vehicle to utilize Microsoft Hohm for automation and optimization of charging. Hohm is a cloud-based service that provides actionable info on your energy consumption that Microsoft first debuted nine months ago.

Microsoft says that 42% of consumers say they're likely to buy a hybrid or electric vehicle in the next two years. But an often overlooked fact about these vehicles is that they instantly become the biggest user of electricity in your home, and if everyone plugged in their cars at once, the energy grid could be crippled.

Hohm will help users determine the most efficient and affordable times to recharge their Ford Focus Electric.

Microsoft Hohm for Windows Phone 7 Series

With only one vehicle in the program so far, this collaboration is still in its early phases. However, that didn't preclude Microsoft from throwing in a teaser shot of a Hohm application for Windows Phone 7 Series.

"Our plan is to make electric vehicle ownership easier and more affordable for consumers and help utility companies manage the added demands of electric vehicles on the electric grid," Microsoft wrote in the Hohm community blog today.

The end, finally, at last, hopefully? Jury finds Novell retained UNIX copyrights

Publié: mars 31, 2010, 12:21am CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

Novell 'N' top story badge As first reported this afternoon by Groklaw, the publication that made its name covering the ugliest chapter in the history of computing, a jury in Utah district court has found that the copyrights to UNIX were never transferred to the original Santa Cruz Operation by way of a 1995 asset purchase agreement.

The decision may finally put to rest a 15-year-old argument over who, or what, has the rights to UNIX.

Several changes in leadership ago, Novell changed its mind about pursuing developing "UnixWare," and had thought it was entering into an agreement with SCO (again, several changes in leadership ago) that would enable the two to pursue a different UNIX strategy in cooperation with IBM. That cooperation absolutely never manifest itself, as it became tremendously unclear among all parties just what was agreed to -- even to the extent that the instruments of the agreement itself were challenged.

The legal tangle quite literally drove some of those involved mad. As for SCO, as of last October, it's a skeleton operation in receivership that cut off official ties with its notorious former CEO, Darl McBride, and that devoted its only remaining resources towards driving its legal operation on autopilot. The August 2007 judgment in Novell's favor -- effectively ruling the same thing the jury decided today -- would have actually been a blessing for SCO, enabling it to become a company that made products again, were it not for an Appeals Court ruling two years later stating the matter was too complex for the judge to have issued a summary judgment.

Groklaw's reporter on the scene this morning knew something was up when, from his post at a café across the street, he saw many suited people, including former CEO McBride, entering the courtroom. A half-hour later, the jury informed the judge it had reached a verdict. Moments later, each juror was polled, had the amended asset purchase agreement not transferred UNIX copyrights from Novell to SCO? And each one answered in the affirmative.

As the Salt Lake Tribune reports this afternoon, the court-appointed trustee for SCO, Edward Cahn, said the company he manages will continue to press its lawsuit against IBM, on the basis of contracts that SCO claims IBM violated. Cahn may not have any choice at this point, as the trustee of the closest thing the computing industry has ever seen to a zombie.

Although Pamela Jones' Groklaw report this afternoon began with the words "It's over," she conceded this doesn't yet signify the official closing of the curtain: "Of course, it's possible they might appeal. I've learned when it comes to SCO never to assume it's over, just because it should be over...Even in this Novell trial, there are some issues the judge has yet to decide. This saga is not finished."

That doesn't mean the leading Linux advocate isn't celebrating: "And don't you want to thank the jury? I know I do. Did I not tell you that juries can be trusted? I hope this helps some of you cynics."

Apple launches iPad-friendly iTunes 9.1

Publié: mars 30, 2010, 11:32pm CEST par Tim Conneally

Just four days ahead of the iPad's first day of availability, iTunes has received an upgrade which adds sync for the new device. According to the software updater, the new version of iTunes lets users "Organize and sync books you've downloaded from iBooks on iPad or added to your iTunes library," and "Rename, rearrange, or remove Genius Mixes."

The icon under "Library" which formerly was called "Audiobooks" is now simply, "Books," and Genius mixes can now be re-named and moved. Otherwise, there is not much of an outward difference between 9 and 9.1

The new iTunes also brings a new version of VoiceOver for the iPod Shuffle and Nano. This is the feature which says artist names, song titles, and playlists with the Voiceover-equipped iPods with an earphone remote. With iTunes 9.1, there are several unspecified performance upgrades for VoiceOver, and pronunciation updates for the kit have become an automatic download.

Chrome 5 becomes the Flash browser, integrates plug-in with dev build

Publié: mars 30, 2010, 11:19pm CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

Download Google Chrome 5 Dev build 360.4 for Windows from Fileforum now.

With Google owning YouTube, the Internet's principal delivery system for Flash-based video, it was perhaps inevitable that the company would bundle the Flash plug-in with its Chrome browser. The announcement came today from both Google and the team developing the open source Chromium component on which Chrome is based.

The move now officially places Google in contention with proponents of HTML 5, who had held out a glimmer of hope for a non-proprietary, non-plug-in video format for the standard's new <VIDEO> element. In its blog post today, the Chromium team indirectly blamed the standards process for not having solved what it perceives as the problem of specifying how plug-ins should operate, and credits Mozilla -- which makes Firefox -- with helping to rectify that issue.

"The traditional browser plug-in model has enabled tremendous innovation on the Web, but it also presents challenges for both plug-ins and browsers," reads today's post from Google Vice President for Engineering Linus Upson. "The browser plug-in interface is loosely specified, limited in capability and varies across browsers and operating systems. This can lead to incompatibilities, reduction in performance and some security headaches."

Upson credits Mozilla's efforts to upgrade and improve the old Netscape plug-in API model, still called NPAPI. This model currently enables out-of-process plug-ins to operate essentially independently from the browser. Historically, it's this independence that has been exploited by malicious users infiltrating victims' systems through Adobe Flash. Under the new system proposed by Mozilla, code-named "Pepper," processes launched through the browser would run through threads that are routed completely independently of browser and renderer threads. Specifically, the new thread model would block browser threads when plug-in threads are active, and vice versa, so that one would never have access to the other.

Consider it a kind of "anti-multithreading" that may very well be necessary in the age of Web applications.

But by citing Mozilla as the leader in this effort, Google may effectively be ceding responsibility for solving some of the most critical Flash security issues to date, to Mozilla. Until then, Upson concedes that the first Chrome dev build to contain the Flash plug-in will not yet have resolved a potential security risk: the separation between the Chrome tab processes and the Flash runtime. Part of Google's (originally) innovative security model was its division of browser tabs into separate processes, so that when one tab crashes, the main browser remains stable.

The bundled Flash plug-in with Google Chrome 5 runs Acrobat.com in what appears to be a separate process. But it's not a protected one.

One of the unanticipated side-effects of this model deals with Chrome's approach to add-ons: They too are separate processes, all of which identify themselves to the operating system as Chrome. The screenshot above shows a list of active processes from Sysinternals' Process Explorer, with the latest Chrome dev build 360.4. There's only one tab running the Acrobat.com page, but note that Chrome appears twice in the list. That second instance appears to be the Chrome sandbox wrapped around the Flash add-on.

But it's not. As Google's Upson said today, despite appearances, the Flash instance which that second item appears to encapsulate is not completely covered by Chrome's sandbox -- its safe operating environment. There's obvious reasons for that: Here, Flash Web apps are hosted in the client by the AIR runtime. There should only be one instance of AIR running within a client.

The reasons why were outlined in a 2008 white paper (PDF available here) written by a trio of university researchers who were employed by Google to design Chromium. It's in "The Security Architecture of the Chromium Browser" that the designers explain the division of the browser kernel, which interacts with the operating system, from the renderer which is isolated in the sandbox. Plug-ins must run independently of the sandbox in order to fulfill the needs of their manufacturers, the group stated, even though doing so introduces a potential vulnerability. Notice which plug-in they picked as their case-in-point:

In Chromium's architecture, each plug-in runs in a separate host process, outside both the rendering engines and the browser kernel. In order to maintain compatibility with existing web sites, browser plug-ins cannot be hosted inside the rendering engine because plug-in vendors expect there to be at most one instance of a plug-in for the entire web browser. If plug-ins were hosted inside the browser kernel, a plug-in crash would be sufficient to crash the entire browser.
By default, each plug-in runs outside of the sandbox and with the user's full privileges. This setting maintains compatibility with existing plug-ins and web sites because plug-ins can have arbitrary behavior. For example, the Flash Player plug-in can access the user's microphone and webcam, as well as write to the user's file system (to update itself and store Flash cookies). The limitation of this setting is that an attacker can exploit unpatched vulnerabilities in plug-ins to install malware on the user's machine.

Users could try running Chromium (and later Chrome), the group suggested, using the command line switch --safe-plugins, which would place all plug-ins under the protection of the renderer's sandbox. But they'll likely crash, they warned.

To address that problem, Adobe's senior director of Flash engineering, Paul Betlem, said in a blog post today that his team will work with both Google and Mozilla to replace and improve NPAPI. "While the current NPAPI has served the industry well, it lacks the flexibility and power to support the pace of innovation we see ahead," Betlem wrote. "We expect that the new API specification will offer some distinct benefits over the current technology available."

One foreseeable outcome of this collaboration could very well be a community where at least some plug-ins are compatible with both Chrome and Firefox simultaneously. But another outcome that Adobe's Betlem points to is a certain kind of unification, not just of the security model but of how the browser presents itself to the world. Think of it as "the Flash browser."

"The new API is being designed with the flexibility to allow plug-ins to more tightly integrate with host browsers," wrote Betlem. "The new plug-in API will provide performance benefits since the host browser will be able to directly share more information about its current state."

Reaction to Adobe's and Google's move today was mixed on Google's forums, with about two-thirds of respondents against the bundling and one-third vocally in favor. As supernova_00 wrote this morning, "Ugh. And here I thought we were all getting close(ish) to completely ditching Flash, and you guys decide to bundle Flash with Chrome. What the hell happened to open standards?"

Plus this from contributor Daniel Hansen: "Just when we thought that Google was the champion of HTML 5, they turn around and partner with Adobe on Flash to ensure that the Web remains a mess of proprietary brain damage."

Support for the move centered around the notion that Flash is simply a fact of life on the modern Web that no arbitrarily imposed standard is likely to change overnight, or even in the next decade. "People must be really dumb if they think HTML 5 is going to kill Flash," wrote Gabriel. "It's used for so-o-o much more than cats playing piano. The sooner you realize this, the more Google's move makes sense."

There was also this from contributor Troy: "How is Flash not an open standard? The bytecode format of [Shockwave] SWFs is published. There are open-source tools for producing SWFs. The tool chain is open-source and free. The player is available on the three major desktop OSs, and now on many mobile devices, as well as several video game consoles. Its virtual machine is open-sourced. Sure, it's not standard-certified by some international organization, but neither is HTML 5 (yet) nor is CSS3 (yet). It is a de facto standard, used by more Web sites and users than HTML 5, CSS3, Canvas, etc. Come on, folks, let's be pragmatic."

plugins dialog in Google Chrome 5 dev build 360.4.

The bundling of Flash with Chrome does not change the relationship between the component and the browser, as indicated by the about:plugins page above. Notice its format changed with this latest dev build; it now includes (highly requested) Disable links that let you turn off plug-ins without uninstalling them. However, bundling Flash did add 2.4 MB to Chrome 5's download size, plus a single new question to the startup procedure (shown below). In the dev build, to start using the Flash plug-in that's distributed with the browser, you run Chrome from the command line, adding the switch --enable-internal-flash.

Adding Flash to the Chrome 5 bundle adds this question to the startup process.

'Hands-off' review of Dial2Do's solution to the texting and driving problem

Publié: mars 30, 2010, 6:23pm CEST par Tim Conneally

Back in December, I tried to enable everything I use on my Motorola Droid with text-to-speech, with only limited success. Ideally, I would have been able to have all of my incoming text-based media from Twitter, RSS, e-mail, and SMS read aloud to me so I could use my phone while driving. Unfortunately, Android's built in TalkBack functionality is very limited, and the talking apps I've tried are also pretty limited in what they do.

But with safe driving legislation in committee in Congress, and a growing list of states that have banned texting while driving, the market for eyes- and hands-free phone interfaces is hot.

At CTIA last week, there was actually a whole section of the show floor dedicated strictly to safe driving solutions, and a number of hardware manufacturers, like LG, addressed the topic in their booths as well.

So I found a couple of services that approximately do what I wanted to do back in December, and checked them out.

One of them is Dial2Do, which utilizes text-to-speech and voice recognition software to let a user check her e-mail, calendars, Twitter feeds, SMS, weather updates and news feeds, personal notes, and a growing list of other services without using her hands or eyes.

With the free Dial2Do Android app, you can have your incoming text messages read aloud to you as they arrive, and you can create 20-second audio notes which are transcribed and e-mailed to you. Access to all the other functionality of Dial2Do costs $3.99 per month ($39.99 per year.)

When you hit "hands-free assistant" in the Android app, it dials into the local Dial2Do menu system. From there, you can then use voice commands to access your different linked services. Saying "Send a text to [contact name]," for example, will give you 30 seconds to speak a message to that contact which will then be transcribed and sent without the need for lots of "Are you sure?" prompts. Saying "Twitter" lets you post a tweet to your feed which includes a partial transcription and a link to your recorded messages.

Like most voice recognition software, Dial2Do requires a somewhat slower cadence for accurate transcription, and has difficulty recognizing arcane words and proper names. After testing the notation software, I chose a random passage from a Rudyard Kipling book: "Free People, and ye too, jackals of Shere Khan, for twelve seasons I have led ye to and from the kill, and in all that time not one has been trapped or maimed."

What came through in transcription was passable: "Free people and jekyll's of (Sherkan?) for 12 seasons I have led thee to and from the hill and in that time not one has been trapped or named."

Dial2Do handsfree assistant

When navigating through the service, you may find some dead ends. If you're listening to a long string of tweets or listening to headlines in Yahoo News, for example, you cannot say the name of another service to switch tasks, and if you say "go back," it always registers as "goodbye" and asks if you want to hang up. Any phone can use Dial2Do since it's based on calling in to access the command system. But Android and BlackBerry both have apps in beta which make interacting with the service much simpler.

While Dial2Do is extremely useful for replying to messages and sending out communications to others, the built-in reader voice still suffers from lots of mispronunciations, and it reads at an awkward pace. It works well enough for text messages and e-mails, but when you're going through lists of tweets or news headlines (which is the main thing I wanted an application to do) it is often hard to understand what is being said.

So if you're looking for a voice command service to use while driving, Dial2Do is an excellent choice. If you're looking for a voice-driven feed reader that will speak clearly and let you drill down into articles that interest you, Dial2Do is probably not what you're going to want.

The Handsfree Assistant app is available for download directly from Dial2Do or in the Android market.

Apple must apply 'right price, right rights' model to e-books

Publié: mars 30, 2010, 6:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

There are many reasons why iPod and iTunes Store succeeded where competing products failed. But two reasons stand out: Right price, right rights. If iBookstore is to succeed, Apple must apply the same model to e-books and other publications sold there. CEO Steve Jobs and company must seize control of pricing during content negotiations -- and, more importantly -- rights. There must be a single (and generous), standard usage right for all titles, including magazine and newspapers.

When Apple launched iPod in October 2001, the "right price, right rights" model was the best possible: Free. Music labels hadn't locked down CDs with onerous digital rights management mechanisms. Therefore, people could rip music and make their own "mixed tapes" CDs. Meaning -- people buying iPod already owned content they could put on the device. Apple wisely chose not to restrict music copying to iPod. The price was free and the rights were unrestricted.

Other MP3 manufacturers should have benefitted from the same price and rights advantage, but poor PC synchronization plagued many devices. I know. I tested enough competing devices and media playback software in the early "Noughties" to see the problem. By comparison, iPod-iTunes sync worked right from Day One. Apple offered a better user interface -- on the device or from the MP3 software.

When Apple launched iTunes Music Store in April 2003, it did so with uniform pricing and seemingly transparent rights. Singles sold for 99 cents and albums for $9.99. Both prices were magical and right on target, based on consumer surveys conducted by colleagues at JupiterResearch (I was a senior analyst there from 2003-2006). Both prices were lower than CD singles or albums. The rights: Consistent among all tracks with CD burning three times for any playlist and generous copying to iPod.

By comparison most other digital music stores available then and soon after applied variable pricing and rights mandated by publishers. Varying rights usage -- as in how many times a song, album or playlist could be burned/copied to device or not at all -- corrupted the user experience. Consumers would buy one song that could be burned once, another song three times and yet another not at all. In my testing of music services and software during the early to mid Noughties, varying rights posed another problem: Synchronization. There were consistent problems syncing DRM content -- particularly from different music stores -- to music players or burning to CDs. These problems largely contributed to the failure of Microsoft's PlaysForSure program.

Apple revolutionized digitally downloaded music by standardizing price and rights for DRM content. Consumers already had consistent pricing and rights from the stuff they owned -- or stole from file sharing sites. Apple increased those rights over time, later to five burns per playlist. In February 2007, Jobs called for the end of DRM in an open letter. Publishers would later give broad DRM freedom to Amazon's competing music store, as leverage against Apple's growing distribution dominance.

Today, iTunes music rights are ubiquitous; there is no DRM, so no restrictions. Pricing is variable, however, a concession Apple reportedly made to music labels. In my testing, iTunes Store variable pricing means that buyers pay more than AmazonMP3 store for many singles or albums. I won't defend the practice, but must point out that Apple could much easier implement variable pricing as a leading music distributor than as one starting out seven years ago. Apple is starting out again, now with e-books.

Mistakes will Haunt Apple Customers

The pricing and rights mistakes Apple makes now will haunt iBookstore shelves for years. These apparitions will terrorize consumers browsing the stacks, and no "Ghostbusters" will be able to save them. Apple must get pricing and rights right from Day One, as it did with iPod and iTunes.

Amazon clearly understands the importance of the "right price, right rights" model -- at least applied to e-books. Its approach to selling otherwise free content (like blogs) or newspaper and magazine subscriptions is a more troubled scenario. Until recent, forced renegotiations, Amazon sold popular and new releases for the uniform price of $9.99. Usage rights are consistent, even if restricted compared to physical books. Generous personal usage rights allow buyers to download and redownload e-books pretty much to any device -- Kindle, PC/Mac or smartphone -- authorized by Amazon's software. Amazon offers consistent lending rights: None. Consistency helps curtail consumer confusion, but none isn't enough rights compared to physical books.

Barnes & Noble offers one-time lending rights for its e-books -- kind of. Publishers still control usage rights, which means some titles can't be digitally lent at all. The rights are restrictive and confusing.

Apple has opportunity to do for e-books and other e-publications what it did for music. I'm simply stunned that for all the online rumors and speculation about iPad, so little of it is about right price and right rights. Apple has a chance to fundamentally change the e-book/e-pub model, but that won't likely happen if publishers dictate terms. Amazon was right to seek consistent pricing, either working with publishers or around them. Apple should do better, and out-of-control iPad hype is leverage Jobs and his negotiators should use.

Apple should be cautious about adopting App Store pricing. Rights are fairly consistent, but developers set prices -- or try to. App Store buyers and fierce competition have driven pricing largely to free or 99 cents for the majority of popular applications. Regardless, App Store is a fundamentally different business model. For the market of software applications, there are tens of thousands of competing developers -- that despite dominance of a few giants like Microsoft.

Publishing distribution, including books and music, is largely dominated by a few big publishers or organizations. Microsoft sells software it owns, which people can buy or not from many places. But book and music publishers typically obtain rights to content they didn't create but can distribute through long-established and limited channels. When moving away from DRM, some music labels initially shut out Apple from DRM-free content. Publishers of the written word have similar clout.

The time for Apple to lock in the right price and right rights is now. What's right? It's probably what publishers won't want to give: $9.99 for e-book versions of new or popular hardcovers, ubiquitous personal usage rights for any device supporting iBookstore and non-restrictive lending to authorized accounts. Where Apple has DRM today, five authorized PCs/Macs remains the usage rights. Apple should strive for the same usage rights for e-books -- and more: Five authorized devices and/or unlimited lending among family members (which could be verified through MobileMe family account).

So I must ask: What price would you pay for e-books and with what usage rights? Please answer in comments.

Test of China Internet connections reveals heavy filtering

Publié: mars 30, 2010, 5:42pm CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

Using a Firefox 3.0 add-on created by developers in Hong Kong, Betanews was able to briefly establish a connection with the Internet via a proxy based in mainland China. With that proxy, we were able to confirm that searches performed using Google's Hong Kong-based page were effectively blocked.

Google's Hong Kong home page is accessible from a Chinese proxy IP address on March 30, 2010.

Firefox 3.0 reported the blockage with this message: "The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading" -- a message from the browser, not from an ISP. We used version 3.0.16 of Firefox (an older edition) because it is the only version compatible with China Channel, a tool made for the express purpose of testing China's filtering ability. It has not been upgraded for version 3.6.

Further tests using the same proxy connection revealed that filtering may not be limited to Google. Searches for innocuous topics using Baidu, the country's leading search service known to employ its own filtering, were also blocked. We confirmed that the failed Baidu attempts were on account of blockage rather than just a dropped connection by browsing immediately to Xinhuanet, the country's state-run news service.

Searches through Google's HK page are apparently blocked by China's ISPs.

Our proxy connection lasted for approximately eight minutes before all requests began timing out. During that period, we saw some evidence that, rather than just blocking Google specifically, China ISPs may be using a much broader form of blocking of .com addresses in general, at least with the range of IP addresses under which our successful proxy connection falls.

For example, we could not connect to Baidu's home page using baidu.com. However, we were successful using baidu.cn, an address which, for clients outside China, is redirected to baidu.com anyway. Other .cn addresses were accessible, but betanews.com was not -- and I doubt we draw the attention of Chinese authorities enough to earn a spot on its blacklist.

The proxy IP address from which we were successfully able to establish the connection, should you wish to try this test for yourself, was: 218.14.227.197:3128, which traces to Beijing. Port 3128 is normally associated with proxy servers.

It's not dead yet: Microsoft's out-of-band IE6 fix impacts IE8

Publié: mars 30, 2010, 12:48am CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

Last month, Microsoft sent flowers to a mock funeral for Internet Explorer 6, in a show of support for the ideal that the old browser should be declared defunct worldwide. But for a few years yet, the company is still bound to support the product for those users (generally businesses) who refuse to upgrade it. That's why new exploits that continue to target old browsers, such as IE6 and IE7, continue to get attention even a full year after the proper security fix -- IE8 -- has been deployed.

One of the libraries that, among other functions, helps IE to print is the target of an exploit released to the wild earlier this month. The exploit creatively overloads the system with JavaScript variables, then places function calls to IEPEERS.DLL. Once the library is effectively crashed, its used memory isn't cleaned up, enabling binary code seeded into that memory to be executed -- a classic use-after-free scenario.

Although various IE8 and Vista-era architectures protect Windows users from this scenario, Microsoft's security team said today it will take the unusual step of issuing an out-of-band update tomorrow, two weeks ahead of the usual Patch Tuesday. The update will also serve as a "cumulative roll-up," adding nine other fixes that had been planned for April 13.

Microsoft has said that Data Execution Prevention in IE8 is one of the effective workarounds for this exploit, at least until tomorrow. But the US Homeland Security Dept.'s US-CERT agency warns that DEP is only a partial fix, saying, "DEP should not be treated as a complete workaround, but DEP can mitigate the execution of attacker-supplied code in some cases." US-CERT suggests that users instead disable Active Scripting, one of the perennially sensitive elements of the old ActiveX system.

MPEG LA wins major MPEG-2 settlement from Alcatel-Lucent

Publié: mars 29, 2010, 11:41pm CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

Could the manufacturers of DVD players (no, not just Blu-ray, but the original DVDs) owe back royalties to Alcatel-Lucent for the use of patented technology by way of the MPEG-2 codec? The MPEG Licensing Authority had asserted that Alcatel may have structured its 2006 merger with Lucent in such a way that it could hide up to five patents in a special trust, and spring their overdue royalties on the video industry long after DVDs already began the march to obsolescence.

That assertion was being made in a Delaware courtroom earlier this month, in a trial pertaining to a lawsuit filed by the MPEG Licensing Authority back in 2007. Today, MPEG LA -- which also collects royalties for the use of MPEG-2 -- announced a settlement in the case, essentially amounting to a complete defeat for Alcatel-Lucent.

The five patents that Alcatel-Lucent had maintained in what it called the Multimedia Patent Trust (MPT), will now be submitted to MPEG LA with the possibility of inclusion in the portfolio it already licenses to manufacturers -- and by "possibility," we mean, virtual certainty.

The settlement brings to a close a dispute which threatened to get ugly, over the intellectual property rights for a relatively old -- and many would argue, antiquated -- way of encoding video. The dispute began when Microsoft, along with computer makers Dell and Gateway (now part of Acer), were first sued by the newly merged entity on behalf of the former Lucent. Alcatel was (and still is) a member of MPEG LA itself, but Lucent was not. At the time, Alcatel-Lucent maintained it set up the trust in order to protect patents from Lucent's old Bell Laboratories portfolio, that it asserted had not been folded into the MPEG-2 Essential Patents portfolio of MPEG LA.

"The MPT was established at the time of the merger in 2006 because Lucent Technologies had certain patents at risk of losing value because of how the merger was structured," reads a statement from Alcatel-Lucent General Counsel Steve Reynolds ten days ago. "To preserve their value over the life of the patents, Lucent created the trust and assigned those patents to it. The trust now owns and controls those assets. Proceeds from the trust go to Alcatel-Lucent and the Alcatel-Lucent Foundation."

At the time the computer and software makers were sued, the total valuation of the suit was estimated at over $2 billion. But even the amount has been a matter of dispute, especially since a San Diego district court judge ruled in 2008 that the patents in this case were essentially...non-essential. That devalued them at the same time it appeared to indicate they did not belong in MPEG LA's "Essential Patents" portfolio.

Referring to a correction that Bloomberg News had to make in a report earlier this month, Alcatel-Lucent's Reynolds added, "Because the San Diego court determined that the patents were not infringed, and therefore were not essential, we do not see how MPEG LA could claim rights to these patents under any circumstances. Our understanding is that MPEG LA claims to have rights to essential patents. By court determination, the MPT patents in the San Diego lawsuit simply don't meet that requirement. That should have been the headline, not a sensational number about a bogus and non-existent risk."

Testimony in the trial was already drawing to a close. In a statement to Betanews this afternoon, MPEG LA said, "The resolution of the case is consistent with the relief MPEG LA sought in its complaint."

The explosion of non-Flash devices is driving HTML 5 growth, Brightcove says

Publié: mars 29, 2010, 10:41pm CEST par Tim Conneally

Video sharing site Brightcove is using the impending launch of the Apple iPad as a platform to talk up its support for HTML 5, the updated spec for the Web's core markup language which brings rich functionality to sites (such as video) without the need for third-party plug-ins like Adobe's Flash or Microsoft's Silverlight.

Earlier this year, Brightcove's bigger competitors YouTube and Vimeo announced they were experimenting with HTML 5, but both warned that not everyone would be able to see videos unless they had a compatible browser. Vimeo, for example, said 90% of its videos would work in HTML 5-compatible browsers, but only 20% of viewers would be using one.

Flash remains the most ubiquitous vehicle for video delivery today, and is likely to remain deeply entrenched as a necessary plug-in for PC Web browsers.

Brightcove's founder and CEO, Jeremy Allaire referred to this as "runtime hegemony," and sees the mobile world as an opportunity to break out of it.

So the video site has launched "The Brightcove Experience for HTML5," a framework for publishing HTML 5 videos and advertisements aimed at companies and marketers looking to make an iPad-ready site.

"Our customers want to be able to deliver their video content to every screen without sacrificing the quality, interactivity and monetization capabilities they have come to expect from the Brightcove platform," Allaire said in a statement. "The Brightcove Experience for HTML 5 fills the gap between the current playback capabilities of the emerging standard and what our customers need to operate successful online video businesses."

This solution has already been used to produce the iPad-formatted New York Times Web site.

"The ubiquitous Flash Platform technology stack...has allowed us to reach 99% of the world's Internet connected computers with a consistent video experience that just works," Allaire wrote in the Brightcove blog yesterday. "Now we have seen the incredibly broad adoption of devices such as the iPhone (and soon the iPad) that do not support Flash, but do support the HTML 5 standard. Many device platforms have pledged to support Flash video, but the adoption of non-Flash devices is expected to be broad enough that many publishers are worried that they will be missing a substantial audience if they rely exclusively on a Flash-only strategy. That is driving publishers to look for ways to deliver an equivalent video experience to what they can offer with Flash, but implemented using the HTML 5 standard."

With three months to go to DNSSEC, someone's fudging root zone records

Publié: mars 26, 2010, 11:25pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

One of the extraordinary truths about the Internet as a mechanism is that the databases that enable every IP address to be resolved, are maintained and published by a very small number of organizations acting as a cooperative. The health of the entire network depends on these groups' vigilance. One of these groups is Autonomica AB, a division of the Swedish ISP Netnod. It operates the "I" root server, which in recent weeks has been the apparent victim of a kind of spoofing attack that's been harmless thus far, but could conceivably demonstrate the capability of one rogue element to pollute the entire Internet.

Thanks to the current state of affairs, some are now suspecting a China-based culprit. But as we all know with the Internet, just because a malicious server resides in one country doesn't mean its malicious operator works there as well.

As first reported yesterday by Ars Technica's Iljitsch van Beijnum, engineers for the world's root servers reported on their public mailing list that certain requests sent to the "I" server for authoritative information were being resolved in a peculiar manner. Normally a root name server responds with the address of authoritative servers for a top-level domain; and thanks to a technique called anycasting, the server doing the responding may not be the same one each time. But at least one such server somewhere was occasionally responding to specific requests to resolve addresses that have the text facebook, twitter, or youtube in them (for example, www.facebook.com or whattheheckcouldthismeanforfacebook.co.uk) with apparently random IP addresses that served no function at all, malicious or otherwise. Also, requests for information on specific IP address ranges were met with similarly spoofed responses, intermittently.

On Wednesday, a root server network operator in Chile reported being told by a local ISP that one of the "I" server nodes, i.root-servers.net, was responding to requests to resolve Facebook addresses with a random IP address. When the incidents occurred, the traceroute for the "I" server runs through China. Other operators familiar with China's track record for tinkering with IP addresses were amazed, including one Dutch operator who responded, "Wow! This is stunning. I knew that China messed with DNS internally, but not that it leaked to the outside world."

The symptom of DNS requests for records matching a certain text pattern being met with inaccurate data, follows a trend that researchers have noticed before -- which is why China emerges as a leading suspect. In December 2007, a trio of NYU researchers published the findings of research they had conducted into the veracity of DNS requests from Chinese name servers. In their paper, "The Great DNS Wall of China" (PDF available here), they demonstrated how China-based DNS servers responded to DNS requests for domains whose names consisted of random alphanumeric characters (they couldn't possibly exist), but whose subdomains contained certain "red-flag" phrases such as falungong, voanews, and minghui (which refers to the Buddhist Falun Dafa practice). The responses, which should have been confusing as well, instead appeared to be authoritative.

In a first round of tests in which Chinese servers were asked to resolve requests for 841 domain names for which five US-based servers were in complete agreement, the trio wrote, "We observed that almost all of the Chinese DNS servers returned tampered responses for 383-393 domains and that the number of distinct IPs returned for these responses was extremely low when compared to the uniqueness of the correct responses. In fact, 366 bad domains shared eight IP addresses."

Then the group applied the nonsense domains, which the US servers couldn't possibly resolve. "We found that, as expected, the canonical US servers returned a 'domain does not exist' for all of the nonsense domains. The Chinese servers exhibited different behavior. For both the domains with a control subdomain (i.e., www) and domains that had a keyword embedded as a subdomain, the majority of the servers returned a 'domain does not exist.' The nonsense domains with the censored domains embedded as the subdomain triggered the same type result as the previous experiment, returning the set of eight IP addresses."

A representative from China's network information center CNNIC denied his department's involvement in any spoofing activity, to the operators' mailing list.

On July 1, 2010, DNSSEC will be deployed at the root server level, enabling encrypted and secure communication there for the first time. Theoretically, this would disable the type of spoofing exhibited here.

As the Dutch network operator commented, "Given the nature of why this is happening, this is one of the first use cases I see for DNSSEC that actually is worth the administrative overhead. Preventing Kaminsky spoofing, which appears not to be happening anyhow, is not that exciting, and may not be worth the effort. But preventing nation states from globally changing DNS traffic (even if only by accident), far beyond their shores, might be a great idea."

That prompted a Dutch security engineer to respond with a scenario whereby a hypothetical name server decides not to employ DNSSEC after all. In his scenario, that hypothetical server could respond to requests that mandate DNSSEC be turned on, with signed connections to false copies of root zone information. "If I can control all the roots, then DNSSEC buys you just a false sense of security," he wrote. "Control the roots, control the data."

Safari WebKit beta closing the gap against Chrome 4, Opera a very close second

Publié: mars 26, 2010, 8:39pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Test Results Apple Safari top story badge In the latest check of progress in the development of the major Web browsers for Windows, the brand that helped Betanews launch its regular browser performance tests appears to be making a comeback effort: With each new daily build, the WebKit browser engine -- running in Apple's Safari 4.0.5 chassis -- gains computational speed that it was sorely lacking.

Safari already leads Google Chrome in the rendering department, and posts scalability scores comparable to Opera 10.51, in Betanews' Windows 7 Relative Performance Index suite. In this morning's round of tests using WebKit daily build 56417 on Windows 7, Safari scored a very respectable 20.27, coming up just behind the latest stable Chrome 4.1 at 21.22.

To compete effectively against Chrome and Opera, Safari/WebKit has needed to post better SunSpider computational test scores. There's definite improvement in that department, though Safari still has a ways to go: Today's 55.74 relative score (almost 56 times better than Microsoft Internet Explorer 7's score on Windows Vista SP2) reflects apparent improvement in the test browser's date handling and string manipulation functions; in all other SunSpider categories, the test browser ties or just barely exceeds the stable Safari 4 scores. Safari 4 scores 48.87 overall on the SunSpider, while Chrome 4.1 scores 59.31. The latest dev build of Chrome 5 is the SunSpider leader with 75.82, followed by the stable Opera 10.51 with 70.70.

In the SlickSpeed CSS selectors battery, the daily Safari/WebKit is now running away with the lead with a 13.87 score over Opera 10.51 at 12.19, and the Chrome 5 dev build at 12.83. That shows how adept the new WebKit code is at manipulating CSS components in memory; anyone wanting to be "the HTML 5 browser" will need to master this department. But in the old school of layout -- the HTML 1 <TABLE> element -- Safari/WebKit also shows poise with an 8.26 score. Only Chrome 4.1 is ahead in that department with an impressive 9.49.

Relative performance of major Web browsers in Windows 7, March 26, 2010.

It's with the new DFScale suite that I've intended to learn more of the whys-and-wherefores of browsers' performance. Overall, Safari/WebKit's speed score is in the middle of the field (37.12 versus Chrome 5's 53.90), but its scalability scores are quite respectable (9.40 versus 10.93, respectively). What that means is, WebKit is very adept at finding new efficiencies when working with heavier workloads -- a process I call "finding another gear."

You can see this process at work in the numbers for the Merge Sort test: The stable Safari 4 took 8 ms (.008 seconds) to sort a 500-unit array, and 20.1 seconds to sort a 25,000 unit array. If the Merge Sort problem scaled linearly (it doesn't), it would have taken Safari 4 0.4 seconds to sort the larger array. With the daily WebKit doing the JavaScript and rendering instead, the browser sorts the same 25,000 unit array in 9.8 seconds.

FOR AN EXPLANATION OF OUR SCORING:

Betanews Relative Performance Index for browsers 3.0: How it works and why by Scott Fulton

This same phenomenon would probably make Safari/WebKit the leader in the Heap Sort test as well, if it were capable of running the 10 million iteration test along with Chrome. For the Heap Sort grid numbers it can run (up to 1 million), it scales very impressively, starting out just about even with the latest Opera 10.52 snapshot (released yesterday), but then beating it at 1 million iterations at 3.1 versus 4.1 seconds. Safari/WebKit has a better time with scaling exponential problems higher than with linear problems like Euler's Problem #14.

Long-time readers will recall there used to be a browser called Firefox that figured prominently in tests like ours. Well, the news hasn't been good for Firefox in recent days, especially with scores from the daily builds of version 3.7 alpha dipping a few tenths (even after a scoring adjustment, see below), from 10.76 last week to 10.23 today.

One of the most stark differences in the way browsers work is revealed in the results of the Problem #14 test, between Firefox and Safari. Our "How it works and why" report goes into detail about the two phases of this test, called "naïve" and "optimized." In assembling successive chains of numbers that follow two math rules, eventually one chain will run into a value that appears at the head of another chain. At that point, the "optimized" version of the test appends that other chain onto the end of the current one, while the "naïve" version blindly moves forward through to the end of the chain.

The Safari/WebKit daily build executes the "naïve" 1 million iteration Problem #14 test in about 7.9 seconds; and it shaves over three seconds off that mark in the "optimized" version, for a 4.7 seconds total. By comparison, the latest daily build of Firefox 3.7 Alpha 4 takes 94 seconds to run the "naïve" test. But optimization scales that number down to 6.8 seconds, which actually beats the stable Safari 4's 6.9 seconds. The suggestion here is that Firefox tends...to...slow...way...do...wn as a chain gets longer and longer, whereas Safari only slows down very slightly. Again, this gets to the whole issue of scalability: the ability to find the extra gear as the workload increases.

Relative performance of Web browsers in Windows 7 by category, March 26, 2010.

Now, a slight scoring methodology change to note since our report last week: In the new DFScale suite, I noticed that variations in the time values for the lower grid numbers made for less-than-desirable oscillations in the averages. For example, in a few cases, a test where a browser would perform in 3 ms half the time and 2 ms the other half (when the real value is probably more like 2.5), would jostle the averages wildly. So for the time being, I'm not counting the time values in the lowest one or two grid numbers as among the time averages, although they still count as points toward scalability. The adjustment did affect the score for the IE9 Platform Preview...on the positive side. We're now scoring it at 13.38 overall, a few ticks above last week.

Of course media bias favors Apple

Publié: mars 26, 2010, 6:34pm CET par Joe Wilcox

I have three questions for my Betanews writing colleague Carmi Levy: Do you own a Mac or iPhone? Do you invest in Apple? Did you preorder iPad or plan to buy one next week? For fair disclosure, I am writing this post on a 13-inch MacBook Pro (running Snow Leopard). I don't own an iPhone (anymore) and I have never invested in Apple (I own no stock whatsoever; I'll die poorer by my no-conflict-of-interest principles). I ask these questions because he writes: "To set the record straight, from where I sit, the media are not biased toward Apple."

Carmi Levy made that -- and many other shocking statements -- in late Thursday post: "Enough with the Apple bashing!" Eh, what Apple bashing? In my Sunday post, "Be smart, don't buy into the iPad hype," I gave clear examples how bloggers, reporters and Wall Street analysts are biased in favor of Apple. My colleague offers no evidence, just innuendo, to support claim that a "backlash against Apple increases to compensate" for Apple succeeding "where others have failed."

My colleague asserts: "Detractors of all things Apple point to initial iPad sales figures as evidence that something is amiss. They claim supporters are manipulating the stats to depict Apple favorably. First off, no one cares about initial sales figures. They may fill editorial space on a slow news day, but they don't say much about a given device's long-term chances."

If no one cared about early sales figures, why were there so many blog posts or news stories about them? This Google search reveals the enormous number of blogs or news sites following Apple 2.0 post: "Day 1 estimate: 120,000 iPads sold." This other Google search shows, again, a large number of additional reports following March 15 claim: "150,000 iPads pre-ordered already." Apparently, lots of people do care, and that's driven in part by Wall Street's Apple lovefest. Ongoing rumors about iPad have helped lift Apple's share price into the stratosphere. Investors have every reason to talk up Apple (OK, except perhaps for nasty short sellers).

Acts of Faith

As I write, Apple shares reached another 52-week high today -- $231.95. A year ago, Apple shares traded at $109.87. Since early January, Apple shares have rise and fallen -- but generally gone up -- in tandem with rumors about iPad. The stock actually dipped after the late January iPad announcement (to $192.06) but picked up thereafter (yes, with a few more dips) in tandem with rumors about iPad preorders, preoder availability, rumors about the number of iPad preorders and ongoing rumors about media deals. Rumors, rumors, rumors. Are the majority of these rumor posts or stories negative? Are bloggers, reporters or Wall Street analysts bashing Apple? The majority absolutely are not. The Apple bashing will come later, should iPad fail to meet the expectations set by the hype.

If anything the news media is obsessed with iPad. March 24 Wall Street Journal story "Magazines Use the iPad as Their New Barker" is a frightening tale of Apple media obsession: "Time magazine has signed up Unilever, Toyota Motor, Fidelity Investments and at least three others for marketing agreements priced at about $200,000 apiece for a single ad spot in each of the first eight issues of the magazine's iPad edition, according to people familiar with the matter."

Apple Shares 3-26-10

That's a surprising amount to spend per ad on an untried new media platform with arguably low initial distribution. By the way, Time's full-page US national rate for print is $287,440 for claimed audience of 19.5 million off a subscription base of 3,372,240. Assuming the rumored first-weekend iPad preorders of 150,000 units are accurate and also subsequent rumors of 10,000 units a day, sales would be about 330,000 units going into launch day -- or about 10 percent of Time's subscriber base. Somebodies at Time and among its advertising customers are putting some big faith in small numbers.

"Magazine publishers see the device as crucial to their future as they scour for new ways to make money, with print advertising still under threat," write WSJ reporters Shira Ovide and Suzanne Vranica. There's desperation and arguably insane business planning.

Wall Street Journal also is beating on advertisers' doors, trying to convince them to buy into its iPad app. Ovide and Viranica write:

Six advertisers, including Coca-Cola and FedEx, have agreed to advertise with the Journal, and a four-month ad package costs $400,000, according to these people. Coke and FedEx declined to comment on terms. The Journal plans to charge subscribers $17.99 a month for iPad subscriptions, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The Journal plans on charging advertisers less than Time but make readers pay more than they do now: The WSJ Online typically costs $2.87 a week (or about $12.44 a month), but the newspaper is running a $1.99 a week special, or $8.62 a month. So the iPad version will cost almost $10 more a month than the Journal Online. Combined print and online is $2.69 a week -- that works out to about $140 a year or $11.67 a month, again less than WSJ for iPad. That is unless WSJ plans to offer online, print or both along with the iPad subscription.

Kool-Aid Messiah

What kind of backlash is there in that? I read these media companies' actions as huge support of Apple's iPad effort -- and with a touch of irrationality, or desperation. Carmi Levy supports his bashing claims by asserting: "Apple-friendly consumers are dismissed as 'fanboys' having drunk the Kool-Aid." Actually this quality has long been assigned to the so-called "Mac faithful," not mainstream consumers. But that's not the point. Clearly some media companies and Wall Street analysts have drunk the Kool-Aid, given their seemingly unquestioning faith in the unproven iPad.

My colleague also states that Apple "CEO Steve Jobs is accused of using his 'Reality Distortion Field' to get customers to buy Apple products without asking so much as a single question.' The statement is meant as defense of Apple, but I assert the Reality Distortion Field is real. Jobs is a marketing master. Before his recent illness I would categorize a Jobs keynote or new product introduction two ways: When Jobs is having a bad presentation day, people walk out of the venue feeling like if they buy the new "one more thing" product, there lives will be better for it. When Jobs is on fire, making a great presentation, people feel their lives will be worse if they don't buy the new thing.

Apple Shares 3-26-10

Jobs knows how to sell aspiration. Extremely well. That's what good marketing is all about: Convincing you that greater happiness will come with Product X, Y or Z. Effective marketing often plays off the emotions, not the intellect, and iPad is such a great example. During the late-January product launch, Jobs described iPad as a more intimate way to experience the Web. In Apple's iPad promotional video, Scott Forstall, senior vice president of iPhone software, makes a nearly identical assertion: "It just feels right to hold the Internet in your hands as you surf it." Oh yeah? So people surfing the Web on their iPod touch, iPhone or other smartphone aren't holding the Web in their hands as they surf it?

Apple's iPad Website also describes iPad as a "magical and revolutionary product at an unbelievable price." Those are loaded, aspirational modifiers. In the iPad promo video, Apple numero uno designer Jony Ive says about the device: "I don't have to change myself to fit the product. It fits me." Aspirational marketing is about you and what the product will do for you.

People who believe this kind of marketing do "drink the Kool-Aid." They're rewarded if the marketed product meets or exceeds expectations. There's reality distortion if the product is less than what the marketing makes it seem; same can be said when bloggers, journalists, media companies and their advertisers or Wall Street analysts are so positive about a product that's unproven and not even released.

There's no Apple backlash. If anything, there's a new Messiah complex, whether you choose Steve Jobs, iPad or both as savior. Jesus Christ isn't coming on the clouds from Heaven on April 2nd, not with iPad as second coming. Although, should he or even alien visitors make an appearance next week, perhaps finally something will overshadow out-of-control Apple and iPad hype. Perhaps.

GAO: More security training leads to less compliance, including Los Alamos, NASA

Publié: mars 26, 2010, 4:44pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

A US Government Accounting Office report released yesterday (PDF available here) reveals an astonishing and counter-intuitive trend: Government agencies' compliance with directives intended to improve information security has declined in inverse proportion to the amount of training they receive.

A Government Accounting Office (GAO) estimate of government agencies not in compliance with FISMA directives during fiscal 2009.

In a report to the House Government Management Subcommittee yesterday, the GAO cited increased awareness of the provisions of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), due to increased awareness training among the 24 federal agencies tested: 91% of employees in those agencies received testing in fiscal 2009, up 3% from the previous year. But specifically in light of increased exposure to the Gumblar Trojan and the Conficker worm, at least 17 of those agencies were reported to have enacted deficient responses to these increasing threats, including essentially assigning the entire job of security to just one person -- against FISMA's mandate.

Two of the agencies where GAO inspectors reported the most shocking problems were NASA and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The GAO report chastised Los Alamos in particular: "Specifically, (1) risk assessments were not comprehensive, (2) specific guidance was missing from policies and procedures, (3) the training and awareness program did not adequately address specialized training needs for individuals with significant network security responsibilities, (4) system security plans were incomplete, (5) the system security testing and evaluation process had shortcomings, (6) corrective action plans were not comprehensive, and (7) contingency plans were incomplete and not tested. In addition, the laboratory's decentralized management approach has led to weaknesses in the effectiveness of its classified cybersecurity program. Although the laboratory has taken steps to address these weaknesses, its efforts may be limited because LANL has not demonstrated a consistent capacity to sustain security improvements over the long term."

The news for NASA was similar, particularly highlighting that agency's failure to consistently detect and report security incidents. GAO believes that the problem isn't one of poor software or even bad training. It's a management problem, the report says -- an apparent case of indecision about spreading the responsibility for security among everyone.

This despite the fact that the quantity of security incidents on government agency systems that were reported properly, has increased by some 400% over a three-year period.

The rapidly rising number of security incidents reported to US-CERT between 2006 and 2009, as reported by GAO.

GAO cites the continued need for a comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy, as outlined by President Bush in 2008 when he launched the Comprehensive National Security Initiative (CNSI). The Office suggests that CNSI be given more time to achieve the goals set out for it. But as one example from the report describes, the National Institute of Science and Technology's recommendations for securing systems with Windows XP and Windows Vista, is still ongoing, and would be one of those programs that GAO recommends continue. It does not appear that this program, as implemented in 2008, would encompass the simple matter of upgrading to Windows 7.

Swype and T9 Trace are on a collision course

Publié: mars 26, 2010, 1:44am CET par Tim Conneally

You may not know the name Nuance Communications, but you can bet you've used this company's products. It deals with linguistic solutions in the health care, enterprise, and the consumer mobile spaces. Yet you'd probably know Nuance as the company that owns T9 text completion, which ships on 85% of all mobile phones.

You may also not know the name Cliff Kushler, but he was one of the inventors of T9 at Tegic Communications. He went on from there to launch the company Swype after Nuance acquired Tegic in 2007.

Swype offers a new method of text entry that lets a user drag his finger to each letter on a virtual keyboard, rather than have to peck each letter out. It has been getting a lot of positive press, and has appeared as a pack-in feature on two new Android handsets this week -- the impressive Samsung Galaxy S and the Motorola i1 -- as well as the Windows Mobile-powered HTC HD2 which just launched on T-Mobile.

Swype This week, Nuance announced its new method of text entry called T9 Trace, which is pretty much exactly the same as Swype. Both Nuance and Swype market their products directly to OEMs rather than fiddle with the consumer app space, so the name of the game for them is getting as many manufacturers to pick up their technology, and establishing ubiquity.

Swype is doing pretty well in terms of partnerships so far, and Nuance hasn't announced any yet. Nuance hopes to grab OEMs by offering the same input technology as Swype, only integrated into some of their other intellectual properties.

"We'll go through OEMs and do hybrid interfaces with some of our connected services such as Dragon Dictation," Richard Mack, VP of corporate communications for Nuance said yesterday. "If you wanted to go in there and edit, you can call up the keyboard and do Trace there, so we're beginning to integrate all these into a combination, multi-modal experience for text information input."

Nuance's T9 Trace In other words, manufacturers who already license T9 will be able to get a package licensing deal with Nuance for Trace and whatever other technologies they want.

"We've also got a higher number of languages than anyone else out there [80], integration time is much easier because it can be built on top of T9 which is already there," Mack said. Truly, when I tried T9 Trace yesterday, the words that popped up in the suggestion list were rather consistently in Italian.

But really, the way T9 Trace and Swype work is secondary to the way their stories could end. After all, Swype is a small company still working on Series B investment capital, but with significant interest from OEMs. Also, Nuance is a big company with a long list of clients, no T9 Trace partners yet, and history of buying up Kushler's technology.

I would be remiss to say Nuance is copying Swype...that's for you to decide. Either way, Kushler and Nuance look to be coming to a meeting point again, and it could be the bargaining table or it could be the courtroom.

Disclosure: Tim Conneally is an investor in Nuance Communications.

Enough with the Apple bashing!

Publié: mars 25, 2010, 10:54pm CET par Carmi Levy

As the hype machine for iPad availability revs up into overdrive (and, in some cases, tacks on afterburners), in a desperate effort to restore balance to the universe -- or, in some people's lives, what passes for a universe -- backlash against Apple increases to compensate. I'm thinking it's getting more than a little ridiculous to demonize a company because it's managed to succeed where others have failed.

I'm thinking it's time to stop the silliness.

Ever since Apple's return from the dead began about 13 years ago, it's become almost de rigeur to criticize it for being overly secretive, cultish, and obsessive. Apple-friendly consumers are dismissed as "fanboys" having drunk the Kool-Aid (a phrase Jerry Pournelle now probably wishes he'd never have coined). CEO Steve Jobs is accused of using his "Reality Distortion Field" to get customers to buy Apple products without asking so much as a single question.

Some opposition is well-deserved

I can appreciate where some of the opposition comes from. Apple is, after all, not the world's easiest company to deal with. It often seems to act in its own best interests and to the detriment of many of its stakeholders -- something iPhone developers appreciate all too well. Apple's behavior, as befits its position as the leading consumer electronics vendor of our time, isn't always as nice as it could be. Companies that choose to build their business models around Apple's platforms -- especially the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad -- must first come to terms with the cold reality that Apple may taketh away as quickly as it giveth. They know the risks going in, and they steel themselves for a rough ride as a result.

This is the price that stakeholders pay for being part of a vibrant market. If they want something a little warmer and fuzzier, I'm sure lesser islands of sanctuary like Nokia would be more than happy to coddle them a little. Unfortunately, all the coddling in the world won't ever make up for the fact that there's a lot more money to be made in Apple's App Store than Nokia's Ovi.

What I can't appreciate is the deep-rooted nastiness expressed by some who insist on remaining opposed to Apple's products or its way of doing business, on principle alone. To a certain degree, our complex allegiances to the tech companies that increasingly define the tools of our modern lives naturally lend themselves to polarized opinions and passionate clashes. In a simpler age, Chevy and Dodge aficionados would duke it out at the drag strip before declaring a victor, shaking hands, and going home. The tech industry, unfortunately, doesn't seem to shake hands much. More often than not, the high-spiritedness of the community tends to descend to mean-spiritedness almost as soon as the first article has been published.

Aside from being more than a little distasteful, the breakdown also clouds the core issues of whether or not a given product has value. We spend so much time flinging barbs back and forth that we forget that there may, perhaps, possibly, be something about the product that's worth appreciating.

It saddens me that a company can't succeed without being slammed for being successful. It saddens me that the industry as a whole can't seem to shake this knee-jerk, childlike behaviour. It saddens me that regular business folks, of the genus homo sapiens, observing us from behind the glass wall, conclude no one in the tech sector ever graduated beyond lame teenaged insults and put-downs. Sometimes I wish we could simply congratulate Apple for succeeding where others have failed, critique the company for its rough edges, and then move on.

Carmi Levy Wide Angle Zoom (v.2) The conspiracy to invent a conspiracy

So, to set the record straight, from where I sit, the media are not biased toward Apple. While there will always be those who lean one way or the other, there is no industry-wide conspiracy to paint Apple in a favorable light.

While I'm still on the conspiracy thing: No one has it in for wannabe-competitors, either. We'd all love to see countless worthy iPad competitors, and can't wait for other vendors to bring their offerings to market. The demand for something different has been obvious to us all since the very first tablet-like machines were demonstrated two decades ago. It's a category that's generated countless waves of unfulfilled hype since then, so forgive us all if we cut Apple some slack now that it has apparently cracked a very long-standing and stubborn nut. If it hadn't been Apple, the industry would still have gone a little giddy.

Detractors of all things Apple point to initial iPad sales figures as evidence that something is amiss. They claim supporters are manipulating the stats to depict Apple favorably. First off, no one cares about initial sales figures. They may fill editorial space on a slow news day, but they don't say much about a given device's long-term chances. Call me in three months and let me know how the thing is selling. Until then, trying to count a couple of days worth of sales is a patently useless exercise that proves nothing beyond the fact that some people have lots of free time on their hands.

Success makes you a target

In an age marked by endless waves of start-ups that are forgotten before anyone has a chance to remember them, the few companies that forge their own path to domination often become targets. In that regard, Apple is no different than IBM, Microsoft and, more recently, Google. If success is its own reward, it is also a prime motivator of the kind of mean-spiritedness that long ago might have been classified as sour grapes. It's high time we raised the level of discourse and rediscovered the basic principles every consumer values: Namely, does the product or service being discussed meet a given need at a given price at a given point in time? Does it do so more effectively than competing offerings? Will you buy it? Did you buy it?

Like it or not, Apple has taught itself well over the last 13 years. It reads consumers better than any other market competitor and, as a result, is able to generate levels of interest and buying activity that others can only dream about. It has learned to efficiently and effectively market itself, using processes that are rewriting the marketing zeitgeist. It succeeds where others have failed because it learns from the mistakes of others. Apple is the quintessential business success story, and we'd all do well to learn from its experience.

We'd all do well to learn from something, anyway.

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.

Has SSL become pointless? Researchers suspect state-sponsored CA forgery

Publié: mars 25, 2010, 10:14pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

The most powerful deterrent against the use of man-in-the-middle attacks against SSL/TLS-encrypted connections may be how much easier it may be to simply attack from the endpoint. Certainly "man-in-the-middle" sounds more sophisticated, and as a pair of well-known academic researchers are preparing to report, the phrase has actually become a "starburst" marketing point for the sale of digital surveillance equipment to government agencies.

But perhaps the most serious defect in the SSL system, allege Indiana University graduate student Christopher Soghoian and Mozilla security contributor Sid Stamm, lies in the ability of government agencies (or individuals acting in the name of government agencies) to acquire false intermediate certificates for SSL encrypted trust connections. Those certificates could enable them to, in turn, sign and authenticate Web site SSL certificates that purport to be legitimate collectors of personal information, such as banks.

In the draft of a research paper released today (PDF available here), Soghoian and Stamm tell the story of a recent security conference where at least one vendor touted its ability to be dropped seamlessly among a cluster of IP hosts, intercept traffic among the computers there, and echo the contents of that traffic using a tunneling protocol. The tool for this surveillance, marketed by an Arizona-based firm called Packet Forensics, purports to leverage man-in-the-middle attack strategies against SSL's underlying cryptographic protocol.

"Using 'man-in-the-middle' to intercept TLS or SSL is essentially an attack against the underlying Diffie-Hellman cryptographic key agreement protocol," reads a Packet Forensics sales brochure obtained by the researchers. "To protect against such attacks, public key infrastructure ('PKI') is often used to authenticate one or more sides of the tunnel by exchanging certain keys in advance, usually out-of-band. This is meant to provide assurance that no one is acting as an intermediary. Secure Web access (HTTP-S) is the best example of this, because when an unexpected key is encountered, a Web browser can warn the subject and give them an opportunity to accept the key or decline the connection. To use our product in this scenario, users have the ability to import a copy of any legitimate key they obtain (potentially by court order) or they can generate 'look-alike' keys designed to give the subject a false sense of confidence in its authenticity."

As the researchers report, in a conversation with the vendor's CEO, he confirmed that government agencies can compel certificate authorities (CAs) such as VeriSign to provide them with phony certificates that appear to be signed by legitimate root certificates.

So if someone is browsing a Web site whose SSL/TLS connection appears to be signed by a legitimate authority, and renegotiation (a big problem for SSL in recent months) enables the certificate securing that connection to be swapped out for a second one that appears to be signed using the same authority (because it was, but on order of a government agency), the browser may not inform the user. Suddenly a surveillance operative is acting as though he'd performed a man-in-the-middle attack like the one described in the sales brochure...but it's not really the same. The operative doesn't break the chain of trust in this scenario; instead, it falsifies the trust.

The researchers have developed a threat model based on their discoveries, superimposing government agencies in the typical role of the malicious user. They call this model the compelled certificate creation attack. As Soghoian and Stamm write, "When compelling the assistance of a CA, the government agency can either require the CA to issue it a specific certificate for each Web site to be spoofed, or, more likely, the CA can be forced to issue an intermediate CA certificate that can then be re-used an infinite number of times by that government agency, without the knowledge or further assistance of the CA. In one hypothetical example of this attack, the US National Security Agency (NSA) can compel VeriSign to produce a valid certificate for the Commercial Bank of Dubai (whose actual certificate is issued by Etisalat, UAE), that can be used to perform an effective man-in-the-middle attack against users of all modern browsers."

The researchers offered a number of such hypothetical attacks, most of which named governments and real certificate authorities (among them: VeriSign, Etisalat) by name, even though they repeatedly asserted they had no evidence that any of these governments or any of these CAs participated in such activity. "Nevertheless, VeriSign, the largest provider of SSL certificates in the world, whose customers include many foreign banks, companies and governments from countries that do not have friendly relations with the United States, also happens to make significant sums of money by facilitating the disclosure of US consumers' private data to US government law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This fact alone may be sufficient to give some foreign organizations good reason to question their choice of CA," they wrote.

The researchers do have a significant personal interest in this issue: They're working on a Firefox add-on called Certlock, yet to be released, which will augment the warnings Firefox typically presents about unusual certificate behavior. Users will be given the opportunity, for example, to take note when a certificate signing one site has itself been signed by a root certificate authority in another country or district -- for example, a "protected" Hong Kong Web service signed by mainland China.

As Stamm and Sogohian write, "When a user re-visits a SSL protected Web site, Certlock first calculates the hash of the site's certificate and compares it to the stored hash from previous visits. If it hasn't changed, the page is loaded without warning. If the certificate has changed, the CAs that issued the old and new certificates are compared. If the CAs are the same, or from the same country, the page is loaded without any warning. If, on the other hand, the CAs' countries differ, then the user will see a warning."

A change of country warning provided by Certlock, a forthcoming Firefox add-on.

The question of whether a user should automatically trust all the certificates in his browser's root store, became a sticky one for Mozilla earlier this year. At that time, the organization added the state-run China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) to its store of trusted roots, a decision which upset many Chinese users who have reason to believe China forges its own trust links in order to conduct man-in-the-middle (or from another aspect, "man-at-the-top") surveillance.

"We Chinese users don't trust CNNIC...CNNIC is an infamous organ of the Chinese Communist government to monitor and control the Internet in China," wrote a Mozilla contributor last January, in response to a request for public comment. "For secret reasons they even distributed spyware by making advantage of their administration privilege. They're one of the tools used by the CCP government to censor the Internet users. If CNNIC root certificate is added by default as Builtin Object, they can forge verified Gmail certificates to cheat the Chinese users by using MITM attack against the SSL protocol."

Other contributors agreed there may not be due cause to withdraw CNNIC from Firefox's root store, until specific evidence of claims such as this one emerges. In the meantime, many suggested the browser should arm the user with more information about the nature of the certificates he receives, as well as when and how trusted connections change. The problem with too much information, however -- as Microsoft discovered with Windows Vista -- is that users can eventually come to ignore it.

As another Mozilla participant queried in February, "Legitimate certificates do change over time...even Google has changed certificates a few times recently. Let me ask, how many of you -- yes you, the Internet experts -- have called Google to verify the change of the certificate? Let alone those writers, spiritual leaders, dissidents, farmers deprived of their land, parents whose children were buried in the bribed-to-poorly-built-school and were denied compensation and denied legal assistance, and relatives of Falun Gong practitioners whose organs are taken...You expect them to record and call to verify every certificate change?"

That phone you're about to throw away could be worth $500

Publié: mars 25, 2010, 8:25pm CET par Tim Conneally

Motorola's ROKR EM30 Linux-based mobile phone The lifespan of mobile phones is getting very short, and CTIA is packed with evidence to prove it. When I met with HTC at CES in January, they had an array of eight handsets to show off, most of which had only been released into the market within the last six months.

Now, just two months later, HTC has added four new high-end smartphones that put the entire batch that I saw in January to shame. Smartphones only remain on the cutting edge for a matter of weeks before they're usurped by the latest hot device. In the case of Android, sometimes it's only a matter of days.

When your phone draws close to the end of your two-year contract, it may seem old and worn when compared to the hot new devices. But its constituent parts have a much longer lifespan and retain a very high value.

The lens in your iPhone camera, for example, can fetch as much as $200 in the second-hand market. All those high-megapixel cameraphones with Karl Zeiss optics that were released in 2008 retain quite a bit of resale value for the camera parts alone.

In short, many high-end smartphones are worth nearly as much now as they were at launch.

I had a chance to sit down and chat with CBM Wireless Group (CWG), a consortium of companies that reconditions, recycles, and repurposes old mobile devices. From what they told me, it appears the second-hand business is thriving.

Nokia E62 And why shouldn't it be? More than a billion phones are taken out of circulation every year already, and now that the lifespan of individual devices is shortening to just a single year in many cases, there is a lot of hardware to reclaim.

While a strong recycling policy is ultimately better for the environment, companies are jumping into recycling for reasons far beyond the "green" buzzwords. It's very profitable.

So what does CWG recycle? In short, everything. They buy back used handsets from OEMs and wireless carriers in any condition. If they can be brought back to working condition, they wipe all data, replace the broken parts, and send them back into the market. If they aren't reusable as a complete unit, they're broken down into desirable parts and resold back to manufacturers, repair shops, and the carriers. And that's not just the major parts, like keyboards, screens, and chipsets; they reclaim individual parts less than a single square millimeter in size. Everything else is then destroyed, and the case of many plastic components, turned into a new, composite recycled plastic.

So if we're going to be ditching our year-old phones en masse for the new EVO 4G this summer, its good to know that recycling them will be as good for the economy as it is for the environment.

Verizon: Current telecom law is 'irrelevant' to the modern Internet

Publié: mars 25, 2010, 4:54pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Verizon "Thanks to the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission, we now have a National Broadband Plan, which lays out a vision for a vibrant broadband and Internet marketplace," began Verizon Executive Vice President for Public Affairs Tom Tauke, in a speech to the Washington think tank New Democrat Network yesterday. But that's where the perfunctory appreciation stopped: "In my view, the current statute is badly out of date. Now is the time to focus on updating the law affecting the Internet. To fulfill broadband's potential it's time for Congress to take a fresh look at our nation's communications policy framework."

It was an important speech not only for who was speaking, but where it was spoken: NDN is perhaps the furthest thing from a libertarian free-enterprise institute. It's a group of active Democrats who are celebrating the passage of step one of health care reform, and who believe that federal policy reform can reset and reinvigorate the public agenda, on issues including broadband buildout and human rights. Verizon cozying up to NDN would be like allying itself with Google...but then again, it has allied itself with Google.

What Tauke and Verizon appear to be doing is carefully connecting with the audience best equipped to move Verizon's technology agenda forward, with a message that would seem more naturally tailored to suit that group's opposition. In an amazing high-wire act yesterday that appears likely to be deemed successful, Tauke advocated to a group of supporters of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's new federal Broadband Plan, a rewriting of telecom laws that could conceivably take the FCC out of the Internet picture altogether.

"Verizon's effort over the last year or two to find common ground with Google and others on the issues of net neutrality, behavioral advertising, privacy protection, and other Internet policies, really brought home to me the dilemma we face," Tauke continued. "Too often these important discussions about policy for the Internet degenerated into disputes over the statutory authority of the FCC. Then, with the Comcast / BitTorrent case, it became clear that the debate over jurisdiction wasn't just an intellectual exercise. The authority of the FCC to regulate broadband providers under the so-called 'Information Services' title, or Title I, of the Communications Act was at best murky."

Title I is the federal statute that effectively created the FCC, giving it the authority to regulate American communications systems. But that was in 1934, when there were the public airwaves and the telephone. That statute was amended in 1996, but the new language inserted a concept of "information services" whose regulation would fall under FCC guidelines. But the Internet isn't just a two-way newspaper; business transactions take place here every moment. And the FCC has never had the authority to regulate business transactions. Title II of the statute applies to telephone networks, and one option under consideration is simply declaring broadband a telephone network.

If you ask the FCC commissioners outright, they'd say they don't want either outcome -- either to be the online equivalent of the FTC, or the modern overseer of the online Bell System. But denying either option, some say, would have the FCC forfeit its right to tell Comcast not to throttle BitTorrent traffic -- the subject of the DC Court of Appeals case to which Tauke referred. There, judges have indicated they may very well rule in Comcast's favor. If they do, the entire question of whether the FCC has the authority to execute the Broadband Plan, would be turned on its ear.

You'd think that would make Verizon happy. But in front of the NDN yesterday, Tom Tauke put a virtual piece of duct tape over that grin.

"One idea recently floated to solidify the FCC's jurisdiction was to place broadband under the old rules that applied to telephone networks under Title II. To us, that clearly was outside the scope of the statute," Verizon's Tom Tauke told the New Democrat Network yesterday. "It also highlighted the danger of attempting to apply statutory provisions intended for the telephone industry of the 1900s to the communications and Internet world of the 21st Century. In confronting this hard question about jurisdictional authority, we also faced this policy question: If Title I and Title II don't apply to the Internet space, what are you saying about the authority of government in this space?"

Long-time followers of the campaign for free enterprise among Internet stakeholders are familiar with the key phrase "light touch" -- a phrase coined by former FCC Chairman Bill Kennard (who served under Pres. Clinton, and who is now US Ambassador to the EU). With respect to broadband, it represented Chairman Kennard's perspective that government should only step in to keep competitors in bounds, but should otherwise let the market decide how the nation's broadband network is built.

It was an ingenious campaign, largely because it quelled the growing arguments of legislators on both sides of the issue of the FCC's role in broadband. Those opposed to the FCC having any role at all, on the grounds that the Internet was not like the public telephone network or the public airwaves, appreciated the FCC saying its own role should be limited. And those who favored more rigorous regulation of the market to stop unfair competition -- for instance, from a potential behemoth such as AOL Time Warner -- appreciated that the FCC would continue to keep a lookout for unfair business practices. "The approach Bill Kennard talked about years ago of using a light regulatory hand to create a highly competitive marketplace has worked," stated Tauke, praising a well-liked Clinton-era Democrat. "Now, we need to put in place a framework that will continue to encourage ongoing investment and innovation for this vibrant ecosystem we see. This should be the cornerstone for a refreshed policy framework.

"So what's the problem? The problem is that the statute is irrelevant to the ecosystem that has developed. The Internet today hosts a quarter of the world's population -- close to two billion users. The Verizon network alone connects 100 million of these users with over 1.7 billion text messages and 50 million video/pictures exchanged, 400 million e-mails received, 8.7 petabytes of video streamed. There are new pressures and challenges and problems cropping up that policymakers didn't consider a decade ago, such as the 5 billion potential cyber-threats monitored and acted upon each day."

Next: The vision of an Internet without the FCC...

The vision of an Internet without the FCC

Now that the Broadband Plan (which some say is more a list of goals than a concrete agenda) has been published, there is renewed debate over whether a federal government agency should be dictating just how broadband buildout in this country is to be completed, and which companies should be the ones doing it in what areas. What Verizon would want is an authority comparable to Bill Kennard's 1990s vision of the FCC in the broadband space. But if Julius Genachowski's 2010s FCC resembles something different, maybe there's a new way to go about realizing that early vision.

"The instinct is to impose regulation, but it's a balancing act. We want order, but we also don't want to hinder investment and innovation in this dynamic broadband and Internet marketplace. How do we accomplish this?" asked Tauke.

He immediately responded by saying he didn't have all the answers. But then he adeptly proposed one: essentially, implicitly, and without fanfare, the creation of a new federal rulemaking authority overseeing just the Internet:

"Traditional agency 'fact finding' -- often through notices or public requests for comment -- are usually geared towards specific rules or regulatory outcomes. Instead, we could structure a process that uses the innovative, flexible and technology-driven nature of the Internet to address issues as they arise. Instead of the traditional rule-making process, federal enforcement agencies could structure themselves around an on-going engagement with Internet engineers and technologists to analyze technology trends, define norms to guide such questions as network management, and understand in advance the implications of new, emerging technologies. Technology leaders and experts from all players involved in the Internet should set up voluntary organizations and forums to provide advice, recommendations, and advisory opinions to government agencies. This will help inform the agencies' role as backstops that deter damaging activities that undermine the vibrant competition and openness that defines the Internet."

This new agency was nameless in Tauke's speech, except for the fact that it did not bear the name "Federal Communications Commission."

It should be a Republican plan. But Republicans aren't in the majority at the moment (and if Tea Partiers keep throwing bricks through Congresspersons' windows and leaving death threats on their answering machines, Republicans could end up staying there). Tauke's proposal has the virtue of implicitly creating an entirely new government agency (that should be fun!). And it would empower that agency to give government grants to low-income households who would otherwise not be able to afford service -- the kind of approach that resounds with more liberal agendas.

The NDN has yet to issue a response, though one is likely forthcoming, and will be well thought-out. And if it ends up supporting Tauke's position, somewhere over the horizon, one might glimpse the face of Sun Tzu smiling.

Review: Eye-Fi X2, my CTIA secret weapon

Publié: mars 25, 2010, 8:36am CET par Tim Conneally

Two years ago, Lexar brought the Eye-Fi brand into the mainstream when it released 2GB SD cards endowed with Eye-Fi's 802.11b/g wireless connectivity. The capability turned any camera with an SD slot into one with Wi-FI. Since that time, Eye-Fi has grown its product line to include support for 802.11n, improved security features, improved capacities, and overall performance improvements.

Eye-Fi Connect X2 On Tuesday, Eye-Fi's new X2 series of wireless SD cards hit retail, bringing the 4GB Connect X2 ($49.99), 8GB Explore X2 ($99.99) and 8GB Pro X2 ($149.99) to photographers across the country.

I'd been toying with the idea of pairing up an Eye-Fi camera with a MiFi portable hotspot for a sort of goofily-named dream team that could provide a constant connection for shooting tons of pictures that instantly piped up to the cloud. Since I was headed to Vegas for CTIA this week, and Eye-Fi was launching its new X2 series, I thought it was time to try it out with a 4G Sprint Overdrive.

So I've been walking the showfloor with a WiMAX hotspot in my backpack, and the Eye-Fi Connect X2 in my point-and-shoot Canon. Short of having a camera with a built-in mobile broadband module, this is the best way to shoot pictures. While I have been concentrating on getting exciting shots, Eye-Fi has quietly been uploading them to photography-sharing sites the second they're snapped. When I finally get to sit down in the press room, all the photos are up, sorted by date, and geotagged online, and when I connect my computer to a hotspot, the photos automatically download to my Eye-Fi desktop folder.

I stuck to sending all the photos to Picasa, but I could have chosen Flickr, Snapfish, Photobucket, Shutterfly, MobileMe, Fotki, Facebook, Whrrl, Evernote, Dotphoto, SmugMug, TypePad, or even to a custom FTP site. Eye-Fi offers 28 different destinations that your photos can be sent to. Additionally, it can send video to YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, Picasa, SmugMug and Photobucket.

The only troublesome aspect of the X2 was installing the software on my computers. I first tried it on a Vista PC, but it kept crashing it, and then I tried it on a Mac running the older 10.4 Mac OS, and it also did not want to work after half a dozen attempted installs. Eventually, however, it managed to get itself installed and has been running ever since.

Though the Eye-Fi helps heat up my camera very quickly, it has not had an appreciable effect on its battery life. In the three days I've been using it, I have not run out of battery any quicker than I would have if I was using a regular SD card. This will no doubt vary from camera to camera, and I intend to test it with other models to corroborate. Not all SD-supportive cameras are compatible with Eye-Fi SD cards.

And it doesn't require a mobile hotspot in your pocket for Eye-Fi to be useful on the go. Eye-Fi users have automatic free connectivity at 21,000 U.S. hotspots including Starbucks coffee shops and Harborlink hotspots such as BP gas stations.

Windows Phone 7 Series imitates Apple's iPhone in the worst ways

Publié: mars 25, 2010, 7:22am CET par Joe Wilcox

For years, people have accused Microsoft of being an imitator, rather than innovator. Finally there is evidence: The ways Windows Phone 7 Series imitates the very worst of Apple's iPhone. Unless there is the strangest of coincidences -- like two students having the same wrong answers on a high school history test -- Microsoft is imitating Apple, using the same strategy to make the same mistakes. It's either imitation or incompetence, and out of fairness I assume the former.

The first imitation is the most baffling: Limited multitasking. Like iPhone, Windows Phone 7 Series will allow multitasking for some of its own applications, but not others. When open but not in use, third-party apps go into a pseudo-off ("dehydrated") state. By comparison, Google's Android, Nokia's Maemo or Symbian OS and Palm's WebOS all multitask (e.g., run background applications) just fine.

CNET's March 8 "Ways Android beats iPhone" expresses my sentiments: "Unlike the iPhone, Android devices like the Nexus One by HTC (pictured here) can multitask and run background processes. And how much do we love that notifications bar? A lot." As smartphones extend -- and someday replace -- the PC, multitasking will become a must-have feature.

Does Microsoft not understand this? People take multitasking for granted on the PC, which will make its absence more noticeable on the smartphone.

The Wicked Taskmaster

Case study: Joe Wilcox. Whenever out and about, I frequently use multiple background applications: Any combination of email, camera, instant messaging, music player or radio, news reader, RSS reader, Twitter or Web browser, among others. Then there are the widgets pulling down live content to the home screen(s). Given the phone's form factor, there generally can only be one visibly active application. But others run in the background. So it's possible to talk on the phone (with Bluetooth headset) while taking pictures and sending them to blog, Flickr and Twitter. Surely, other smartphone users reading this post have experienced similar benefits.

Microsoft's multitasking -- or lack thereof -- imitation will look really bad should Apple allow background applications to run on iPhone OS 4.0. Such change would bring iPhone OS on par with other multitasking mobile operating systems and make Windows Phone 7 Series look out of date even before the first devices reach market. Apple has got to do something to chip away at Symbian OS and hold back the Android army. Multitasking would be big.

To overcome some of the limitations imposed by truncated multitasking but deliver a pseudo-background application experience, Microsoft will follow Apple in another way: Like iPhone, Windows Phone 7 Series will use push notifications. It's a wild workaround -- using push to deliver, say, Facebook, IM or Twitter notifications instead of running the apps or, better, widgets in the background. It's the difference between sometimes and real time.

Waste Not, Paste Not

Another imitation follows something iPhone used to not do but Apple fixed (finally) in iPhone OS 3.x: Copy and paste will be MIA. Windows 7 Phone Series will include a pseudo copy-and-paste feature, that, for example, would "take an address and view it on a map, highlight a term in the browser and do a search or copy a phone number to make a call," according to a statement from Microsoft. "Instead of the user manually doing a copy and paste in these scenarios, we recognize those situations automatically and make them happen with just one touch." Right, but what about third-party applications? There's no copy and paste -- pseudo or real -- for them?

That question segues into yet another way Microsoft is imitating Apple. Google and Nokia offer open-source operating systems and applications platforms. Microsoft could copy from their playbook and open the development war chest. But n-o-o-o-o. Microsoft is taking an approach even more closed than Apple. Like Apple, Microsoft is effectively shutting any potential platform competition from third-party developers. Microsoft is doing this by reversing years of development philosophy: Windows 7 Phone Series won't support native applications. Developers must use the Silverlight runtime for apps and XNA for games. There are claims Flash 10.1 would run natively.

Microsoft talks big ecosystem with respect to Office, Windows, Windows Server and even Windows Mobile (now called Windows Mobile Classic). What exactly strong Windows Phone 7 Series ecosystem does Microsoft hope to generate without native applications? Mozilla already has cancelled its Fennec browser for Windows Mobile Classic and Windows Phone 7 Series; no native application support is stated reason. By the way, the Silverlight approach feels like Java in the 1990s. Write once, run anywhere -- in this case wherever Silverlight is supported.

Making Small Sense of Nonsense

Looked at differently, there's a strange sensibility to these Windows Phone 7 Series imitations because of how they hang together. From a grand product perspective, why should third-party multitasking be necessary if the only native apps are Microsoft's? Then there is copy and paste. Last I checked, copy and past isn't fully supported by Silverlight, which partly would explain limitations imposed on Windows 7 Phone Series developers. Related, as perviously stated: Pseudo copy and paste is for native applications, and they're only from Microsoft (unless Flash makes the guest list).

If Microsoft must imitate Apple, how about extending desirable features, like supporting native applications? Apple limits platform competition through the developer terms of agreement. For iPhone developers it's Apple's way or the highway. The Windows Phone 7 Series would benefit from imitating Apple's terms limitations and what Apple, Microsoft (with Windows) and most other major platform developers support: Native applications.

So what do you think? Is Microsoft imitating Apple? Does multitasking matter? Or is Microsoft treating multitasking just right? Should Windows 7 Phone Series support native apps. Please answer these questions in comments.

One more question: Do you plan on buying a Windows Phone 7 Series smartphone?

How I slashed my connection to cable TV without missing anything

Publié: mars 25, 2010, 7:06am CET par Tim Conneally

Mission: Find an affordable alternative to cable/pay TV using only off-the-shelf products.

Deadline: Today (with a clause for extension)

Like 24 million other Americans, I have a subscription to Comcast for cable television; and like an untold number of those subscribers, I feel that it costs far more than it should.

Annually, I pay more than $675 for service on one HD receiver with no premium content, even though I only watch a couple of hours of television a week. It amounts to 212 unique stations (minus the redundant HD channels.) This wasted money could be put toward something I'd actually use, like a mobile broadband subscription or a second data line, so I began looking for more cost effective alternatives.

I started this project with the idea that I could replace cable with a second broadband connection, dedicated strictly to grabbing video content from the Web, but I ended up going in a totally different direction thanks to a serendipitous TiVo Premiere review I was supposed to be writing at the same time.

You see, TiVo sent us its new Premiere DVR to check out, and I was going to hook it up to my Comcast signal to review it, but that required a cableCARD. I called Comcast to get one, and they had to send a technician out to install it, and one wouldn't be able to come out to my house for 20 days.

With the TiVo Premiere review due in just 8 days, I had no choice but to hook up the TiVo to a DTV antenna and try to make the best of it. Little did I know that this would completely change my mind about how I could cancel cable for my other project.

Part 1: Using TiVo Premiere without pay TV

TiVo Premiere Central menu

I hadn't turned on over-the-air television since long before it shifted to digital broadcast, and I thought I was going to be reviewing TiVo's brand new DVR with only a measly handful of channels to work with. I was not happy.

Some quick background: I grew up in the Baltimore area, and we only got about 6-10 over-the-air stations depending upon where you were tuning in. If you moved northward, for example, you may have been lucky enough to pick up some Pennsylvania stations, If you moved southward, you started to get Washington D.C. and Virginia stations. But as far as central Maryland goes, there were 3 VHF and 3 UHF channels and nothing else.

When I plugged the brand new DTV antenna into the TiVo Premiere, I was shocked to find that I was receiving 33 over-the-air stations. Furthermore, with the TiVo Premiere, I could hit "guide" and find information about what I was watching, and what was scheduled to come on later in the day.

TiVo Premiere

Then it dawned on me. I have 33 channels worth of free linear content that TiVo can turn into free on-demand content.

What's more, TiVo beefs up the free stuff I'm going to be watching by indexing casts, and linking shows to related Web-based content like Netflix Streaming, Amazon on Demand, Blockbuster on demand, and YouTube. It makes watching free, over-the-air content as good as, if not better than, pay television.

TiVo Premiere search

Sure, the TiVo Premiere's new UI has issues...well, one issue, really. It's not finished. Some menus are in HD and some are in SD, and the switch between them is jarring both on the viewer and a little laggy. As long as you're parked on the home screen, information pops up quickly and smoothly. But when you have to get into a part of the UI that's still in SD, you're going to encounter all-black loading screens pretty frequently.

TiVo over live TV (SD)

Maybe I'm too forgiving, but I can overlook a menu that's both HD and SD. After all, I'm not offered standard 100% HD service packages from any content provider, either, and streaming videos vary in quality from 720p all the way down to tiny, blurry molecules of unwatchable crap.

Besides, TiVo says it's going to be rolling out UI updates pretty frequently, which will make the menus that pop up over live TV high definition, and then the utility screens and messages sections will follow. The first update to the Premiere will roll out in May and will improve the features of the discovery bar located across the top of the main TiVo menu.

TiVo Wishlist

The funny thing about the TiVo Premiere is that it really doesn't do anything new. It's a TiVo, it does what TiVo always does. It does it with a more powerful dual-core processor and high definition Flash-based UI, but it remains the same viewing experience that turns regular TV viewers into TiVo cultists.

That said, it's got a number of limitations that mean it's only a single part of my solution for canceling cable, one of them is the fact that it cannot access the majority of the free content on the Web.

At $299, the TiVo Premiere makes up about half of the year's cable bill that I'm saving and helps to replace 11 channels in the Comcast package. Some of the over-the-air networks I receive are not included in my Comcast package, but could serve as a loose replacement for others. MGM's THiS network, for example, takes on characteristics of both TV Land and AMC.

I have not broken it down to its show-by-show replacement value because that would have REALLY extended me past my deadline, but my early estimate is that an OTA TiVo Premiere could replace between 20%-25% of the content I would have been watching on my cable subscription. This is made up of the content it captures from live broadcasts, the access it has to YouTube, and its extensive roster of video podcasts it can capture. With the addition of a single-disc Netflix account, my overall annual cost rises by $108, but the amount of content available to me also significantly increases. (note: I don't think I should include this in my overall cost since I was paying for Netflix already, but I am just for the sake of everyone who doesn't.)

Since Amazon on Demand and Blockbuster on Demand are both pay-per-item, they also increase available content, but only really replace the pay-per-view section of Comcast's lineup.

Next: Bringing the Web to your TV for $40...

Part 2: Bringing Web content fully to the TV

The bottom line in free web-based television content is still Hulu, and your options for bringing that to your TV with regular old consumer gear are pretty limited. However, there is one software solution that gives all three major home video game consoles access to Hulu and other Web video sites for a single $39.99 license fee: MediaMall's PlayOn Digital Media Server.

PlayOn's main menu on the Wii

Now, I've heard people complain about PlayOn because of MediaMall's charge for the license. But the fact remains that it's been the most consistent TV-based access to Hulu when all the other free solutions keep getting blocked. That alone is worth it to me.

PlayOn does Hulu on the Wii

So PlayOn gives your console access to content from networks like NBC, ABC, Disney, PBS, and Comedy Central via Hulu, and there are user-installable plugins (or "channels" if you prefer) for Cartoon Network/Adult Swim, Discovery Channel, SyFy, ESPN, Food Network, Fox News, HGTV, a surprisingly comprehensive one for MTV, Spike TV, C-Span, VH1, Nickelodeon, and CNN.

PlayOn's PC-based server component

You install the MediaMall server on your connected PC, and all of your game consoles have access to PlayOn channels, the content on your PC's drives, and any networked storage.

One of the most startling parts of PlayOn is that every single feature works on the humble Nintendo Wii through its built-in Opera browser. THE most startling part is that it's actually the best implementation of PlayOn on all three consoles, and it's still only in beta. I am fully aware that the Wii is not an HD device, but when you consider the source quality of most of the content you'll be watching, you realize that the lack of HD can actually be a blessing.

PlayOn accessing music on a local server

With Hulu and all of the other plugins, PlayOn delivers content from more than 20 networks, and could replace as much as 40% of the content that I paid for on Comcast.

The problem remains that there are still a ton of cable channels putting up their content for free on the Web, but there's no central place to view them on your television. This includes stations like FX, Bravo, E!, USA, and ABC Family, all of which offer full episodes of their most popular shows directly on their Web sites, and other stations like QVC and Home Shopping network, which run 24/7 streams of their channels on the Web.

In a nutshell, the content is out there, there's just no comprehensive way to get it without building a custom home theater PC. However, I've cut my expenses by 33% and have access to anywhere from 55%-70% of the content at my disposal with Comcast, I consider quitting cable easily justified.

I'm still looking for a way to increase my access to online video without significantly adding to the price to sweeten the setup further. I've got $227 left before I'm back to what I'd spend for one year of Comcast, so I'd say things are looking pretty good.

Mission: Ongoing

Exclusive: Olympic snowboarder Shaun White discusses his first skateboarding game

Publié: mars 24, 2010, 11:41pm CET par Tim Conneally

Of all the things we expected to come from a conference about wireless technology, an interview with a two-time gold medal olympian was not one of them, but today, Betanews got an exclusive interview with professional snowboarder/skateboarder Shaun White about his first skateboarding-only videogame from Ubisoft.

Olympic Snowboarder Shaun White

Truth be told, running into Shaun was purely accidental. I was scheduled to talk to Marvell about its Armada 600 platform at the very same time the he was scheduled to do an autograph signing for the company. As a huge line amassed around Marvell's booth, I completely expected to have my discussion time bumped. Instead, Marvell invited me to ask Shaun a few questions.

"We've got a skateboarding game coming out that's been three years in the making," White said. "I've finished the soundtrack, voice-over stuff within the next little bit here. But it's amazing, it's one of the best games we've played. We had a writer from Family Guy to write the script. I mean...when I play a game, I wanna have fun, I want to enjoy it and also laugh, you know what I mean? It's got to be a mixture of things, so it's pretty cool."

As a skateboarder and snowboarder, I assumed White has played at least one of the long-running Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series. I asked him how this game compares.

"It's a mixture, obviously. You can't just deny the fact that Tony [Hawk]'s games are incredibly fun, and the SKATE game is a bunch of fun. But...I'm proud to say, it's not a re-do of their games in the slightest. We have certain elements, certain controller things that we kind of borrowed from SKATE -- trick styles, and the way the levels are built, it's like we got [ideas for] those things from Tony's, but it's definitely like a mixture of those two," White said.

"Basically, everywhere you go, everything changes. So as you skate, you create your whole world. It's like the whole world's black and white and you have to basically change the world through your actions. So you're only [at] this little stair, and then when you land, the shock wave goes out, and trees start sprouting, rails start growing. The whole thing changes, the music picks up, it's just really entertaining. It's just like you shaping the world, and you can actually get on rails and, like, shape the way they're going to go. You control everything."

Unfortunately, I didn't get to talk to White any more about the upcoming game, but he's very excited about it. White's talents as a professional skateboarder are sometimes overlooked by his domination in competitive snowboarding.

I was going to ask him what kind of phone he uses, but that was when I was actually bumped. Specifically by Marvell's COO, Weili Dai, who came in to meet the olympian, who she said "looks just like a UC Berkley student."

Betanews Relative Performance Index for browsers 3.0: How it works and why

Publié: mars 24, 2010, 8:33pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

The Betanews test suite for Windows-based Web browsers is a set of tools for measuring the performance, compliance, and scalability of the processing component of browsers, particularly their JavaScript engines and CSS renderers. Our suite does not test the act of loading pages over the Internet, or anything else that is directly dependent on the speed of the network.

But what is it measuring, really? The suite is measuring the browser's capability to perform instructions and produce results. In the early days of microcomputing, computers (before we called them PCs) came with interpreters that processed instructions and produced results. Today, browsers are the virtual equivalent of Apple IIs and TRS-80s -- they process instructions, and produce results. Many folks think they're just using browsers to view blog pages and check the scores. And then I catch them watching Hulu or playing a game on Facebook or doing something silly on Miniclip, and surprise, they're not just reading the paper online anymore. More and more, a browser is a virtual computer.

So I test it like a computer, not like a football scoreboard. The final result is a raw number that, for the first time on Betanews, can be segmented into three categories: computational performance (raw number crunching), rendering performance, and scalability (defined momentarily). These categories are like three aspects of a computer; they are not all the aspects of a computer, but they are three important ones. They're useful because they help you to appreciate the different browsers for the quality of the work they are capable of providing.

Relative performance of Web browsers in Windows 7 by category, March 22, 2010.

Many folks tell me they don't do anything with their browsers that requires any significant number crunching. The most direct response I have to this is: Wrong. Web pages are sophisticated pieces of software, especially where cross-domain sharing is involved. They're not pre-printed and reproduced like something from a fax machine; more and more, they're adaptive composites of both textual and graphic components from a multitude of sources, that come together dynamically. The degree of math required to make everything flow and align just right, is severely under-appreciated.

Why is everything relative?

By showing relative performance, the aim of the RPI index is to give you a simple-to-understand gauge of how two or more browsers compare to one another on any machine you install them on. That's why we don't render results in milliseconds. Instead, all of our results are multiples of the performance of a relatively slow Web browser that is not a recent edition: Microsoft Internet Explorer 7, running on Windows Vista SP2 (the slower of the three most recent Windows versions), on the same machine (more about the machine itself later).

I'm often asked, why don't I show results relative to IE8, a more recent version? The answer is simple: It wouldn't be fair. Many users prefer IE8 and deserve a real measurement of its performance. When Internet Explorer 9 debuts, I will switch the index to reflect a multiple of IE8 performance. In years to come, however, I predict it will be more difficult to find a consistently slow browser on which to base our index. I don't think it's fair for anyone, including us, to presume IE will always be the slowest brand in the pack.

Browsers will continue to evolve; and as they do, certain elements of our test suite may become antiquated, or unnecessary. But that time hasn't come yet. JavaScript interpreters are, for now, inherently single-threaded. So the notion that there may be some interpreters better suited to multi-core processors, has not been borne out by our investigation, including from the information we've been given by browser manufacturers. Also, although basic Web standards compliance continues to be important (our tests impose a rendering penalty for not following standards, where applicable), HTML 5 compliance is not a reality for any single browser brand. Everyone, including Microsoft, wants to be the quintessential HTML 5 browser, but the final working draft of the standard was only published by W3C weeks ago.

There will be a time when HTML 5 compliance should be mandatory, and we'll adapt when the time comes.

Relative performance of major Web browsers in Windows 7, March 22, 2010.

What's this "scalability" thing?

In speaking recently with browser makers -- especially with the leader of the IE team at Microsoft, Dean Hachamovitch -- I came to agree with a very fair argument about our existing test suite: It failed to account for performance under stress, specifically with regard to each browser's capability to crunch harder tasks and process them faster when necessary.

A simple machine slows down proportionately as its workload increases linearly. A well-programmed interpreter is capable of literally pre-digesting the tasks in front of it, so that at the very least it doesn't slow down as much -- if planned well, it can accelerate. Typical benchmarks have the browser perform a number of tasks repetitively. But because JavaScript interpreters are (for now) single-threaded, when scripts are written to interrupt a sequence of reiterative instructions every second or so -- for instance, to update the elapsed time reading, or to spin some icon to remind the user the script is running -- that very act works against the interpreter's efficiency. Specifically, it inserts events into the stream that disrupt the flow of the test, and work against the ability of the interpreter to break it down further. As I discovered when bringing together some tried and true algorithms for our new test suite, including one-second or even ten-second timeouts messes with the results.

Up to now, the third-party test suites we've been using (SunSpider, SlickSpeed, JSBenchmark) perform short bursts of instructions and measure the throughput within given intervals. These are fair tests, but only under narrow circumstances. With the tracing abilities of JavaScript interpreters used in Firefox, Opera, and the WebKit-based browsers, the way huge sequences of reiterative processes are digested, is different than the way short bursts are digested. I discovered this, with the help of engineers from Opera, when debugging the old test battery I've since thrown out of our suite: A smart JIT compiler can effectively dissolve a thousand or a million or ten million instructions that effectively do nothing, into a few void instructions that accomplish the same nothing. So if a test pops up a "0 ms" result, and you increase the workload by a factor of, say, a million, and it still pops up "0 ms"...that's not an error. That's the sign of a smart JIT compiler.

The proof of this premise also shows up when you vary the workload of a test that does a little something more than nothing: Browsers like Chrome accelerate the throughput when the workload is greater. So if their interpreters "knew" the workload was great to begin with, rather than just short bursts or, instead, infinite loops broken by timeouts (whose depth perhaps cannot be traced in advance), they might actually present better results.

That's why I've decided to make scalability count for one-third of our overall score: Perhaps an interpreter that's not the fastest to begin with, is still capable of finding that extra gear when the workload gets tougher; and perhaps we could appreciate that fact if we only took the time to do so.

Next: The newest member of the suite...

The newest member of the suite

Decades ago, back when I tested the efficiency of BASIC and C compilers, I published the results under my old pseudonym, "D. F. Scott." In honor of my former "me," I named our latest benchmark test battery "DFScale."

It has ten components, two of which are broken into two sub-components, for a total of 12 tests. Each component renders results on a grid which is divided into numbers of total iterations: 20, 22, 24, 30, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 10000, 25000, 50000, 100000, 250000, 500000, 1000000, and 10000000. Not every component can go that high. By that, I mean that at high levels, the browser can crash, or hang, or even generate stack overflow errors. Until I am satisfied that these errors are not exploitable for malicious purposes, I will not release the DFScale suite to the public.

On the low end of the scale, I scale some components up where the iteration numbers are too low to make meaningful judgments. So for a test whose difficulty scales exponentially -- and rapidly -- like the Fibonacci sequence, for instance, I stick to the low end of the scale.

Some tests involve the use of arrays of random integers, whose size and scale equally correspond to the grid numbers. So an array of 10,000 units, for example, would contain random values from 1 to 10,000. Yes, we use the fairer random number generator and value shuffler used by Microsoft to correct its browser choice screen, in an incident brought to the public's attention in early March by IBM's Rob Weir. In fact, the shuffler is one of our tests; and in honor of Weir, we named the test the "Rob Weir Shuffle."

To ensure fairness, we randomize and shuffle the arrays that components will use (except for the separate test of the "Weir Shuffle") at the start of runtime. Then components will sort through copies of the same shuffled arrays, rather than regenerate new ones.

Reiterative loops run uninterrupted on each browser, which is something that some browsers don't like. Internet Explorer stops "runaway" loops to ask the user if she wishes to continue; to keep this from happening, we tweaked the System Registry. Chrome puts up a warning giving the user the option to stop the loop, but that warning is on a separate thread which apparently does not slow down the loop.

Each component of DFScale produces a pair of scores, for speed and scalability, which require Excel for us to tally. The speed score is the average of the iterations per second for each grid number. The scalability score is a product of two elements: First, the raw times for each grid number are plotted geometrically on the y-axis, with the numbers of iterations on the x-axis. We then estimate a best-fit line, and calculate the slope of that line. The lower the slope, the higher the score. Secondly, we estimate a best-fit exponential curve, representing the amount of acceleration a JIT compiler can provide over time. Again, the lower the curve's coefficient, the flatter the curve is, and the higher the score.

Rather than attribute arbitrary numbers to that score, we compare the slope and coefficient values to those generated from a test of IE7 in Vista SP2. Otherwise, saying that browser A scored a 3 and browser B scored a 12, would be meaningless -- twelve of what? So the final score on a component is 50% slope, 50% curve, relative to IE7.

The ten tests in the (current) DFScale suite are as follows:

The "Rob Weir Shuffle" - or rather, the fairer array shuffling algorithm made popular by Weir's disassembly of the standard random number generator in IE.
The Sieve of Eratosthenes (which I used so often during the '80s that several readers suggested it be officially renamed "The D. F. Sieve"). It's the algorithm used to identify prime numbers in a long sequence; and here, the sequence lengths are determined by the grid numbers.
The Fibonacci sequence, which is an algorithm that produces integers that are each the sum of the previous two. Of the many ways of expressing this algorithm, we picked two with somewhat different construction. The first compresses the entire comparison operation into a single instruction, using an alternative syntax first introduced in C. The second breaks down the operation into multiple instructions -- and because it's longer, you'd think it would be harder to run. It's not, because the alternative syntax ends up being more difficult for JIT compilers to digest, which is why the longer form has been dubbed the "Fast Fib."
The native JavaScript sort() method, which isn't really a JavaScript algorithm at all, but a basic test of each browser's ability to sort an array using native code. In the real world, the sort() method is the typical way developers will handle large arrays; they don't include their own QuickSort or Heap Sort scripts. The reason we test these other sorting algorithms (to be explained further) is to examine the different ways JavaScript interpreters handle and break down reiterative tasks. The native method can conceivably act as a benchmark for relative efficiency; and amazingly, external scripts can be faster than the native method, especially in Google Chrome.
Radix Sort is an algorithm that simulates the actions of an old IBM punch-card sorter, which sorted a stack of cards based on their 0 - 9 digits at various locations. No one would dare use this algorithm today for real sorting, but it does test each browser's ability to scale up a fixed and predictable set of rules, when the complexity of the problem scales exponentially. Nearly all browsers are somewhat slower with the Radix at larger values, with IE8 dramatically slower.
QuickSort is the time-tested "divide-and-conquer" approach to sorting lists or arrays, that often remains the algorithm of choice for large indexes. It picks a random array value, called a "pivot point," and then shuffles the others to one side or the other based on their relative value. The result are groups of lower and higher values that are separated from one another, and can in turn be sorted as smaller groups.

Merge Sort is a more complex approach to divide-and-conquer that is often used for sorting objects with properties rather than just arrays. It efficiently divides a complex array into smaller arrays within a binary tree, sorts the smaller ones, and then integrates the results with bigger ones as it goes along. It's also very memory intensive, because it breaks up the problem all over the place. (If the video below doesn't explain it for you, then at least it will give you something to temper your nightmares.)

Bubble Sort is the quintessential test of the simplest, if least efficient, methodology for attacking a problem: It compares two adjacent values in the array repetitively, and keeps moving the highest one further forward...until it can't do that anymore, at which point, it declares the array sorted. As a program, it should break down extremely simply, which should give interpreters an excuse to find that extra gear...if it has one. If it doesn't, the sort times will scale very exponentially as the problem size scales linearly.
Heap Sort has been said to be the most stable performer of all the sort algorithms. Naturally, this is the one that gives our browsers the most fits -- the stack overflow errors happen here. Safari handles the error condition by simply refusing to crash, but ending the loop -- which speaks well for its security. It cannot perform this test at ten million iterations. Other browsers...can force a reboot if the problem size is too high. Essentially, its task is to weed out high values from a shrinking array. The weeds are piled atop a heap, and the pile forms a sorted array.
Euler's Problem #14 is a wonderful discovery I made while searching for a test that was similar in some ways to, but different in others from, the Fibonacci sequence. The page where I discovered it grabbed my attention for its headline, "Yet Another Meaningless JavaScript Benchmark," which somehow touched my soul. The challenge for this problem was to find a way of demonstrating the "unproven conjecture" that a particular chain of numbers, starting with any given integer value and following only two rules, would eventually pare down to 1. The rules are: 1) if the value is even, the next value in the chain is the current one divided by 2; 2) if the value is odd, the next one is equal to three times the current one, plus 1. Our test runs the conjecture with the first 1000, 10000, 25000 integers, and so on. The problem should scale almost linearly, giving interpreters the opportunity to push the envelope and accelerate. In our first test of the IE9 Tech Preview, it appeared to be accelerating very well, running the first 250,000 integer sequence in 0.794 seconds versus 10.9 seconds for IE8. Alas, IE9 is not yet stable enough to run the test with higher values.
Problem 14 is also interesting for us because we test it two ways, suggested by blogger and developer Motti Kanzkron: He realized that at some point, future sequences would always touch upon a digit used in previous sequences, whose successive values in the chain would always be the same. So there's no need to complete the rest of the sequence if it's already been done once; his optimization borrows memory to tack old sequences onto new ones and move forward. We compare the brute-force "naïve" version to the smart "optimized" version, to judge the ability of a JIT compiler to optimize code compared to an optimization that would be more obvious to a programmer.

Next: The other third-party test batteries...

The other third-party test batteries

Since we started testing browsers in early 2009, Betanews has maintained one very important methodology: We take a slow Web browser that you might not be using much anymore, and we pick on its sorry self as our test subject. We base our index on the assessed speed of Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista SP2 -- the slowest browser still in common use. For every test in the suite, we give IE7 a 1.0 score. Then we combine the test scores to derive an RPI index number that, in our estimate, best represents the relative performance of each browser compared to IE7. So for example, if a browser gets a score of 6.5, we believe that once you take every important factor into account, that browser provides 650% the performance of IE7.

We believe that "performance" means doing the complete job of providing rendering and functionality the way you expect, and the way Web developers expect. So we combine computational efficiency, rendering efficiency (coupled with standards compliance tests), and scalability. This way, a browser with a 6.5 score can be thought of as doing the job more than five times faster and better.

Here now are the other third-party batteries we use for our Browser Test Suite 3.0, and how we've modified them where necessary to suit our purposes:

Nontroppo CSS rendering test. Up until recently, we were using a modified version of a rendering test used by HowToCreate.co.uk, whose two purposes have been to time how long it takes to re-render the contents of multiple arrays of <DIV> elements and to time the loading of the page that includes those elements. The reason we modified this page was because the JavaScript onLoad event fires at different times for different browsers -- despite its documented purpose, it doesn't necessarily mean the page is "loaded." There's a real-world reason for these variations: In Apple Safari, for instance, some page contents can be styled the moment they're available, but before the complete page is rendered, so firing the event early enables the browser to do its job faster -- in other words, Apple doesn't just do this to cheat. But the actual creators of the test themselves, at nontroppo.org, did a better job of compensating for the variations than we did: Specifically, the new version now tests to see when the browser is capable of accessing that first <DIV> element, even if (and especially when) the page is still loading.
Here's how we developed our new score for this test battery: There are three loading events: one for Document Object Model (DOM) availability, one for first element access, and the third being the conventional onLoad event. We counted DOM load as one sixth, first access as two sixths, and onLoad as three sixths of the rendering score. Then we adjusted the re-rendering part of the test so that it iterates 50 times instead of just five. This is because some browsers do not count milliseconds properly in some platforms -- this is the reason why Opera mysteriously mis-reported its own speed in Windows XP as slower than it was. (Opera users everywhere...you were right, and we thank you for your persistence.) By running the test for 10 iterations for five loops, we can get a more accurate estimate of the average time for each iteration because the millisecond timer will have updated correctly. The element loading and re-rendering scores are averaged together for a new and revised cumulative score -- one which readers will discover is much fairer to both Opera and Safari than our previous version.
Celtic Kane JSBenchmark.The new JSBenchmark from Sean P. Kane is a modern version of the classic math tests first made popular, if you can believe it, by folks like myself who tested compilers for computer magazines. QuickSort is covered here too, and in this case, JSBenchmark renders relative throughput during a given interval. There's other problems too, including one called the "Genetic Salesman," which finds the shortest route through a geometrically complex maze. It's good to see a modern take on my old favorites. Rather than run a fixed number of iterations and time the result, JSBenchmark runs an undetermined number of iterations within a fixed period of time, and produces indexes that represent the relative efficiency of each algorithm during that set period -- higher numbers are better.
SunSpider JavaScript benchmark. Maybe the most respected general benchmark suite in the field, SunSpider focuses on computational JavaScript performance rather than rendering -- the raw ability of the browser's underlying JavaScript engine. It comes from the folks who produce the WebKit open source rendering engine that currently has closer ties with Safari, but we've found SunSpider's results to appear fair and realistic, and not weighted toward WebKit-based browsers. There are nine categories of real-world computational tests (3D geometry, memory access, bitwise operations, complex program control flow, cryptography, date objects, math objects, regular expressions, and string manipulation). Each test in this battery is much more complex, and more in-tune with real functions that Web browsers would perform every day, than the more generalized, classic approach now adopted by JSBenchmark. All nine categories are scored and average relative to IE7 in Vista SP2.
Mozilla 3D cube by Simon Speich, also known as Testcube 3D, is an unusual discovery from an unusual source: an independent Swiss developer who devised a simple and quick test of DHTML 3D rendering while researching the origins of a bug in Firefox. That bug has been addressed already, but the test fulfills a useful function for us: It tests only graphical dynamic HTML rendering -- which is finally becoming more important thanks to more capable JavaScript engines. And it's not weighted toward Mozilla -- it's a fair test of anyone's DHTML capabilities.
There are two simple heats whose purpose is to draw an ordinary wireframe cube and rotate it in space, accounting for forward-facing surfaces. Each heat produces a set of five results: total elapsed time, the amount of that time spent actually rendering the cube, the average time each loop takes during rendering, and the elapsed time in milliseconds of the fastest and slowest loop. We add those last two together to obtain a single average, which is compared with the other three times against scores in IE7 to yield a comparative index score. We also now extrapolate a scalability score, which compares the results from the larger cube to the smaller one to see if the interpreter accelerated and by how much.
SlickSpeed CSS selectors test suite. As JavaScript developers know, there are a multitude of third-party libraries in addition to the browser's native JS library, that enable browsers to access elements of a very detailed and intricate page (among other things). For our purposes, we've chosen a modified version of SlickSpeed by Llama Lab, which covers many more third-party libraries including Llama's own. This version tests no fewer than 56 shorthand methods that are supposed to be commonly supported by all JavaScript libraries, for accessing certain page elements. These methods are called CSS selectors (one of the tested libraries, called Spry, is supported by Adobe and documented here).
So Llama's version of the SlickSpeed battery tests 56 selectors from 10 libraries, including each browser's native JavaScript (which should follow prescribed Web standards). Multiple iterations of each selector are tested, and the final elapsed times are rendered. Here's the controversial part: Some have said the final times are meaningless because not every selector is supported by each browser; although SlickSpeed marks each selector that generates an error in bold black, the elapsed time for an error is usually only 1 ms, while a non-error is as high as 1000. We compensate for this by creating a scoring system that penalizes each error for 1/56 of the total, so only the good selectors are scored and the rest "get zeroes."
Here's where things get hairy: As some developers already know, IE7 got all zeroes for native JavaScript selectors. It's impossible to compare a good score against no score, so to fill the hole, we use the geometric mean of IE7's positive scores with all the other libraries, as the base number against which to compare the native JavaScript scores of the other browsers, including IE8. The times for each library are compared against IE7, with penalties assessed for each error (Firefox, for example, can generate 42 errors out of 560, for a penalty of 7.5%.) Then we assess the geometric mean, not the average, of each battery -- the reason we do this is because we're comparing the same functions for each library, not different categories of functions as with the other suites. Geometric means will account better for fluctuations and anomalies.

Next: Table rendering and standards compliance...

Table rendering and standards compliance

Nontroppo table rendering test. As has already been proven in the field, CSS is the better platform for rendering complex pages using magazine-style layout. Still, a great many of the world's Web pages continue to use HTML's old <TABLE> element (created to render data in formal tables) for dividing pages into grids. We heard from you that if IE7 is still important (it is our index browser after all), old-style table rendering should still be tested. And we concur. The creator of our CSS rendering test has created a similar platform for testing not only how long it takes a browser to render a huge table, but how soon the individual cells (<TD> elements) of that table are available for manipulation. When the test starts, it times the duration until the browser starts rendering the table and then ends that rendering, from the same mark, for two index scores. It also times the loading of the page, for a third index score. Then we have it re-render the contents of the table five times, and average the time elapsed for each one, for a fourth score. The four items are then averaged together for a cumulative score.
Nontroppo standard browser load test. (That Nontroppo gets around, eh?) This may very well be the most generally boring test of the suite: It's an extremely ordinary page with ordinary illustrations, followed by a block full of nested <DIV> elements. But it allows us to take away all the variable elements and concentrate on straight rendering and relative load times, especially when we launch the page locally. It produces document load time, document plus image load times, DOM load times, and first access times, all of which are compared to IE7 and averaged.
Canvas rendering test. The canvas object in JavaScript is a local memory segment where client-side instructions can plot complex geometry or even render detailed, animated text, all without communicating with the server. The Web page contains all the instructions the object needs; the browser downloads them, and the contents are plotted locally. We discovered on the blog of Web developer Ernest Delgado a personal test originally meant to demonstrate how much faster the Canvas object was than using Vector Markup Language in Internet Explorer, or Scalable Vector Graphics in Firefox. We'd make use of the VML and SVG test ourselves if Apple's Safari -- in the interest of making things faster -- hadn't implemented a system that replaces them with Canvas by default. (To embrace HTML 5, newer browsers will have to incorporate SVG; and IE9 is finally taking big steps in that direction.)
We use Delgado's rendering test to grab two sets of plot points from Yahoo's database -- one outlining the 48 contiguous United States, and one set outlining Alaska complete with all its islands. Those plot points are rendered on top of Google Maps projections of the mainland US and Alaska at equal scale, and both renderings are timed separately. Those times are compared against IE7, and the two results are averaged with one another for a final score.
Acid3 standards compliance test. To the extent to which browsers don't follow the most commonly accepted Web standards, we penalize them in the rendering category. Think of it like a Winter biathlon where, for every target the skier fails to shoot, he has to ski a mini-lap. The function of the Web Standards Project's Acid3 test has changed dramatically, especially as most of our browsers become fully compliant. IE7 only scored a 12% on the Acid3, and IE8 scored 20%; but today, most of the alternative browsers are at 100% compliance, with Firefox at 93% and with 3.7 Alpha 1 scoring 96%. So it means less now than it did in earlier months to have Acid3 yield an index score of 8.33, which is the score for any browser that scores 100% thanks to IE7. Now that cumulative index scores are closer to 20, having an eight-and-a-third in the mix has become a deadweight rather than a reward.
So now, for the other batteries that have to do with rendering (all three Nontroppos and TestCube 3D), plus the native JavaScript library portion of the SlickSpeed test, we're multiplying the index score by the Acid3 percentage. As a result, the amount of any non-compliance with the Web Standards Project's assessment is applied as a penalty against those rendering scores. Today, only Mozilla and Microsoft browsers are affected by this penalty, and Firefox only slightly -- all the others are unaffected.
The CSS3.info compliance test. Microsoft asked us, as long as we're calling Acid3 a litmus test for standards, why don't we also pay attention to the CSS3.info test for CSS compliance. It was a fair question, and we checked into it, we couldn't find anything against it. There are 578 standard selectors in the CSS3 test, the fraction of which that each browser supports constitutes a percentage. It's then combined with the Acid3 percentage to yield a total rendering penalty. (Yes, Microsoft argued its way out of a few points: IE8 scores 20% on the Acid3, but 60.38% on the CSS3.info, for a 40% allowable percentage instead of 20%.)

Next: Our physical test platform, and why it doesn't matter...

Our physical test platform, and why it doesn't matter

The physical test platform we've chosen for browser testing is a triple-boot system, which enables us to boot different Windows platforms from the same large hard drive. For the Comprehensive Browser Test (CRPI), our platforms are Windows XP Professional SP3, Windows Vista Ultimate SP2, and Windows 7 RTM. For the standard RPI test, we use just Windows 7.

All platforms are always brought up to date using the latest Windows updates from Microsoft, prior to testing. We realize, as some have told us, this could alter the speed of the results obtained. However, we expect real-world users to be making the same changes, rather than continuing to use unpatched and outdated software. Certainly the whole point of testing Web browsers on a continual basis is because folks want to know how Web browsers are evolving, and to what degree, on as close to real-time a scale as possible. When we update Vista, we re-test IE7 on that platform to ensure that all index scores are relative to the most recent available performance, even for that aging browser on that old platform.

Our physical test system is an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600-based computer using a Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 motherboard, an Nvidia 8600 GTS-series video card, 3 GB of DDR2 DRAM, and a 640 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 hard drive (among others). Three Windows XP SP3, Vista SP2, and Windows 7 RC partitions are all on this drive. Since May 2009, we've been using a physical platform for browser testing, replacing the virtual test platforms we had been using up to that time. Although there are a few more steps required to manage testing on a physical platform, you've told us you believe the results of physical tests will be more reliable and accurate.

But the fact that we perform all of our tests on one machine, and render their results as relative speeds, means that the physical platform is actually immaterial here. We could have chosen a faster or slower computer (or, frankly, a virtual machine) and you could run this entire battery of tests on whatever computer you happen to own. You'd get the same numbers because our indexes are all about how much faster x is than y, not how much actual time elapsed.

The speed of our underlying network is also not a factor here, since all of our tests contain code that is executed locally, even if it's delivered by way of a server. The download process is not timed, only the execution.

Why don't we care about download speeds, especially how long it takes to load certain pages? We do, but we're still in search of a scientifically reliable method to test download efficiency. Web pages change by the second, so any test that measures the time a handful of browsers consumes to download content from any given set of URLs, is almost pointless today. And the speed of the network can vary greatly, so a reliable final score would have to factor out the speed at the time of each iteration. That's a cumbersome approach, and that's why we haven't embarked on it yet.

There are three major benchmark suites that we have evaluated and re-evaluated, and with respect to their authors, we have chosen not to use. Dromaeo comes from a Firefox contributor whom we respect greatly, named John Resig. We appreciate Resig's hard work, but we don't yet feel his results numbers correspond to the differences in performance that we see with our own eyes, or that we can time with a stopwatch. The browsers just aren't that close together. Meanwhile, we've currently rejected Google's V8 suite -- built to test its V8 JavaScript engine -- for the opposite reason: Yes, we know Chrome is more capable than IE. But 230 times more capable? No. That's overkill. There's a huge exponential curve there that's not being accounted for, and once it is, we'll reconsider it.

We've also been asked to evaluate Futuremark's PeaceKeeper. I'm very familiar with Futuremark's tests from my days at Tom's Hardware. Though it's obvious to me that there's a lot going on in each of the batteries of the Peacekeeper suite, it doesn't help much that the final result is rendered only as a single tick-mark. And while that may sound hypocritical from a guy who's pushing a single performance index, the point is, for us to make sense of it, we need to be able to see into it -- how did that number get that high or that low? If Futuremark would just break down the results into components, we could compare each of those components against IE7 and the modern browsers, and we could determine where each browser's strengths and weaknesses lie. Then we could tally an index based on those strengths and weaknesses, rather than an artificial sum of all values that blurs all those distinctions.

This is as complete and as thorough an explanation of our testing procedure as you're ever going to get.

Why Sony Ericsson is worth watching in the Android space

Publié: mars 24, 2010, 7:16pm CET par Tim Conneally

Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 Mini Pro

In the past, having too many different screen resolutions to support was a problem for Windows Mobile developers. For the users of Android phones, it seems like too few screen sizes could become a problem. With Android, there are only three general screen classes: small, medium, and large.

And the trend lately among Android devices has been to have bigger and brighter screens. When the Motorola Droid debuted last October, the device's 3.7" screen looked downright huge. Yesterday, the 4" screen on the Samsung Galaxy S and 4.3" screen on the HTC EVO made the Droid look small by comparison. Unfortunately, the shape of the chassis must reflect the size of the screen. What's happening is that we are seeing bigger, flatter phones.

That's why Sony Ericsson's Xperia X10 line is so compelling. The X10 was one of the first Android devices with a 1 GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon processor, and the first to offer a 4" screen, but Sony Ericsson isn't using that model as a baseline to crazily push toward tablet-sized phones. Quite the contrary, it's using it as the biggest model in a line of phones conceptually more like the iPod. At Mobile World Congress in February, the company announced that it was going against what most other manufacturers appeared to be doing with Android, and made their devices smaller.

In fact, now Sony Ericsson has made the smallest Android phone yet.

Last night, I got a chance to play with the Xperia X10 Mini Pro, and I was supremely impressed. The tiny X10 Mini Pro can fit in the palm of my hand, and yet almost no usability has been sacrificed. The chiclet keyboard is highly responsive, and though it is running an older version of Android, the UI has been totally redesigned to make it easy to use on a small screen.

Though Sony Ericsson isn't one of the hotter brands in the United States, its products are highly compelling, especially if you are looking for something outside of the standard touchphone form factor.

The Xperia X10 Mini Pro will be available in Europe in May, but sadly, no US release plans have yet been announced.

Google's Hong Kong move leads to censorship, followed closely by opportunism

Publié: mars 24, 2010, 4:58pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

The ChinaChannel.hk plug-in to Firefox 3.0 bravely makes efforts to connect us with a China-based proxy.

What, exactly, would one be blocked from seeing now that the "Great Firewall of China," as it's been dubbed, separates citizens of mainland China from Google? This morning, Betanews used a fabulous Firefox 3.0 add-in tool called ChinaChannel, created by independent developers in Hong Kong, to set up a proxy connection using a China IP address, so we could peruse Google as though we were in China itself. Then using an ordinary copy of Opera 10.51 on the other side, we browsed Google.com.hk -- the server to which Google is now redirecting Google.cn requests -- using our regular US-based connection.

We've used this tool in the past, and we had an easier time obtaining a proxy connection with a China-based proxy. At first this morning, we found proxy servers were frequently denying connection requests, although repeated requests often got through after 10 or more tries. However, sometimes our connection only lasted as long as a minute.

We can't see pictures of bombs bursting in air, from a Chinese IP address. Although Google's PRC service status page reports its Images service is online, we noticed that from time to time, we were not able to obtain image results from searches. Sometimes image results did not appear within regular Web queries, when using the US-based Opera connection to Google.com.hk, the images did appear. Sometimes requests to images.google.com.hk turned up pages with empty frames but active links, as was the case for this unresolved search for pictures of nuclear weapons.

At other times, requests were blocked, using response messages that clearly originated from a China-based ISP, not from Google. And then from time to time, image requests for relatively innocuous subjects, like Sandra Bullock, were processed without trouble.

After a short while, China's proxy servers began refusing all our connection requests. By mid-morning, however, it appeared the gig was up, as every request for a proxy connection ended up being blocked. ChinaChannel rotates its proxy requests through a list of services (including aiya.com.cn, chinanetcenter.com, and a few services whose names are now blanked out in their "Access Denied" messages) that, at one time, were open. Requests to Aiya were met with this message: "Access control configuration prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your service provider if you feel this is incorrect."

What we were looking for was evidence to back up Associated Press reports this morning that Chinese censors are filtering -- not blocking, but rather sifting through -- Google searches. The tiny speck of evidence we were able to turn up suggests that China's roadblocks at present are not that sophisticated. Conceivably, state-run ISPs may be blocking (or trying to block) requests specifically to the images subdomain of Google.com.hk. A successful block could result in the "Image results for..." portion of a straight Google Web query, from appearing in the list of results, without the ISP having to block the entire page. It's like filtering, but without the filter.

The unresolved request for pictures of big things blowing up, could be attributed to the roadblock kicking in partway through an IP request that was about to be fulfilled, rather than a filter noticing a specific request for pictures of mushroom clouds.

In any event, it does appear as though China authorities are using crude, but effective, means of limiting access to certain assets. But why not block access to Google entirely? As we found during our brief proxy connection, although Google.cn requests are rerouted to the .HK domain, straight Web searches still go through.

One possible answer may be that an outright block of Google could make Google more popular in China than ever, if only in a symbolic sense. Thwarting access to picture searches keeps Google's boat afloat, while taking the wind out of its sails. Users may be sympathetic to Google's cause, but they'll end up switching to Baidu anyway.

So don't be surprised if, after a few weeks of this "politicalizationalized" standoff (if only Norm Crosby were still with us), the interim outcome is a report of a boost in Baidu market share.

An effort to search for Falun Gong on Baidu, even from a US-based IP address, makes Baidu hang up on us.

A quick check of Baidu's "Opening-up policy," to borrow a phrase, reveals that certain search requests continue to be directly filtered. Taking a suggestion from engineer Ed Felten, we tried a search for the Buddhist group Falun Gong or Falun Dafa. The response was a connection refusal that our Opera browser processed as a closure -- Baidu hung up on us. And just as before, Baidu would then refuse to process some subsequent requests for innocuous material that it would happily find for us before, such as the aforementioned Sandra Bullock, or for something called "beta news."

However, Baidu would merrily pop back into existence following a search for Deng Xiaoping.

Contrary to popular belief, where there is censorship, there is usually an influx of capitalism. One case in point we stumbled onto this morning was a Web site that offers citizens in China and elsewhere a three-day free trial toward a subscription to a frequently updated list of free proxy servers, which it says will link individuals to services such as YouTube. Yes, now you can overcome the effects of state-run censorship...for a low monthly fee.

Say, while you're signing up to thwart the evil Chinese conspiracy, perhaps you'd like a peek at our customers list. It's only $1,500.

Now, I can't speak for the relative effectiveness of online marketing campaigns in the Asia/Pacific region, but I'd have to say that if I were an English-speaking Chinese citizen, I'd be turned off of such a service the moment it presented me with this popup: Purporting to be a link to an auction site, it offered me a chance to bid on the list of active Chinese subscribers to the proxy service, for a starting bid of $1,500.

Get in on the limited beta of new suggestion engine, Zite

Publié: mars 24, 2010, 7:19am CET par Tim Conneally

Click here to get access to the Zite beta!

Actual Beta News feature banner Late last year, I took a look at how search services were being affected by the unchecked growth of ultra-digested, 140-character-or-less news blips. In my research, I talked to a Vancouver-based startup called Worio that was tackling the difficult problem of creating a search engine that "understood" what kind of data was important to the user.

Now, the team is working on creating a new content discovery service, which it is calling Zite.

Zite harvests keywords and themes from your Twitter feed and Delicious bookmarks and turns them into a "follow list." The same way you follow individuals on Twitter, you follow keywords on Zite, and you can customize your list to be as long or short as you like.

Based upon this follow list, Zite then creates a news feed of articles it thinks you will like. The results are broken into two lists: articles published within the last 24 hours, and articles that are more than a day old.

It's a super new service, and the Zite team wants your help, so they've given us 50 beta invites which will let you get in and access Zite directly right now.

Only the first 50 readers to click that link will be able to participate in this round of testing, so click quickly!

T-Mobile talks network upgrades

Publié: mars 24, 2010, 3:19am CET par Tim Conneally

Rather than debut anything unknown or surprising, mobile network operator T-Mobile today presented everything it had already announced, and then concentrated on talking about the widespread 3G network upgrade it's rolling out this year.

While this doesn't always get people drooling, T-Mobile looks to be taking a level-headed approach to network growth which the company says will result in the overall fastest 3G network in the US.

T-Mobile says its HSPA+ network upgrade will be complete by the end of this year, bringing a theoretical peak throughput of 21 Mbps to the company's entire 3G footprint.

Now, there's been some confusion as to what this upgrade will mean, as evinced by some of the questions in today's Q&A session with T-Mobile at CTIA.

As of right now, T-Mobile has launched or announced about 12 HSPA 7.2 devices. Every single one of these will be compatible with HSPA+ because the network upgrade is fully backward compatible. T-Mobile said this path is much easier on users because it doesn't require any new hardware on their side. Once the network is upgraded and activated, they simply get faster service.

In an era where the lifespan of mobile devices keeps getting shorter, T-Mobile's growth plans are a refreshing change. Instead of tempting customers into new hardware, the carrier is actually trying to add value to the devices customers have already purchased.

Lenovo launches new Edge 14- and 15-inch Edge laptops, with frosting on top

Publié: mars 24, 2010, 2:14am CET par Jacqueline Emigh

The latest Lenovo ThinkPad Edge. Literally on the wheels of a gourmet cupcake truck, Lenovo this week rolled out the 14- and 15-inch editions of its emerging ThinkPad Edge laptop line-up.

Priced starting at $499, and slated for availability in April, Lenovo's latest notebooks offer the same capabilities as the 13-inch Edge released in January, while adding wider screens and an illuminated keyboard, said Jay McBain, Lenovo's director of small and medium business. McBain gave Betanews a briefing aboard what can easily be described as the most unique setting we've ever experienced for a product demo: a concessions truck operated by an early user, a New York City-based mobile cupcake company named Cupcake Stop.

Three new brightly-colored models in the ThinkPad Edge family from Lenovo.

Holding an Edge PC in his lap, Cupcake Stop entrepreneur Lev Ekster touted the Edge keyboard as both easy to use and especially spill resistant, a key advantage in a work environment where 75 cupcake varieties are both baked and sold from a single truck.

For the Edge models, Lenovo has gotten rid of the ThinkPad's embedded number pad, along with keys such as System Request which are geared more to IT administrators than to consumers or most business users.

Ekster told Betanews that he uses the Edge to run all aspects of the business, started almost a year ago. He'll expand soon to add a second truck, plus a brick-and-mortar cupcake store; and he'll introduce overnight delivery services of flash-frozen cupcakes to destinations across the US and Canada, and to the UK and Japan.

The venue for a press demonstration of Lenovo's latest ThinkPad Edge models, the concessions truck from The Cupcake Stop in New York City.

It has come to this: The venue for a press demonstration of Lenovo's latest ThinkPad Edge models, the concessions truck from The Cupcake Stop in New York City.

For Ekster's purposes, the Edge handles tasks that include recipe management, payroll, inventory control, and social networking capabilities. For instance, Ekster uses Twitter and Facebook to communicate the truck's locations throughout New York City on specific days of the week, and suggestions and other feedback from customers for new cupcake flavors.

As additional benefits of the Edge, Ekster pointed to its wireless connectivity, its built-in fingerprint reader, and a tool named Rescue and Recovery, designed to help safeguard sensitive data by performing back-ups to a second Windows OS located in a separate partition on board.

Ekster acknowledged that the fingerprint reader -- used to help identify him in accessing accounts on various Web sites -- makes him feel "cool and spy-like."

Wireless options on the Edge laptops include Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and support for wide area wireless network services from Qualcomm Gobi 2000 GPS (which in the US is supported by 3G networks from AT&T and Verizon).

The Edge notebooks also come with built-in high res, "low light sensitive" cameras; a choice of Intel Core or Celeron processors; hard drive storage of 250, 320, or 500 GB; up to 4 GB memory; and -- for home-oriented entertainment -- VGA and HDMI out, plus a choice of DVD/RW or Blu-ray drive.

Nothing goes with a Lenovo laptop computer demo better than custom-made cupcakes for the occasion, from the Cupcake Stop in New York City.

To mark the launch of the 14- and 15-inch editions, Ekster -- a recent law school graduate -- whipped up a special red velvet cupcake, frosted in the Edge color scheme of "Heatwave Red - Gloss" with silver trim. The laptops also come in smooth and glossy Midnight Black, with the same silver trim.

CTIA's 'other' Android superphone: Samsung Galaxy S

Publié: mars 24, 2010, 1:27am CET par Tim Conneally

Samsung Galaxy S

HTC and Sprint's EVO may have stolen the show at CTIA today, but Samsung showed off its own Android 2.1 superphone called the Galaxy S. It's just as impressive as the EVO, just without the 4G muscle.

Separated at Birth? Samsung Galaxy S and Apple iPhone

And while it may look like the fraternal twin of Apple's iPhone, especially with the TouchWIZ UI, Samsung's Galaxy S is no iClone.

The Galaxy S has 4" Super AMOLED (800 x 480) capacitive touchscreen, a 1 GHz Cortex A8 application processor, quad-band GSM and 7.2 Mbps HSPA 3G radios, A-GPS, Bluetooth 3.0, 802.11n, a 5 megapixel camera and a VGA front-facing camera, 720p video recording capabilities, either 16 GB or 8 GB of internal memory expandable to 32 GB via microSD, accelerometer, digital compass, proximity and light sensors.

Samsung Galaxy S

While all of that is impressive on its own, Samsung has packed it all into a chassis with a 9.9mm profile. It makes the device slightly thinner than the iPhone 3GS (12.5mm in thickness) and thicker than the iPod Touch (8.5mm).

Samsung Galaxy S

Some of the most outstanding features so far, however, appear to be the exclusive applications that come with it. Galaxy S has a built in app for tethering; a Samsung AllShare app, which gives the phone instant DLNA compatibility for multimedia sharing in the home; and an e-book reader app from Skiff. That's the company that rose to popularity earlier this year when Hearst Publishing announced the Skiff e-reader. The screenshot Samsung showed today looked perfectly identical to the iBooks app that's due to launch with the iPad on April 3.

Samsung Galaxy S press photo

If it wasn't for the EVO announcement which came just two hours afterward, the Galaxy S would have undoubtedly been today's most intriguing new device unveiling at CTIA. Battery life for the EVO, however, remains a pivotal issue, and it may turn out that the more typical 3G radio array in the Galaxy S was the smarter choice for Samsung.

Samsung says the Galaxy S will be launched worldwide "soon."

Sprint has the game changer: The first 4G smartphone

Publié: mars 24, 2010, 12:25am CET par Tim Conneally

Sprint and HTC this afternoon finally took the wraps off of the "Supersonic" 4G smartphone, the HTC EVO 4G, and everything about this device is killer.

Sprint HTC EVO

HTC and Sprint have spared nothing in this top-of-the-line device. It has a 1 GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon (QSD8650) processor, a 4.3" (800x480) capacitive touchscreen, an 8 megapixel dual flash camera, and a 1.3 megapixel forward-facing camera. Add Android 2.1, 4G WiMAX/3G EV-DO Rev. A, the ability to act as an 8-device 4G hotspot, an FM radio, Bluetooth 2.1, digital compass, proximity, velocity, and light sensors, GPS and 3.5mm headphone and HDMI output. In short, pretty much everything you could want.

HTC EVO

Physically, it looks and feels a lot like the Windows Mobile-powered HD2 on T-Mobile, with a 4.8" x 2.6" x .5" chassis that weighs 6 ounces. Onboard memory is 1 GB ROM, 512 MB RAM. Though the battery is 1500mAh Lithium (Li-ion) battery, HTC representatives didn't talk much about the actual life of it other than to say they expect it to be able to last all day. Obviously, if eight devices are using it as a 4G hotspot, it won't last anywhere near as long as that.

HTC EVO

The biggest unanswered questions about the EVO now are: How much will it cost, and when will it be available? Sprint CEO Dan Hesse said at CTIA this afternoon it should be out in the summer, but he did not go into any more specifics. He also did not say if it will be released nationwide, or only in the 27 WiMAX-connected Sprint markets. I grilled Sprint representatives further today, but they were careful to not give any more details.

HTC EVO

Video streaming on the device was excellent. Sprint showed off a new YouTube HQ browser specifically made to view higher-resolution YouTube content on the EVO. In the demonstration today, Sprint showed both sideloaded and live streaming HD content, and they were both flawless.

HTC EVO 4G

EVO is, simply stated, the most powerful smartphone to date, passing the Samsung Galaxy S simply because of the advantages 4G connectivity affords. I'll post something about the Samsung Galaxy S next, and I have a meeting with HTC tomorrow so we'll be able to get a little more one-on-one time with the EVO. Today, handling of the device was under semi-strict control (they wouldn't let me drop into the "about phone" menu to see what was going on with the software) and the model HTC will have on the show floor will be under glass.

HTC EVO 4G

One thing is absolutely certain about CTIA today, though: Android just took charge of the superphone category, this time for real.

Adobe to launch Creative Suite 5 April 12

Publié: mars 23, 2010, 11:32pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Breaking News

A spokesperson for Adobe told Betanews this afternoon that on the morning of April 12 at 11:00 a.m. EDT, the company will hold a global online launch event for all of the components of its Creative Suite 5.

Among the most anticipated new components -- or as Adobe tends to present them in its periodic table, "elements" -- is a vastly improved HD video rendering engine called Mercury. Unlike other manufacturers, Adobe tends to retain the cool names for its products and platforms even after public release. Mercury will utilize the graphics processing power of video cards to expedite the decoding and playback of HD-encoded formats, especially for the Premiere Pro editor.

But not just all video cards...specifically, Nvidia cards, by virtue of a development deal between Nvidia and Adobe. High-performance rendering will be made possible through the CUDA language developed by Nvidia, rather than the OpenCL language embraced by ATI and parent AMD. As former Tom's Hardware journalist Theo Valich speculated last December, the reasons for this decision could be practical and not just political: "While AMD will tell you that they're all for open standards and push OpenCL, the sad truth is that the company representatives will remain shut when you ask them about the real status of their OpenCL API," Valich wrote. This is true, he continued, even when lead developers for software projects complain to ATI about the availability of drivers.

Another anticipated element in the CS5 suite is the premiere of Flash Catalyst, an alternative development engine for Flash applications geared more to designers and graphic artists -- more of a competitor to Microsoft's Expression Studio.

Google.cn redirection sets the stage for long-term standoff with China

Publié: mars 23, 2010, 7:27pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Searching for a defining principle in the war of words between Google and the Chinese government, even after Google's move yesterday to redirect search traffic from the .CN domain to its uncensored .HK address, may be about as fruitless as filtering high prose from a cable TV political pundit show. In a bizarre demonstration of what's being called "openness," China's state-run news service responded to Google's move yesterday first with a "nudity" slide show (news photos over the years with naughty bits included), cushioning some op-eds designed to characterize Google as out-of-step not only with China's progress, but with America's.

Conforming with state laws governing expression, argues a Xinhua op-ed late yesterday, is just one of the globalization trends that many enterprises and business ventures must embrace when entering new territories. Why can't Google, Xinhua asks, be more like KFC?

"All commodities come with some cultures and ideologies," reads one new op-ed, entitled, "Can China Live Without Google?" "China definitely is influenced by the West, but the influence is mutual. People of a certain culture learn to know a different new thing, but the new thing also has to learn to suit its new customers. That's why KFC serves Chinese porridge and McDonald's provides Chinese food menus here."

The Xinhua report casts suspicion on the notion, which it says was instigated by a March 20 article in the Washington Post, that without access to the most defining brand on the Internet -- a singularly American brand -- China will become an outcast nation. There's no reason a foreign company can't do business in China, it argues, but it cannot bring with it foreign influences that endanger the national security. That would run counter to the country's "Opening-up Policy," as it's called when translated into English, which depends on China's ability to foster a fair and competitive environment for foreign investment.

Part of the country's broader "opening up" involved the 1997 handover of Hong Kong (where Google's China search requests are now centralized) from British to Chinese authority. The agreement between China and the UK which made possible this handoff, triggered the creation of an exclusive Hong Kong Bill of Rights. Article 16 of that ordinance reads in part, "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."

The key phrase in that above sentence is "regardless of frontiers," which seemed to mean at the time that the freedom for individuals to express opinions openly to the outside depends on their freedom to acquire information from the outside, beyond the borders or frontiers. (Hong Kong also maintains an independent judiciary authority from China.) Almost immediately after the handoff, however, China authorities made it clear they expected Hong Kong's press to apply "self-censorship."

The organization Reporters Without Borders periodically reports on the progress of Hong Kong's ability to maintain a free press, including a free Internet, in the midst of the mainland's oversight and expectations. A few years ago, those reports were looking somewhat bright and cheerful. But in recent years, they've turned more skeptical, especially in light of an incident during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. At that time, Hong Kong journalists were expected to be "carded" and regulated as foreign journalists, which meant their work might be subject to screening.

China still relies upon the fact that other countries -- specifically, other countries' investors -- rely on the freedom of Hong Kong's financial press, especially to trust reports of improved investment value in that country to be something other than state-run propaganda. Nonetheless, it's becoming clear that China is treating Hong Kong more and more like its own version of Las Vegas, where whatever happens on the island stays on the island.

By moving to the island, Google avoids a direct confrontation with China, and the danger of "politicalization" that Xinhua states would ensue. But should the company go forth with plans to do a "Radio Free China" act from the comfort and exile of the island, it could find its message somewhat muted. China has an interest in keeping Hong Kong as a "special" enclave, and so long as Google does business behind those walls, it may end up actually serving the government's interests anyway, serving as the demon of choice for anti-Western values when demonizing America or Europe would be untimely.

Nintendo wants to try its hand at 3D again

Publié: mars 23, 2010, 5:17pm CET par Tim Conneally

Today, a very dodgy looking PDF file appeared on Nintendo's Japanese investor relations site with the title "Launch of New Portable Game Machine" (PDF available here).

In the document, Nintendo quietly announced that it will be launching "Nintendo 3Ds" during the fiscal year ending in March 2011. The new handheld gaming console will support 3D effects without the need for special viewing glasses, and Nintendo will talk more about it at the E3 conference in June.

This comes as a rather big surprise today, as Nintendo only just recently launched the super-sized DSi LL (a.k.a., DSi XL) in Japan, and that device hasn't even been released in the United States yet.

Nintendo is no stranger to attempting to bring 3D gaming to the masses, but the company has never quite achieved any degree of success in its endeavors. In fact, it could be the area where the company has failed the most. Nintendo's Virtual Boy console, which achieved full stereoscopic monochrome 3D via a spinning mirror inside a large visor, is considered by American gamers to be Nintendo's biggest flop.

Virtual boy Virtual boy tennis

Our experience with 3D Nintendo games has been somewhat limited in the United States. The Nintendo Entertainment System only had three 3D games, 3-D Worldrunner and Rad Racer by Square and Orb 3D. These games required the use of cardboard red and blue 3D Glasses for the anaglyphic 3D effect to work. But Nintendo was actually more daring in the 3D space in other markets, and released an active shutter 3D system to coincide with the Famicom disk system for 3D effects closer to what we experience in modern 3D systems.

In terms of software support, this was actually far worse of a flop than the Virtual Boy. Virtual Boy had a total of 22 games released worldwide, the Famicom 3D system had less than ten, and none of them were made by Nintendo itself. Some of the titles include Famicom Grand Prix II: 3D Hot Rally, Falsion, and Attack Animal Gakuken.

Famicom 3D system

Right now, very little is known about the 3DS other than its tentative name and its intended purpose. We'll follow up with more information as it becomes available.

Without native apps for Windows Phone 7, Mozilla cancels Fennec for WM6 also

Publié: mars 23, 2010, 5:06pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Mozilla Fennec top story badge Microsoft's choice not to provide a migration path for mobile apps developers to move their native code from Windows Mobile 6.5 to Windows Phone 7 (with one notable exception), has claimed its biggest casualty to date: Mozilla, whose Firefox Mobile project, codenamed "Fennec," appeared to be the most promising alternative browser to IE Mobile, will discontinue development for all Microsoft handset platforms including Windows Mobile 6.5. This announcement was made yesterday by Mozilla mobile project leader Stuart Parmenter.

It wasn't so much a decision on Mozilla's part, Parmenter noted yesterday, as a reluctant acceptance of the fact that it can't be done.

"While we think Windows Phone 7 looks interesting and has the potential to do well in the market, Microsoft has unfortunately decided to close off development to native applications," he wrote. "Because of this, we won't be able to provide Firefox for Windows Phone 7 at this time. Given that Microsoft is staking their future in mobile on Windows Mobile 7 (not 6.5) and because we don't know if or when Microsoft will release a native development kit, we are putting our Windows Mobile development on hold."

That may be good news for Opera, perhaps the leading cross-platform mobile browser maker now. Opera's latest Mini and Mobile versions, for Windows Mobile 6.5 among others, was released just last week.

For the last few years, Microsoft's concept of an ecosystem with respect to Windows Mobile has centered around its participating mobile operators, the various phone manufacturers, and the handset distribution channel. This actually has not changed with the redirection toward Windows Phone 7 Series, although there now appears to be some reinforcement to the wall protecting the sandbox for apps developers. Silverlight is the mobile apps development platform of choice, thus blocking off the access to native functionality required for building something as central to core functionality as a Web browser.

But, as I mentioned, there's one notable exception: As Adobe developer relations chief Mike Chambers confirmed prior to Microsoft's MIX conference in Las Vegas, Flash is being treated as a third-party native application. In a quick blog post on March 9, Chambers wrote (in all italics so no one would miss it), "Adobe and Microsoft are working together to bring Flash Player 10.1 to Internet Explorer Mobile on Windows Phone 7 Series."

That announcement came one week prior to Microsoft's confirmation to journalist Tim Anderson (who, unlike others...asked) that native access to the WP7S core would otherwise be sealed off. As Anderson wrote on his own blog, "I suspect that Microsoft is chasing the Flash checkbox to one-up Apple; but if Adobe gets native access, others will no doubt follow." Maybe, but following takes time, and not everyone has that in abundance -- nor do they have executives who can negotiate for time on their behalf.

The absence of Firefox on WP7S will also very likely mean the absence of Opera on that platform as well. Thus, unlike the case with BlackBerry (whose internal Web browser to date is more reminiscent of IE3) where alternatives abound, the capabilities of the browser in WP7S will be critical for 3G users comparing overall performance -- the kind that they can see.

Early disassembly of the Windows Phone virtual machine now being distributed free for developers revealed a native Web browser whose core was based on Internet Explorer 7. Product managers at MIX last week told reporters, including Network World's John Cox, that although IE7 was the core that WP7S engineers are using as their base, they would expand upon that base using elements of IE8.

They also deflected Cox's attention toward IE9, leading to a report that was misinterpreted by bloggers as having said Microsoft would fold IE9 elements into the browser code base as well. This was inaccurate, as a clear read of Cox's report clearly states that the Microsoft managers with whom he spoke could not even say for certain whether the final IE browser for WP7S would run apps for Silverlight (the operating system's own native apps platform) or Flash, despite Adobe's Chambers' pre-emptive strike the week before.

Closing off third-party native apps (other than Flash) will also result in fewer opportunities for browsers that are also platforms in themselves, to create mini-ecosystems of their own, in lieu of real ones from the OS maker. One of the last status reports from the Fennec development team included video showing Firefox and Firefox Mobile add-ins successfully operating on the Fennec alpha platform in Windows Mobile. One such add-in would have synchronized active Firefox desktop sessions, including bookmarks and open tabs, with Fennec sessions.

The Mozilla team is already prohibited by Apple for developing a Fennec browser for the iPhone, since it violates Apple's developers' terms. Those terms state that iPhone apps cannot be platforms in themselves. That little fact, however, won't stop Opera from trying.

Palm's not dead, so why write its epitaph?

Publié: mars 23, 2010, 2:11am CET par Joe Wilcox

Wall Street's vultures are circling over Palm, screeching for its death. Tech pundits are joining the death watch, in one of the more morbid displays of graveyard tech journalism ever. As I've asserted repeatedly, in business perception is everything. The Palm death watch creates negative perceptions about the company and its future that will drive away customers and investors. Palm doesn't have to die, but death may be its future as pundits' self-fulfilling prophecies.

Tech blogs simply exploded with Palm is dead predictions over the weekend following a news story that two Wall Street analysts had cut Palm's target price to $0. Zero? ArsTechnica asserted that "RIP Palm: it's over, and here's why." All Things Digital: "Exercise in Futility? Palm Pre Plus, Pixi Plus Headed to AT&T." OS News: "Is Palm dying?" Monday Note: "Who will buy Palm?" That's a simple sampling.

Palm's most recent misfortunes started with fiscal third quarter 2010 earnings results, announced on February 18. Surely there is concern when the earning's press release quotes the CEO as saying "Our recent underperformance has been very disappointing," and adding that "the potential for Palm remains strong." But the all-a-tither reaction is about inventory and sell-through. Palm shipped 960,000 smartphones during the quarter, but only 408,000 sold through to customers. Well, so much for the benefits of transparency.

Apple doesn't report sell-through. The company ships XX units but uses "sold" to describe them. There was no whining, for example, when during third calendar quarter 2008, Apple claimed 6.9 iPhones sold, which really meant shipped, and Gartner later calculated 4.7 units sold. That was the iPhone 3GS launch quarter, which ended, therefore, with 2.2 million units unsold. There were no scolding analyst reports or doom-and-gloom blogs or news stories about inventory or the data discrepancy. Positive perception is one reason.

Palm's perception problem is one of survival -- that by pundit predictions death is inevitable. Wall Street punished Palm with a March 19 sell-off that sent shares plunging by nearly 25 percent. Palm closed at $3.98 a share today, following a roller coaster $3.65 to $4.24 ride. Perhaps some investors are unsure about Palm's death forecast -- and they should be. Nothing is certain yet.

There could be more positive perceptions about Palm, if anyone really looked. WebOS is simply one of the best smartphone operating systems ever developed. Palm marketing is aggressive and compelling. Then there are the carrier deals, which keep coming with the bad news. Today, Palm announced that AT&T will distribute Palm Pre and Pixi. That puts three of the four major US carriers in Palm's palm.

But who is going to buy a Palm smartphone with all the negative crap being said about the company's future? Who wants to buy a product today from a company that might not be around tomorrow? Two weeks ago, I met with the accountant who does my taxes. He also manages investments (but not mine, as I have none for conflict-of-interest reasons). This guy recently switched from a BlackBerry to Palm Pre. He loves the Pre but expressed nervousness about owning it because of Palm's stock performance. He's uncertain that Palm has a future, so much that he would consider another smartphone if buying today. Surely, he's not alone in this thinking.

'I'm Not Dead'

Palm's situation reminds of the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," where an old man brought out as dead isn't. The transcript -- from Internet Movie Database:

The Dead Collector: 'Bring out yer dead.'
[a man puts a body on the cart]
Large Man with Dead Body: 'Here's one.'
The Dead Collector: 'That'll be ninepence.'
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: 'I'm not dead.'
The Dead Collector: 'What?'
Large Man with Dead Body: 'Nothing. There's your ninepence.'
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: 'I'm not dead.'
The Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.'
Large Man with Dead Body: 'Yes he is.'
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: 'I'm not.'
The Dead Collector: 'He isn't.'
Large Man with Dead Body: 'Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.'
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: 'I'm getting better.'
Large Man with Dead Body: 'No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.'
The Dead Collector: 'Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.'
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: 'I don't want to go on the cart.'
Large Man with Dead Body: 'Oh, don't be such a baby.'
The Dead Collector: 'I can't take him.'
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: 'I feel fine.'
Large Man with Dead Body: 'Oh, do me a favor.'
The Dead Collector: 'I can't.'
Large Man with Dead Body: 'Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes He won't be long.'
The Dead Collector: 'I promised I'd be at the Robinsons. They've lost nine today.'
Large Man with Dead Body: 'Well, when's your next round?'
The Dead Collector: 'Thursday.'
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: 'I think I'll go for a walk.'
Large Man with Dead Body: 'You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?'
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: 'I feel happy. I feel happy.'
[the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the Body with his a whack of his club]
Large Man with Dead Body: 'Ah, thank you very much.'
The Dead Collector: 'Not at all. See you on Thursday.'
Large Man with Dead Body: 'Right.'

Palm's "not dead," and last week CEO Jon Rubinstein expressed "I feel happy" enthusiasm, despite the disappointing quarter. In a way, the reporting about Palm reflects the sorry state of news reporting that I griped about yesterday. Wall Street is rife with conflict-of-interest. There are plenty of analysts making forecasts for companies in which their clients have invested. Where exactly in the $0 share-price prediction news stories is there disclosure about the analysts' holdings?

Elsewhere today, I caution that news reporters -- be they amateur or professional -- should always ask the question Who benefits?" So I ask right now: Who benefits from Palm death prattling?

Morgan Joseph's Ilya Grozovsky and Canaccord Adams' Peter Misek are the two analysts reportedly lowering Palm to $0. I couldn't easily find disclosure information at the Morgan Joseph Website. But Canaccord Adams had two disclosures pertaining to Palm: "Canaccord Adams or any of its affiliated companies is a market maker or liquidity provider in the securities of the relevant issuer or in any related derivatives," and "Canaccord Adams intends to seek or expects to receive compensation for Corporate Finance/Investment Banking services from the relevant issuer in the next six months."

That kind of information should appear in any blog post or news story making such an apocalyptic claim about any public company. Other than predictions the world will end in 2012, what could be more apocalyptic than a $0 share prediction?

Facebook jumps the shark

Publié: mars 22, 2010, 11:44pm CET par Carmi Levy

When news broke last week that Facebook users were on the receiving end of a large-scale phishing attack -- the first one to use external e-mail and not just the service's own messaging system -- I started to wonder whether the service had jumped the shark. If this sort of thing continues to escalate, you should start wondering, too.

Hardly a week goes by that Facebook doesn't get hit with another spam, malware, or phishing attack. Last week's screaming headline, that spammers are using conventional e-mail to spread virus-stealing malicious code to Facebook's 400 million users, is the latest chapter of a book that doesn't have an end in sight.

The more things change...

We've experienced this precise sequence of events previously, only last time it was Microsoft's turn to be the high-profile whipping boy of the hacker set. As criminals routinely targeted its Windows, Internet Explorer, and Office franchises, debate raged over the fundamental architecture of its products. The arguments, which will likely continue indefinitely, centered around whether the very design of Microsoft's products contributed to their vulnerability, and whether Microsoft did enough to fix security weaknesses as soon as they were identified.

Similar debates are already springing up around Facebook's response to a growing litany of threats to its platform and its 400 million registered users. To a certain extent, I view the two companies as victims of circumstance in that hackers prefer to focus their nefariously deployed resources on initiatives that will result in the most lucrative potential payoff. In other words, criminal ROI.

When Macs owned less than 3% of the overall PC market, for example, hackers simply couldn't be bothered to write illicit code for the platform. Things are different now that Mac market share has pushed into double digits. Windows was, and is, another story altogether. And because criminals always focus on the largest potential population of victims, it's hardly fair to fault the victim-companies. It isn't their fault that they did all the right things to grow so large, after all.

Carmi Levy Wide Angle Zoom (v.2) A tale of two companies

What we can fault them for is lackadaisical response to an identified threat -- or to a growing trend of escalating threats. This is where Microsoft and Facebook could not be more opposite. While critics will forever fault Microsoft for not doing enough and for not doing it quickly enough, it's clear that today's Microsoft is world's removed from yesterday's. It's invested billions to create platforms that address some of the well known weaknesses of older products. It's created a range of scheduled updates for its products (Patch Tuesday, anyone?) that have redefined how IT departments keep their fleets in tune. It's tweaked its sunset rules to minimize the damage caused by weakly secured, obsolete software. For better or worse, Microsoft has raised the volume on security-related issues, and in doing so, has ensured it remains high on the priority list of consumers and businesses as well.

Facebook? Not so much. While Rome burns, the social media giant twiddles its thumbs, offering up little more than common sense advice to end-users as it ignores the basic weaknesses in its platform. We shouldn't be surprised, as the company's earlier efforts to address privacy concerns -- an area closely related to security and data integrity -- were almost comically ham-fisted. In the realm of social media, this just isn't good enough. With more users globally than there are people in the US, the consequences of Facebook's Swiss cheese-like security can easily impact far larger audiences than the average phishing attack on a lower-profile group of victims.

When Microsoft faced a crisis of confidence among its user base, it made the tough decisions necessary to reorient itself around a new security mantra. It 'fessed up to some pretty iffy decisions made before Internet-borne threats became über-pervasive and, perhaps most importantly, made its stakeholders a central part of the solution. Today's environment is hardly perfect and, in fairness, probably never will be. Windows, Explorer and Office continue to be the targets of new forms of attack, and Microsoft continues to fend them off with ever evolving offerings.

This is the new reality of connected computing, and the only ones to blame here are the cretins who create the malicious code, write and distribute the spam and reap the criminal rewards of this growing "business." It isn't Microsoft's fault any more than it is Facebook's.

What matters most?

But here's the thing: From where I sit, Microsoft's solutions are far more critical to the success of the average consumer than Facebook's. One company's products give life to my laptop, let me connect to the broader Internet, and get actual work done. The other company's code lets me poke my friends and play FarmVille and Mafia Wars.

Perhaps that was a little mean-spirited, but it underscores the business rationale that we all -- companies as well as regular consumers -- apply to the tools we use every day. As revolutionary as Facebook has been at connecting us with long lost friends and maintaining virtual communities that can drive both social and professional success, it isn't a given that we'll absolutely need it to survive. Nor is it a given that some other Web 2.0/social media solution won't also hit critical mass and take Facebook's crown away. Friendster and MySpace both learned the hard way that relevance is as impermanent as the so-called "end-user loyalty" that got them to the top spot in the first place. Easy come, easy go. And when you're not weighed down by years of legacy files, macros, training, and ease-of-use concerns, migrating to the Next Best Thing is easier for the average social media solution than it is a productivity suite.

Facebook is at a bit of a crossroads in its all-too-brief history. Its massive popularity has placed it squarely in the crosshairs of a criminal community intent on exploiting the largest, most profitable audiences out there. The timing couldn't be worse, because the company still hasn't had the opportunity to develop the kind of security-aware culture that would allow it to proactively take these growing threats on, and win.

As users are increasingly exposed to Facebook-linked attacks, they'll find themselves wondering if the ability to poke their friends is worth it.

Can Google get away with this? Redirects .CN users to uncensored .HK domain

Publié: mars 22, 2010, 11:19pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Chinese citizens and government ministers expecting for Google to take a stand today on the continued censorship of its search results, may have been surprised by the company's decision to split the difference: This afternoon, it began redirecting Google.cn traffic to Google.com.hk, rather than pull out its business interests from China. Hong Kong is a special administrative district of China.

In a blog post this afternoon, Google's Chief Legal Officer David Drummond defended the twist -- not exactly a "move" per se -- as perfectly legal, if potentially unacceptable by China's government. "We want as many people in the world as possible to have access to our services, including users in mainland China," Drummond wrote, "yet the Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a non-negotiable legal requirement. We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we've faced -- it's entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China. We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision, though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services."

Drummond's interpretation is a complete reversal of the company's defense upon having officially entered the country in January 2006. In May 2008, Google's China division president at the time, Kai-Fu Lee, told Margaret Warner of PBS' NewsHour that the company had no choice but to house its servers in mainland China and to filter search results using China government rules.

"In order to enter China, we needed to comply with the Chinese laws, which means our servers need to be located in China and that our content, our search results, would be filtered, per local law and regulation," Lee told PBS. "Some people ask us, why do we choose to filter? But, really, that's not the question. We didn't have a choice of filter or not filter. Our choices are, 'A,' we filter, comply by the law, and have a legal presence in China or, 'B,' we don't enter China. And we feel that we chose 'A' because we felt to engage and to offer as much information as we could was the right decision." Lee left Google in September 2009.

A preliminary check by Betanews of search results from Google.com.hk revealed a distinct lack of censorship, especially of the types of results Lee pointed to as typical omissions, including the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre of student protestors. However, links to YouTube videos were missing from the .HK version. As Google's new China Availability Status page indicates, YouTube service is no longer being extended to China, including through the .HK domain.

Perhaps in an effort to demonstrate its own lack of censorship -- or to prove to Google what it might be missing out on -- the state-run Chinese news service Xinhua posted on its front page a blatantly hit-grabbing slideshow purportedly featuring scenes of worldwide "naked protests," though also managing to feature pictures of folks who happened to be naked and not protesting anything.

Some folks still read Xinhua for the articles. Earlier this morning, before the redirection, the state-run agency indicated it may very well be afraid of what a Google pullout from China might have meant for the rest of its economy, in an editorial that stated it would have no effect whatsoever.

"Google's threat to exit China has led some people to hastily conclude that China's investment environment for foreign-funded enterprises is worsening," the op-ed reads. "However, they should not be prejudiced by an individual case but see the broader picture that China remains one of the best investment destinations in the world. Just as China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said last week, Google's possible withdrawal is only an individual business act, which would not affect China's investment environment or change the reality that most of the foreign enterprises, American companies included, have been doing well and making profits in China."

Until China's government takes its own action -- which it may yet do -- Google still has access to what global analytics firm StatCounter estimates to be about 41% of search traffic, from what was recently estimated to be 338 million Internet users in that country. That's still a sizable chunk of advertising traffic. But by effectively turning off its presence on the .CN domain, Google may be engineering an effort to reverse one of the recent effects of globalization, as noted in the company's own recent filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

After the first quarter of 2009, during the height of the global economic slump, cost-per-click (CPC) -- the general index of how much advertisers receive from click-thrus, based on what they bid -- declined sharply. At the time, Google explained the decline this way: "The decrease in the average cost-per-click paid by our advertisers was primarily the result of the strengthening of the US dollar relative to foreign currencies (primarily the British pound and the Euro). In addition, the decrease in the average cost-per-click was due to how we believe advertisers managed their advertising costs in response to the general economic downturn. Specifically, we believe that as a result of the general economic downturn, advertisers, in aggregate, have lowered their bids for keywords in response to a decrease in the sales they are able to make per paid click."

But as the economy gathered strength, CPC did not. For its quarterly report for the end of calendar year 2009, Google borrowed the same language from its earlier reports for the explanation. But this time around, it added a portion to this sentence: "The decrease in the average cost-per-click paid by our advertisers was primarily the result of the general strengthening of the U.S. dollar relative to foreign currencies (primarily the British pound and the Euro), as well as changes in geographical mix due to traffic growth in emerging markets, where average cost-per-clicks are typically lower, compared to more mature markets."

For the company's second quarter 2009 earnings call (check Seeking Alpha for the transcript), Google SVP for Product Management Jonathan Rosenberg narrowed the list of countries responsible for the emerging market trend worldwide, down to two: "Just to comment on the clicks across the system, I think the growth is more seasonality and mix. One of the things that we see is that Brazil and China, for example, are pretty significant and probably have disproportionately more clicks. So I think we are seeing a mix of clicks from the high CPC Western European countries and US being less relative to some of the growing markets. So that overall is having downward pressure on CPC."

A complete pullout from China may have helped un-dilute the CPC mix, but at a higher cost. This way, at least for a time, Google may be able to retain its China audience while blocking, to borrow a phrase from the Chinese government, unwanted elements.

It's at this period where the comments of Google's senior counsel, Andrew McLaughlin, at the start of its China experiment, may ring truer than ever: "To some people, a hard compromise may not feel as satisfying as a withdrawal on principle, but we believe it's the best way to work toward the results we all desire."

IE9 Tech Preview beats latest Firefox alpha, as Chrome 5 clobbers King Opera

Publié: mars 22, 2010, 9:24pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Test Results

How long ago would you have thought it absolutely impossible for the slowest Windows Web browser currently under development to be coming...from Mozilla? Granted, the Internet Explorer 9 Tech Preview isn't a real browser (typically, these things need their own address bars and Back buttons). But unless Mozilla gets its JaegerMonkeys in a row in time for Microsoft to debut IE9 with real features like buttons, the number two reason users cite for switching from Internet Explorer...will be wiped off the map.

In the most sophisticated system of browser tests ever developed -- reconstructed by Betanews in anticipation of the IE9 preview last week -- IE9 in Windows 7 registered a comprehensive index score of 13.17, representing over 13 times the performance of IE7 in Vista SP2. By comparison, IE8 in Windows 7 scored a mere 2.20, representing about six times the performance of Microsoft's current production browser. That's down from our preliminary estimate from last week, but still a very commendable performance gain. Typically, when developers add real features to their browser projects, that tends to slow down overall JavaScript performance. But that doesn't mean Microsoft won't continue to compensate as they improve their own new JavaScript engine, code-named "Chakra."

Last week's latest daily preview build of Firefox 3.7 Alpha 4, meanwhile, scored a 10.76, using the same tests on the same machine. The new round of Alpha 4 previews represent Mozilla's fastest browser to date, well ahead of the current Firefox stable browser score of 9.08.

Relative performance of major Web browsers in Windows 7, March 22, 2010.

That's not the only headline to emerge from the latest tests: Although it had appeared to be holding back in recent weeks, Google's Chrome 5 team managed to find another gear (what would you call it? Eighth gear? Ninth?). On both our old tests and the new, Chrome snatched back a handful of speed points, to post a total score of 23.32. The latest stable Opera 10.51, released just today -- including bug fixes to the hurriedly released Opera 10.5 -- scored a 23.17 on our new tests, still a big improvement over the stable version score of 21.85. The stable Chrome 4 scores, by comparison, are behind Opera's at 20.05.

Why a new test suite, again?

As Web "browsers" evolve to become Web applications platforms, and as Web "pages" evolve to become applications, it becomes more and more critical for us to understand the differences between the browsers as though they were machines. Readers have told me recently that it might be unfair to keep comparing IE to Chrome, for instance, because (in their words) folks tend to use IE just to browse pages, whereas they may be using Chrome to run Google Apps. For those readers, continuing to declare Google twenty times greater, or so, than IE is like saying over and over again, a tractor's more powerful than a lawnmower. Sure it is. We get it already. But that's not to say lawnmowers don't have their place.

The average BlackBerry has a far slower processor than the common iPhone. That fact is obvious whenever you zoom in and out of a page (the word "zoom" doesn't really apply to most BlackBerrys). And up to now, the standard browser on a BlackBerry is, in my totally unbiased opinion, terrible. (If you're like me, you've replaced it with Opera Mini.) But that doesn't mean the BlackBerry is useless or even inefficient for what it is capable of doing, when it does it well.

Efficiency, for me, is the capability to find another gear and crank out greater work product when the workload increases. You hear marketing folks misuse the word scalability; to me, it's the capability to get more efficient as work gets tougher. Theoretically, if a processor has to do a job x 100 times, you can expect time consumed to grow to 10x if the workload increases to 1,000. If it becomes 15x instead, that's bad.

FOR MORE:

Betanews Relative Performance Index for browsers 3.0: How it works and why by Scott Fulton

Modern Web browsers like Firefox utilize just-in-time (JIT) compilers that look ahead through the batch of upcoming JavaScript instructions, to break down jobs into more efficient, more digestible work units. Theoretically, that means when the workload increases to 1,000, time consumed should be more like 7x or 8x. That's the type of scalability I want, and now expect, to see from a modern browser -- more so from a development build of Internet Explorer now than ever before.

When Opera Software last month told me its developers' opinion of the relative efficiency of one of the tests I had been using in our Relative Performance Index suite, I decided to pursue whether they were right. They were. Months earlier, I had resurrected an old test battery used by magazines in the Netscape days, which spun a single instruction a few thousand times and measured time elapsed. Well, in modern days, when a single instruction does nothing, and a thousand or a million repetitions of that instruction do nothing, just-in-time compilers see that it does nothing and, quite efficiently, "compile" that instruction to...nothing. So when it takes no time at all to do nothing, I frankly shouldn't be all that amazed.

That's when I became more curious about the way JIT compilers work. If the "digestibility" of a sequence of instructions depends on its sameness, then a more appropriate test of a JIT's efficiency would be to throw different algorithms at it whose relative efficiency sometimes depends on its capability to be differentiated rather than the same, throw varying workloads of the same test at it (100, 1,000, 10,000, ten million iterations), and see how browsers perform under the stress. Will they scale up to meet new demands? Will they opt for easier breakdowns or faster run time?

That's the inspiration behind the latest battery of tests in the Betanews suite: a way to see not only how fast a browser runs and how fast it can become, but why. Back in the 1980s and '90s when I used to test BASIC compilers, I used some common reiterative algorithms and math tests, and I published the results under my old pseudonym, "D. F. Scott." So in honor of my past life, I've christened this new battery "DFScale," a test of varying speeds and scalability under varying conditions.

Next: What scalability teaches us about browsers we didn't know before...

What scalability teaches us about browsers we didn't know before

The reason Opera 10.5 went from zero to hero as fast as it did was because of how well its JIT compiler breaks down instructions at greater and greater workloads. And the reason Internet Explorer 8 cannot catch a break is because it does not scale workloads as well as IE7. In fact, simply overcoming that problem is why IE9 has come so far.

As with the other tests in our suite, we compare our results against Internet Explorer 7 as a baseline, as a way of extracting the relative speed of the machine from consideration. When something scores a 2.00, for example, that's our way of saying it's double the performance of IE7, and it would be double no matter what machine you tested it on.

Everybody who has used IE7 knows what "the speed of IE7" means, generally speaking. But "the scalability of IE7," or any other browser, is not something you can easily see, so drawing a comparison between it and any other browser might not make immediate sense. So here's a general rundown of what I learned: In solving problems that tend to scale linearly as workload increases linearly, IE7's scalability is surprisingly not bad at all. For example, using the algorithm Microsoft used to fix its widely reported choice screen randomization bug last month (yes, the new "shuffler" is indeed one of the algorithms we decided to use), IE7 starts out by shuffling a 250-unit array at about 125,000 units per second. When we change the array to 250,000 units of unique values, the estimated speed is closer to 195,000 units per second. And that's actually very good.

For mathematical problems that become exponentially more complex as the workload grows linearly, IE7 struggles. There are two ways of expressing an algorithm for finding the first numbers in the Fibonacci sequence: one which is compact and easy on the programmer, and another which is more drawn out but easier on the processor. For the compact version, for the first 20 numbers in the sequence, IE7 runs at about 132 iterations per second. Increase the workload to just 30, and the run time slows to just 1.5 iterations per second. Make it 35, and IE7 hangs interminably.

IE8 is only marginally more scalable overall than IE7, partly because in some instances, it's actually a lot worse. The surprise here is, the simpler and more linear the algorithm, the poorer IE8 is at finding that extra gear when it needs it. For simple reiterative problems such as the Sieve of Eratosthenes and a wonderful discovery dubbed Euler's Problem #14, IE8 can actually become slower than IE7 over time -- its scalability goes way down, below the 1.0 mark. So if you can picture IE7's scalability as 1.0, IE8's is just 1.31.

By comparison, the IE9 Tech Preview issued last week posted a scalability score of 8.75. That means, by our estimate, the "Chakra" JavaScript engine does a nearly 9 times better job of scaling heavier workloads, than IE7. Compare that to a 4.47 scalability score for the daily private build of Firefox Alpha 4, and you see some evidence of Microsoft's claim that managing Windows' background/foreground process timing can be more efficient than using tracing and JIT compilation. (Of course, now that this particular cat is out of the bag, imagine what Mozilla could do with it.)

Relative performance of Web browsers in Windows 7 by category, March 22, 2010.

The new categorical breakdown

What our new test suite also enables us to do, that we couldn't do before, is give you a single graph (rather than ten) that breaks down the browsers' performance by category. Here, our final score is broken down into three groups: computational speed (33%), rendering speed (34%), and scalability (33%). Just last week, the Chrome 5 development build was posting speed scores that were lower than those of the stable Chrome 4. The score from last Friday's dev build 356.2 (which we verified by running the whole suite two more times completely on a rebooted system) gained back about 14 points in speed alone. One has to wonder just what it was that Google was holding back.

The latest Opera 10.51 is the fastest rendering Web browser in the field, at 19.62; here Chrome 5's scores actually dive below not only Chrome 4 but Safari. While I was devising these tests, the Chrome 5 dev build at the time was posting scalability scores that were not as good as Chrome 4's. Now they're well ahead at 10.93 versus Chrome 4 at 8.25, and Opera 10.51 at 9.47.

Oh, yeah, Safari! Lost amid all this talk about everyone else is the fact that the new stable Safari from Apple is faster and more scalable, and also that it's a better platform for the daily WebKit development builds. WebKit scores had been suffering, but joined with the latest Safari 4.0.5, they've improved dramatically, now with better rendering scores than either the stable or dev build of Chrome.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the five-way shootout. With Opera and now IE officially in the hunt for supremacy, the Web browser battle may as well follow Joe Bob Briggs' first rule of horror pictures: Anybody can die at any moment.

Motorola launches the first rugged push-to-talk Android phone

Publié: mars 22, 2010, 7:48pm CET par Tim Conneally

Motorola i1, first iDEN Android device

Today, Motorola and regional US carrier SouthernLINC Wireless announced the launch of the iDEN-compatible i1, the first Android device to support the wireless protocol with Push-to-Talk walkie-talkie communications.

The i1, which is believed to have been called the "Opus One" internally, has been rumored since late last year.

The device has a 3.1" (320x480) HVGA touchscreen, runs Android 1.5, and has a 5 megapixel flash camera with 4x digital zoom.

In keeping with Motorola's recent trend of releasing unique Android devices, the i1 pulls off a lot of firsts. It is the first push-to-talk Android device, plus it's the first "rugged" Android phone with a military spec chassis -- which is dust- and shockproof and water resistant. Furthermore, even the software built-in with the i1 is unique, as it launches with both Swype, the alternative method of text entry, and Opera Mini, the popular alternative mobile browser.

Motorola i1

Talk and Standby Time - Up to 4 days standby; Up to 210 min talk time

Bands/Modes - 800 / 900 (i) 2400 (w)

Weight - 131.26 grams, 4.63 oz.

Dimensions - 58 mm length x 118 mm depth x 12.8 mm

OS - Android 1.5

Battery - 1400mAh

Connectivity - Wi-Fi, Bluetooth2 2.0 micro USB; Over the Air Sync, 2.5 mm headset jack

Display - 3.1" display 320x480 HVGA 265k TFT

Messaging/E-mail - MMS, SMS, corporate, Gmail IMAP, POP3, attachment and document viewer

Audio - Adobe Flash, MP3, WAV, WMA, WMV, MIDI, MP4

Video - H.263, H.264, WMV

Camera - 5MP, auto-focus, LED flash, 4X digital zoom

Browser - Opera Mini 5 Browser, Android WebKit w/Adobe Flash Lite

Memory - Removable 2 GB memory card included, up to 32 GB supported

SanDisk releases its first 32 GB microSD card

Publié: mars 22, 2010, 6:42pm CET par Tim Conneally

32GB MicroSDHC SanDisk Flash memory giant SanDisk today announced that its highest capacity microSDHC card will be available for purchase tomorrow on US and European Web retail sites. The 32 GB microSDHC will cost $199.99 and is expected to ship immediately.

Worldwide availability of the new memory card is expected next month.

The SD Association effectively draws the storage limit for SDHC at 32 GB, however. So as cards of this size spread among handset manufacturers and consumers, we will start to see the gradual move toward SDXC spec mobile devices. The spec for this next generation of SD storage was released to SDA members a little over one year ago, and offers storage capacity between 32 GB and 2 TB and bus speeds up to 104 MB per second. The SDXC roadmap plans speeds up to 300 MB per second.

It's not flat if you tilt it 45 degrees: IE usage share in EU remains steady

Publié: mars 22, 2010, 4:29pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Source: StatCounter Global Stats - Browser Market Share

Amid reports that Internet Explorer's usage share in Europe is "falling faster than a team of skydiving elephants," an examination of the source of the data being cited reveals the possibility of a separate universe with weightless elephants and an IP address. The latest live statistics from global Web analytics firm StatCounter shows the continuing "weekend dip," where IE usage drops and Firefox usage peaks, as solely responsible for the latest round of victory claims from at least one supporter of Europe's browser choice screen for Windows users.

European usage share for IE on February 1 stood at 45.63%, representing the amount of Web traffic traced to European addresses whose browsers identified themselves as IE. Firefox usage on that day stood at 39.18%. The browser choice screen was unveiled on March 1. As of last Friday, March 19, IE usage share for the continent was charted at 45.77%, with Firefox at 37.9%. But then came the weekend, when apparently the big cargo bay doors were opened and the elephants were herded out the back. IE usage share dropped to 43.57%, and Firefox share climbed faster than a pack of rocket-propelled wildebeests, to 39.29%.

The entire two-point drop, as is always the case on weekends, is attributable to declining business PC use and increasing home PC use, where installation of the user's choice of browsers is much greater. Firefox's slightly declining overall usage share may perhaps be completely attributed to a steady uptick in adoption of Google Chrome, up almost 2% in Europe during the weekend peak periods since the start of February. Opera's usage share is also increasing, but very, very gradually.

The report that likely fueled the fire for the hyperbolic metaphors cited falling usage share for IE in the UK, France, and Italy. A check of StatCounter's drill-downs for these countries (you can do this yourself by first clicking on the StatCounter link below the chart above) reveals exactly the same phenomenon at play here as for the aggregates: Periodic weekend dips are being interpreted as nationwide trends.

Elsewhere in the world, the falling elephants phenomenon this weekend may possibly be attributable to last Sunday night's House vote on health care reform.

Don't count Palm out yet: Pre Plus and Pixi Plus to launch with AT&T

Publié: mars 22, 2010, 4:05pm CET par Tim Conneally

Pre Plus

Palm had big shipments of its new Pre Plus and Pixi Plus last quarter, the sellthrough was nowhere near what the mobile device company had expected. As a result, Palm posted another losing quarter, and the stock value dropped even further. As usual, the media took the opportunity to write Palm off as a lost cause.

But it's not time to quit on the company just yet.

Today, leading mobile network operator AT&T announced that it will offer Palm's Pre Plus and Pixi Plus later this year for $149.99 and $49.99 respectively (with a two-year contract and $100 mail-in rebate.) Palm launched CDMA versions of these very devices on Verizon in January.

Once the devices launch, Palm will have refreshed 2/3 of its hardware line on all of its usual carriers. The final piece of the puzzle will be laid down when Palm finally replaces the Treo Pro, which launched one year ago, but has already been removed from Palm's featured lineup.

Be smart, don't buy into the iPad hype

Publié: mars 21, 2010, 7:05pm CET par Joe Wilcox

The state of the news media is this: Gossip and rumors are rapidly replacing factual reporting -- in large part driven by the Google economy. No company is benefitting more than Apple, and most recently with the launch of iPad. But rumors are no surefire way to sales success. Big hype will energize early iPad sales, but can it sustain them? I wonder, and perhaps you have the answer. I'm not looking for a scientific answer, just your story to tell -- more on that in at the end of this post.

The Mac-obsessed blogosphere, news media and social crowd is a frightening but exhilarating phenomenon. Marketers and public relations companies across the globe are watching the Apple-hype phenomenon and trying to guess how they can imitate it. They can't. There is inherit bias in the products bloggers, journalists and socialwebites are using, or the companies that they invest in.

The pattern follows Microsoft in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when so much tech reporting was one-sided in favor of the company cofounded by Bill Gates. I remember when Corel released its first major WordPerfect suite (late May 1996) after buying the product from Novell. Microsoft countered (two weeks later) with a press preview of Office 1997, which release was at least six months away. The hype about Office 1997 overshadowed WordPerfect 7 Suite for Windows 95. Microsoft hype had marketing might. Anything new from Microsoft could overshadow any existing competing product.

How similar the situation is with Apple today. The hype is in part driven by the large number of bloggers and journalists using Macs -- the same kind of inherent bias (from Windows users) benefitting Microsoft a computing generation ago. In the 2000s, many high-profile journalism schools recommend -- or even require -- students to use Mac laptops. Reason: Content creation is supposedly easier on a Mac because of iLife. Microsoft should have released an iLife-equivalent product long ago. Sorry, Microsoft defenders, but Windows Live isn't it. If not using a Mac, who doesn't have an iPod?

Back to inherent bias: There are the investors and Wall Street analysts who recognize how much rumors can lift (or collapse) Apple's share price. In December I asserted that the sudden and large number of Apple tablet rumors were meant to drive up the share price. Hype has share-price might, too. Something else: Like Microsoft in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there is enough reader interest in Apple -- huge chunks of it investor driven, I presume -- for bloggers, journalists and socialwebite gossips to scramble to post anything first; rumors are just fine. Being first with news (gossip or rumor) means higher Google News ranking, more pageviews and so more ad revenue.

If the iPad preorder numbers were truly good, Apple would tout them. Apple loves to use sales numbers for marketing advantage. Thanks to rumors or gossip, Apple gains some marketing punch without revealing how good -- or even bad -- are early iPad preorders.

Just five years ago, Apple frowned on rumors and aggressively discouraged them. Am I the only person who remembers Apple suing several rumor sites, which resulted in the closure of ThinkSecret? Apple worked hard to quash rumor sites. No more. There are too many, and they are too beneficial. Apple-obsessed bloggers and journalists amplify Steve Jobs' "reality distortion field."

Some of the gossiping seems oh-so factually based. There was the Apple 2.0 Blog's first-day iPad sales analysis of 124,596 iPads sold. This huge number, which was picked up and re-reported seemingly everywhere, was "based on a sampling of 99 orders (for 110 iPads) over 19.5 hours, and not counting units that were reserved but not ordered, the Sanity team estimates." Say, what? Ninety-nine iPads preordered is basis for estimating unit sales into the hundreds of thousands?

The news media next went wild over another sales estimate -- with some good math, I might add -- from Daniel Tello. To boost his credibility, many blogs and news sites referred to Tello as a "blogger-analyst." To his credit, Tello clearly discloses: "Long AAPL shares." The Apple Blog's March 15 headline about Tello's post was typically misleading: "Analyst Estimate: 150,000 iPads Pre-Ordered Already." Tello actually did a good analysis, which quality wasn't reflected in most of the blog posts or news stories citing the data. They hyped the sales number, which is hugely uncertain.

Apple hype is simply out of control. I could write another post on the ridiculous conclusions made last week about Apple's market capitalization exceeding Walmart's. Missing: Share valuation is Wall Street's measure of public company valuation. Inherent value based on real world fundamentals is something else. Walmart is an inherently more valuable company (based on reach, real estate assets, infrastructure, distribution, number of employees, local tax contribution, etc. etc.) than Apple.

The same can be said of Microsoft, which software is widely used by businesses, governments and non-government organizations across the globe. I laughed at Silicon Alley Insider's March 14 Chart of the Week: "Only a Matter of Time Until Apple's Market Cap is Bigger Than Microsoft." There's still plenty of spread between the valuations to make such an assertion, which also ignores inherent value by other more meaningful measurements.

I want to end by conducting an informal survey, asking simply: Did you buy an iPad?

If you preodered an iPad, please explain why. Were you wowed by the iPad's aspirational marketing or Steve Jobs' product introduction? Do you perhaps feel like you might be left out -- "hey, everyone else I know wants one" -- if you didn't order? Maybe there is some must-have feature that your dumb phone, smartphone, ebook reader or laptop can't do? Perhaps the reason is something else. Given the amount of hype, non-buyers' reasons are just as important. The decision not to buy is more conscious than it might be for some other products. Please leave responses in comments.

Will Viacom's public airing of YouTube's dirty laundry change the Web forever?

Publié: mars 19, 2010, 9:25pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

The key issue at the heart of Viacom's case against Google and YouTube, filed in March 2007, concerns whether an Internet service that probably knows that files are traded or shown illicitly or without license there, deserves the "safe harbor" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that protect ISPs from liability for their customers' actions. In a summary judgment motion filed yesterday with US District Court in New York and unsealed this morning, Viacom is bidding to have the judge wrap up the case -- an obvious signal that it believes its case is already strong enough.

As US law stands now, a service such as Grokster or the original Napster (not the Best Buy division that today uses that name) is liable when it intentionally establishes its service for the express purpose of trading in illicit files. It's especially liable when it finds some way to advertise itself for that purpose. An Internet Service Provider such as Comcast or Cox is not liable when its service is used for accessing one of these sites, when it doesn't advertise or offer these services explicitly, and when a customer can access them without direct intervention from the ISP. And a video site such as Veoh is not liable when any measure it might take to stop customers from sharing illicit files may also conceivably infringe upon the free speech rights of other customers who may not be trading such files.

Google, the current owner of YouTube, has been arguing the Veoh case in its own defense. But Viacom's argument -- which courts have been wrestling with for over two-and-a-half years and which we now know today -- is that YouTube is a different, special case. It's more like Grokster, it argues, in that it was founded on the principle of gathering an audience around illicit files.

"Defendants are liable under Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., because they operated YouTube with the unlawful objective of profiting from (to use their phrase) 'truckloads' of infringing videos that flooded the site," reads the opening passage of YouTube's founders single-mindedly focused on geometrically increasing the number of YouTube users to maximize its commercial value. They recognized they could achieve that goal only if they cast a blind eye to and did not block the huge number of unauthorized copyrighted works posted on the site. The founders' deliberate decision to build a business based on piracy enabled them to sell their start-up business to Google after 16 months for $1.8 billion. The Supreme Court in Grokster found no legal or societal justification for such intentional copyright infringement."

FOR MORE:

Viacom and YouTube: Timeline of pertinent events by Tim Conneally

In a talking points document released today (PDF available here), Viacom cites various e-mails from various YouTube and Google executives, including YouTube founders Chad Hurley (CEO) and Steve Chen (CTO). Assuming these excerpts were not taken out of context, which is possible, they indicate that YouTube's founders were clearly building up a high-audience business with illicit files at their core, with the intention of selling out to somebody as soon as possible.

One excerpt has Chen suggesting that YouTube, apparently during its startup phase, "…concentrate all our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, however evil." Another suggestion, by an unnamed YouTube exec in response to a non-excerpted suggestion -- apparently asking, where should we get all this content -- reads, "Steal it! . . . We have to keep in mind that we need to attract traffic. How much traffic will we get from personal videos?"

And one excerpt attributed to Chen suggests that the whole legal process of handling DMCA takedown notices is so long and dragged on, that by the time YouTube should ever comply with one, it would be too late anyway: "But we should just keep that stuff on the site. I really don't see what will happen. What? Someone from CNN sees it? He happens to be someone with power? He happens to want to take it down right away. He get in touch with cnn legal. 2 weeks later, we get a cease & desist letter. We take the video down."

Viacom's argument that Google knows what kind of trafficking goes on via YouTube is substantiated by evidence in the form of e-mails, evidently sent prior to its acquisition of YouTube, from executives objecting to elements of what they perceived to be its business model. One message from Google's then-VP of Content Partnerships David Eun (now with AOL) to CEO Eric Schmidt cautioned, "I think we should beat YouTube . . . but not at all costs. [They are] a video Grokster." And in another excerpt, an unnamed Google executive asks, "Is changing policy [to] profit from illegal downloads how we want to conduct business? Is this Googley?"

Evidence cited in Viacom's motion for summary judgment tells the story of how Google Video failed to be competitive against YouTube, even though its engineers persisted with efforts to filter out illicit content. One memo cited says Google Video may have been throwing out 90% of its uploads, for containing suspected copyrighted material or for being generally indecent.

"But Google's good intentions and compliance with the law were not paying off," Viacom argues. "YouTube was way ahead of Google Video in the race to build up a user base. Google executives understood that YouTube's success was largely due to what they euphemistically labeled its 'liberal copyright policy' of freely allowing infringing material. Losing the user race to YouTube because of the latter's copyright infringement, Google Video executives engaged in a 'heated debate' in 2006 'about whether we should relax enforcement of our copyright policies in an effort to stimulate traffic growth.' A top senior executive, Peter Chane, Google Video's Business Product Manager, argued point blank that Google Video should 'beat YouTube' by 'calling quits on our copyright compliance standards.' Chane specifically advocated switching Google Video to YouTube's 'reactive DMCA only' policy because 'YouTube gets content when it's hot ([Saturday Night Live's] Lazy Sunday, Stephen Colbert, Lakers wins at the buzzer)' and it '[takes us too long to acquire content directly from the [legitimate] rights holder.'"

It is that statement which Viacom appears to present as a smoking gun: a suggestion from a Google Video executive that it should acquire its competitor solely because its allegedly illegitimate business model is more successful than its own, legally compliant one.

In Google's memorandum in support of summary judgment in its favor, filed after Viacom, its attorneys do not take the tack of rebutting Viacom's scorching citations -- which, if substantiated, could theoretically become the basis for future criminal complaints. Instead, Google reiterates the argument that it's a service provider which, like Veoh, is entitled to safe harbor since it looks the other way, and does not actively seek infringing uploads.

Citing the Veoh finding, Google's attorneys argue, "What matters is that Veoh 'established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users...Inasmuch as this is a means of facilitating user access to material on its Web site,' Veoh did not lose the safe harbor 'through the automated creation of these files.' YouTube is indistinguishable from Veoh in these respects."

YouTube, Google argues, did not have direct knowledge of the circumstances whereby the specific content Viacom claimed was infringed upon (much of it from Paramount) was shared with YouTube users. Since Viacom's arguments must, at some point, focus themselves upon the specific infringing of the content in question, the DMCA protects YouTube on that count as well, Google continues. But all that may be moot, Google points on, by virtue of the fact that under current US law, the alleged infringers must have directly profited from their actions. YouTube gains revenue through advertising.

Writes Google, "A service provider loses safe harbor eligibility only if the plaintiff can show both that the service provider had the right and ability to control the alleged infringements and received a financial benefit directly attributable to those infringements...As with knowledge, the DMCA's control inquiry is specific, not general. The analysis focuses on the service provider's legal and practical control over the particular infringing activity at issue. The statute's text makes that clear: The question is whether the service provider has the right and ability to control "the infringing activity" alleged by the plaintiff and to which a financial benefit is directly attributable."

A number of declarations in support of both motions were filed today. One supporting Google was particularly interesting, because it goes to specifically that last paragraph: It's from the owner of a marketing firm who promoted the works of recording artists who appear on MTV, a Viacom property. He claimed that some of the very works Viacom claimed were infringed upon through unauthorized uploading to YouTube, actually were authorized by none other than MTV itself, as part of the promotion of the artists under his contract.

If Google's interpretation of the law is affirmed, and if this gentleman's claims are proven, then this whole case could become history faster than a judge can even say "summary judgment."

Let the rejections begin: Apple opens first round of submissions for iPad App Store

Publié: mars 19, 2010, 8:21pm CET par Tim Conneally

iPad apps

In a message sent to developers today, Apple announced that it is now accepting iPad apps for the iTunes app store. To have apps approved (or rejected) in time for the iPad launch, they must be submitted to Apple by 5:00 pm PDT on Saturday, March 27. Only apps built with the iPhone SDK 3.2 beta 5 are going to be accepted in this round of reviews.

It has been rumored that the iPad is scheduled to launch on April 3, but the precise date of the device's launch is still undetermined.

Viacom and YouTube: Timeline of pertinent events

Publié: mars 19, 2010, 6:08pm CET par Tim Conneally

Background ribbon (small)

This week, documents from Viacom's billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube for copyright infringement were published, and the three-year-long-and-counting lawsuit has again been brought to the public's attention. In case you haven't been following the case, here's a quick timeline of the major events that led up to the lawsuit, and those that occurred since the original complaint was filed:

May 24, 2005- Viacom subpoenas YouTube for information about a user who uploaded clips from Paramount Pictures' "Twin Towers."

June 2005- Viacom's board of directors approves a plan to spin off assets, which become known as the new Viacom, Inc. That new company is given control of Paramount, while the core company reforms as CBS Corp.

January 2006- 20th Century Fox sues YouTube to have content from Fox TV shows such as The Simpsons and 24 removed from YouTube.

June 2006- YouTube and NBC partner to create NBC channel on YouTube for Internet exclusives, clips, and trailers.

July 2006- Viacom and NBC Universal back journalist Robert Tur in his suit against YouTube for illegally posting his videos of the 1992 L.A. riots. The legal brief said, "YouTube incorrectly contends that the DMCA permits it to avoid any responsibility for the content on its commercial website and completely shift the burden to content owners to discover and notify it of infringements."

September 2006- YouTube signs content deal with Warner to host the company's music videos.

October 9, 2006- CBS and YouTube announce a strategic content and advertising partnership.

October 2006- Viacom and YouTube reach a content syndication agreement.

October 20, 2006- Google Buys YouTube for $1.65 Billion.

December 2006- Viacom reportedly walks away from negotiations with NBC Universal, CBS Corp., and Fox Interactive about creating a TV-centric YouTube competitor site.

February 2007- Viacom retracts its content agreement with Google, pulls everything off the site.

February 2007- YouTube's pending content deal with CBS halts.

March 2007- Viacom Sues Google for over 63,000 separate counts of copyright infringement seeking $1 billion in damages. YouTube protects itself with the "Safe Harbor" provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

March 2007- Viacom General Counsel Michael Fricklas in a Washington Post op-ed says that YouTube was not just a passive content host, and that it is fully aware of what it does. "If the public knows what's there, then YouTube's management surely does. YouTube's own terms of use give it clear rights, notably the right to take anything down."

May 2007- Google signs YouTube content deal with record label EMI.

May 2007- British Premier League files class action suit against YouTube for copyright infringement, says Google "knowingly misappropriated and exploited this valuable property," when it allowed users to post footage from its football games.

June 2007- YouTube introduces Content ID to help content owners identify if their content is being used, gives them the option to remove unauthorized content, or monetize it.

July 2007- Google CEO Eric Schmidt says Viacom was "built from lawsuits."

August 2007- Google asks Comedy Central personalities Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to testify against Viacom in copyright hearings. Comedy Central is a Viacom property.

October 2007- Viacom joins MySpace, Microsoft, Veoh, and Dailymotion in signing the "Copyright Principles for User Generated Content Services," hoping it will become a sort of "television code" of online copyright protection.

March 2008- Viacom President and CEO Phillippe Dauman says "We've already achieved a number of things with this lawsuit. It took a long time, but because of our actions, YouTube has moved in the right direction. They're where they should have been all along."

May 2008- Google claims Viacom's suit threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression," claims it could have a chilling effect on all Internet communications.

June 2008- New York District Court rules that Google has to turn over user IDs and IP addresses to Viacom. Angry users upload nearly 5,000 "Viacom Sucks" videos to YouTube. Google is later allowed to make this data anonymous.

July 2008- Movie studio Lionsgate partners with YouTube for a branded channel with ad-supported official content from the studio.

October 2008- The McCain/Palin presidential campaign asked YouTube to stop taking down campaign videos that incorporated clips of news broadcasts. YouTube said that it was doing so at the request of broadcasters who objected to the use of their copyrighted footage.

April 2009- Content owners discus "TV Anywhere" plan to tie Web-based video content into cable subscription fees. Viacom CEO Dauman says, "People are used to paying for video subscriptions," sees it as a good idea.

June 2009- "TV Everywhere" network scheme launches.

July 2009- Some claims from the Premier League's 2007 suit against YouTube are dismissed, but claims for "statutory damages for works not registered in the US" are allowed.

September 2009- Google gives individual copyright holders access to the Insight metrics of YouTube videos that contain their intellectual property according to Content ID.

October 2009- Viacom presents "smoking gun" evidence for its case: internal e-mails from YouTube staff that show "actual knowledge" that copyright infringement was taking place on the video sharing site.

November 2009- Google announces YouTube Direct, a system where media outlets can directly communicate with users and arrange rebroadcasting rights on a one-to-one basis.

March 2010- Some of Viacom's "smoking gun" documents go public, company claims "YouTube was intentionally built on infringement."

A tale of two "red alerts:" Which Windows warnings should you heed?

Publié: mars 19, 2010, 1:26am CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Literally every day at Betanews, we get at least one security vendor "alert" of some type, warning us to be on the lookout for the latest malware. The message is always the same: Advise users to stay vigilant, to keep patching, to upgrade their antivirus to the latest editions. But the profiles of the malware typically look the same, too -- stuff you might click on by accident, links pretending to be from your "best friend" in an e-mail message, ads for products that look too good to be true.

For many of us, the situation is getting to be like the US' terror alert level, which has remained at "Yellow" since the fall of 2007. We starting to forget what "elevated" vigilance means. And maybe that's a problem, because lack of attention to advice about real threats could become as dangerous as lack of attention to any one of those miracle weight-loss links.

This isn't an ad, it's my opinion: Over the years, I've trusted the engineers at Sophos Labs to present down-to-earth analyses of possible security scares. This morning, I forwarded two recent reports from other well-known security vendors to Sophos' Chester Wisniewski, reports about malware that didn't fit the ordinary profile we tend to see from day to day.

The first report comes from ALWIL Software, publishers of Avast anti-virus, and it's been heavily circulated since it was first issued last February. It speaks of the horrors of receiving unsolicited malware by way of JavaScript elements embedded in the ads that appear on Web sites -- the sources of which, sometimes, innocent publishers have no control over.

"The malware usually spreads through Web infection placed on innocent, badly secured Web sites," reads last month's initial warning from the Czech Republic-based Avast's Jiri Sejtko. "The ad infiltration method is growing in popularity alongside with the Web site infections. Now we are facing probably the biggest ad poisoning ever made -- all important ad services are affected. It means that users might get infected just by reading their favorite newspaper or by doing search on famous Web indexers. User interaction is not needed in this attack -- infection begins just after poisoned ad is loaded by the browser -- it is not a type of social engineering."

A chart from the ALWIL security research team showing what it claims to be the number of detected instances of malware sent by advertising platforms over a six-day period.

A chart from the ALWIL security research team showing what it claims to be the number of detected instances of malware sent by advertising platforms over a six-day period.

ALWIL's research found the Fox Audience Network as among the ad platforms spreading the alleged infection, which the firm dubbed "JS:Prontexi." On Tuesday, a public relations effort by the firm dubbed the malware a "widespread campaign," leading to blanket coverage such as this story in Media Post on Tuesday, this story in the Danish BizReport earlier today, and this blog post on Photoxels, which contains the original press release in its entirety.

That press release stated as many as one in two online ads served worldwide was in danger of being infected by the malware the ALWIL team discovered. "JS:Prontexi highlights the lack of care shown by advertising services providers to actively screen the content they are distributing," Sejtko is quoted as saying.

Can this problem truly be this bad -- a malware component with a 50% worldwide Web reach?

"Infections on ad services are certainly of heightened concern," Sophos' Chet Wisniewski told Betanews earlier today, "yet this is almost a month old, and the miscreants who caused this incident have since moved on. To claim it as the biggest ad server compromise ever seems to me to be a bit of hyperbole." The moral of the story, according to the ALWIL press release: Pay attention to situations where you may think antivirus software like Avast is returning false positives...they may not be false. Again quoting Sejtko, "Consumers shouldn't immediately accuse their antivirus program of a false positive when a familiar site gets blocked. There can be a real danger."

The other "red alert" this week comes from McAfee Labs, as part of its new program of publishing "Consumer Threat Alerts." One of the first such alerts yesterday concerns a worldwide "Facebook password reset scam." Here, users worldwide are sent an ordinary e-mail -- no graphics, no text formatting, just an e-mail with an attachment: "Dear user of facebook [sic], Because of the measures taken to provide safety to our clients, your password has been changed. You can find your new password in attached document. Thanks, Your Facebook."

As McAfee's threat alert from yesterday reads, "This threat is potentially very dangerous considering that there are over 400 million Facebook users who could fall for this scam. This is also the sixth most prevalent piece of malware targeting consumers in the last 24 hours, as tracked by McAfee Labs." Since this is also the type of phishing scam that we see here at Betanews every single day (sometimes every few hours), certainly this can't be the kind of malware delivery mechanism that people fall for, can it? Haven't people smelled this kind of scam long enough to spot it at a distance?

Surprise. As Wisniewski told us, this one deserves the red flag and the blaring klaxons.

"We are seeing very high volumes of this attack. Sophos detects the attachments as TROJ/Invo-Zip, which we talked about being involved in a similar MySpace attack this January. It then proceeds to infect you with Mal/FakeAV-BW (Fake Anti-virus). The same malware is also making the rounds as a fake delivery notification from DHL. The only thing unique is the extremely high volumes and the large user base that Facebook has that could be convinced to run the malware."

So to recap: A completely unsophisticated e-mail attachment, of the garden variety we've seen for the last 15 year, is seen by Sophos as being more dangerous and widespread than an embedded JavaScript that one security researcher says has the potential of appearing in half the world's online ads. The only way to ever find out the truth, is to ask the right questions of the right people.

Palm posts third quarter results: disappointing sales, more net loss

Publié: mars 18, 2010, 11:37pm CET par Tim Conneally

Palm Pixi Plus

In late February, Palm issued a shareholder warning which said that profits for the full year were going to be "well below" expectations due to a surprisingly slow demand for Palm's smartphones.

Thursday evening, the company issued its third quarter earnings report, and though the numbers were actually up against the same quarter last year (when Palm posted a net loss of $98 million), the company is still losing money; $22 million, to be exact.

True to the company's warning last month, device shipments were up tremendously, but sales did not follow. Thanks to the newly-released Pre Plus and Pixi Plus on Verizon Wireless, Palm shipped 960,000 devices, but only 408,000 sold through.

Jon Rubinstein, Palm's chairman and CEO said, "Our recent underperformance has been very disappointing, but the potential for Palm remains strong. The work we're doing to improve sales is having an impact, we're making great progress on future products, and we're looking forward to upcoming launches with new carrier partners. Most importantly, we have built a unique and highly differentiated platform in webOS, which will provide us with a considerable -- and growing -- advantage as we move forward."

Flash
Flash Player 9 or higher is required to view the chart
Click here to download Flash Player nowif (typeof(embedWikichart) != "undefined") {embedWikichart("http://charts.wikinvest.com/WikiChartMini.swf","wikichartContainer_75667212-0BB5-07FD-9930-7720E5FE01E7","600","365",{"liveQuote":"true","startDate":"19-09-2009","ticker":"PALM","endDate":"19-03-2010","embedCodeDate":"2010-3-19","showAnnotations":"true"},{});}View the full PALM chart at Wikinvest

Nvidia admits GeForce drivers responsible for fan problems, issues updates

Publié: mars 18, 2010, 9:14pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Download Nvidia ForceWare Drivers for Windows version 197.73 from Fileforum now.

Nvidia top story badge Version 196.75 of Nvidia's GeForce/Ion drivers were indeed responsible for fan overheating problems reported by users. That's the verdict from Nvidia, which in a second round of responses to customer concerns has released version 197.73, which it assures users doesn't have the problem.

According to a frequent contributor to Nvidia's support forum, the problem was with the release version of the driver (other contributors reported no such problem with the beta). Specifically, version 196.75 ran the on-board graphics chip fan at 40% speed like it's supposed to. But when the card got hotter, the speed boost failed to kick in.

As one tester verified, "Up to 72° [Celsius], the fan remains at 40%. At 73° it increases to 41%, at 74° to 42%, and at 75° it varies between 44 and 45%."

To its credit, Nvidia's response has actually been quite swift. Over the past few days, registered driver users received e-mail messages advising them to roll back to an earlier version. One Dell XPS M1730 customer tried that, only to find that certain data left behind from a simple uninstall made it impossible to reboot his computer except into Safe Mode -- where, after a short time, it would freeze. A volunteer pointed out the M1730 is a laptop...and the 196.75 drivers were for desktop PC cards.

Other volunteers suggested the use of driver cleaning utilities such as Guru3D Driver Sweeper. Meanwhile, they advised others to use manual utilities to monitor their processor temperatures.

Though some long-time forum members were prematurely lamenting about how long they'd have to wait to see software fixes, they actually did come within a few days. But that wasn't good enough for some who complained they lost their cards entirely. Over the weekend, prior to Nvidia's announcement, one forum contributor commented, "I have filled out an error report form and it seems that all I (we) can do now is wait. The possible fixes I have heard include: RMA video card for a new one; buy a new video card. These seem like rather poor fixes."

Sensing the onset of a possible customer revolt, forum contributor ImNutz4NvSLI (who, we can assume, is nuts for Nvidia SLI) attempted to put out the flames: "Paying attention to your GPUs temps is your responsibility. I can't imagine a situation in which my GPUs would get to over 100c and I wouldn't know about it. I am not trying to be cruel or insensitive, I am just stating it like it is. In this world today people are always looking for something for nothing, and looking to pass blame and not take responsibility for their own actions. While this driver may have broken automatic fan control on some users GPUs, certainly not all, fan control was still there to use and was working, all you had to do was pay attention to the temps."

The contributor pointed to a thread he set up last Saturday, containing illustrated instructions for setting up manual temperature monitors in Windows. Utilities such as EVGA Precision, for instance, show little temperature indicators in the Windows system tray, and can even overlay game screens with temperature monitor information on-demand.

Netflix axes 'friends' feature due to unpopularity

Publié: mars 18, 2010, 8:42pm CET par Tim Conneally

For more than five years, Netflix has had a feature called "Friends" which lets users connect their Netflix account with others so they can view each other's queues, suggest movies to each other, or see how a movie ranks against their peers' ratings.

Todd Yellin, Netflix VP of Product Management said that after six years, only two percent of subscribers actually used the feature, so it is going to be phased out in the coming months.

"No company has unlimited resources and we decided to move engineering development time and resources from a little used feature to support and maintain the things that benefit all Netflix members as the service evolves -- more devices for streaming and better encoding, for example," Yellin said.

Streaming, by comparison, is an absolute smash. Yellin said that roughly 50% of all Netflix subscribers use the Instant Streaming feature on their TVs, set-top boxes, and game consoles.

Unfortunately, the way the change became evident was rather clumsy.

Last week, Netflix implemented a new "Movie Detail" page on its Web site, which eliminated top 10 lists, friend ratings, and the ability to send movie notes. The features were still on the site, but their tabs were just removed from the page. Customers who used the "friends" feature were upset.

On a Hacking Netflix article about it last week, one commenter said, "The Friends feature and Top Ten Lists are *not* on individual movie pages any longer. Reviews from random Netflix users *are* there, however, and that makes absolutely no sense. Why would I care more about a random Netflix user's opinion than my friends'?"

Rather than letting subscribers know up front that the feature was in the process of being removed, Netflix just pulled the feature from its prominent position and relegated it to the background.

"We fumbled the ball this week," Yellin said. "In making some changes to the Movie Display Page we didn't fully communicate how they impact users of the Friends feature, and we owe you that. We've read every blog post, Tweet, news article and call log to Customer Service by those of you who are upset about this decision. To you, we apologize for not being more upfront earlier. We appreciate your passion and we understand your disappointment and frustration. Our decision is meant to benefit all Netflix members by allowing everyone to enjoy more movies and more TV episodes on more devices while still receiving the unbeatable convenience, selection and value that are the hallmarks of the Netflix service."

Kindle for Mac released: Is Amazon's e-reader moving away from hardware?

Publié: mars 18, 2010, 6:45pm CET par Tim Conneally

When Amazon debuted its first Kindle e-reader just over two years ago, we asked "...but will anyone buy it?"

We still can't say for certain.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has made it very clear that Kindle users consume a lot of Amazon's e-books. But to date, Bezos has never gone public with hardware sales figures. So we can't be sure if it's Kindle hardware that's driving content sales, or perhaps the software Kindle for Windows 7, iPhone, iPod Touch, and BlackBerry.

A report from Credit Suisse Group AG in February determined that Amazon.com had a 90% share of the e-book sales market last year. So the question looms large: What is everyone reading these books on?

Today, Amazon announced Kindle for Mac, the latest addition to the family of free Kindle software. It's essentially the same software that was released for Windows back in November, which lets users synchronize content and bookmarks between their mobile Kindle device and their desktop. If a user is reading an e-book on his Kindle 2 or iPhone, he can pick up on his PC where he left off on his mobile.

The software gives users the ability to shop in the Kindle Store, access their library of previously purchased content, view notes and highlights, adjust font size and spacing, and unlike the Kindle device, read books in full color. Amazon says the software will eventually come to include full-text search and the ability to make new annotations.

Kindle continues its strong push in the software direction this year. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer showed off a mystery HP slate running Kindle Software at CES this year, and Amazon promises a version will grace Apple's hotly anticipated iPad. So Amazon looks ready for the tablet trend.

The Kindle hardware, however, doesn't appear to be blazing as many new trails right now. The educational pilot programs with the Kindle DX were largely unsuccessful, and Amazon job listings earlier this month showed the company was considering improvement of the Kindle's rudimentary Web browser "on a tight schedule." It's obvious that Kindle is a vehicle for selling Amazon's proprietary e-books. But with no sales figures to illustrate consumer adoption of Kindle hardware, a saturated market of competing e-reader hardware of equally negligible relevance, and continuing growth of the free Kindle software, we may have to rephrase and restate Ed Oswald's question from two years ago...

People are buying Kindle books, but are they buying Kindle?

Microsoft cuts and pastes an egg

Publié: mars 18, 2010, 5:05pm CET par Carmi Levy

Ever since she brought me into the world, my mother has taught me many things, namely to not only learn from my own mistakes, but also from the mistakes of others.

Microsoft clearly never spoke to my mom, as evidenced by its decision to leave cut, copy, and paste capabilities out of the new Windows Phone 7 Series platform, at least in the early rounds. If they had paid Mom a visit, they would have been told -- after being offered some tea, of course -- to fix all the boo-boos of earlier smartphone operating systems before releasing their own updated version. She would have advised them to understand the rough spots encountered by competitive offerings, and do everything in their power to avoid them.

I think my mom's ticked with Microsoft

Okay, perhaps she wouldn't have worded it precisely that way, but I'm certain you get my point regardless. I'm sure I speak for my mother (and likely, a whole bunch of you, too) when I say I'm disappointed in what may either be Microsoft's "decision" to leave three of the most basic functions in the history of computing out of its just-announced OS, or as we seem to be learning now, it's having overlooked the whole subject in the planning phase.

This morning, blogger Long Zheng reports he was told by Microsoft that cut and paste is something the company hopes will find a place in Windows Phone 7 Series at some future point.

Now, the initial excuse the company provided was (and is, and quite likely always will be) insufficient and, if we're being brutally honest, more than a little arrogant: "Most users, including Office users, don't really need clipboard functionality." So what's the story now, after Long's report: "We asked users to give us some details, and they decided, most users do like clipboard functionality, just not right at first?"

Carmi Levy Wide Angle Zoom (v.2) While I realize OS vendors have to make countless decisions about which features should and should not make it into the final product, I bristle at Microsoft's tone -- a bit like US Congresspeople explaining why the public option for health care is a really, really, really good idea, but just not for the bill being discussed today. If Microsoft (or, for that matter, if anyone at all) can learn anything from Congress this year, it's that people don't like being told by The Powers On High what they are supposed to want or not want, and when.

It isn't Microsoft's place to tell users that they won't ever need to cut, copy, or paste anything for as long as they own their new devices. It's the kind of blow-off statement that sounds shockingly like Apple when it introduced the iPhone in 2007, similarly stripped of any ability to cut-and-paste. After a sea of complaints from users and reviewers who actually do know what they want, and don't need to be told, Apple wisely retro-baked that functionality back into the OS two years later. While the controversy didn't seem to dent Apple's market share, Microsoft hardly has the benefit of Apple's marketing prowess or brand equity.

Apple aficionados were willing to cut the company some slack, and ended up buying iPhones anyway. Microsoft aficionados are a lot harder to find, they won't line up around the block in the middle of the night, and they'll probably pick up an Android-powered device as an alternative. With Windows Mobile...oops, Classic devices retaining this feature, and Windows Phone 7 Series lacking it, the inconsistency is difficult to understand. However you slice it, there will be no slack for Windows Phone 7 Series, and it's more than a little shocking that Microsoft couldn't see this coming.

Teaching us all a lesson?

In fairness to Microsoft, its new mobile OS includes a data detection service that automatically recognizes common elements like addresses and phone numbers. Within this context, perhaps there's room to make the argument that cutting and pasting is yesterday's news. This technology, popularized with the first mass-market GUIs in the early '80s, and perpetuated in virtually every desktop and mobile OS ever since, could be one of those things that we hold on to like a security blanket. And like the ratty old blanket, perhaps there's a time when we need to let go. Maybe, just maybe, Microsoft is doing us all a favor by pushing it out the door.

But consumers are a fickle lot. And what makes sense from a strategic or historical perspective isn't necessarily right from the point of view of the guy forking over the dough for your new wonder-product. Never mind that Microsoft may, in fact, be "right" in concluding that we no longer need cut, copy, and paste on our mobile devices. Customers, after all, are always right, even if their choices make them look like circus clowns who do their makeup in the dark. It's their mistake to make and their shame to live down. Even if the vendor believes otherwise, it's not the smartest business strategy to call them idiots and make fun of their smudged face paint.

It's at moments like these that the mobile browsing experience truly does resemble the desktop browsing experience. (IE Mobile 6 on Windows Mobile 6.1.4 emulator) Casting off a legacy

In fairness to Microsoft, I somewhat understand where the company is coming from. Previous versions of its mobile OS suffered from what I like to call Shrunken Windows Syndrome. Instead of being built from the ground up as truly mobile-enabled solutions, they seemed to be pared-down versions of Microsoft's flagship desktop OS products. Microsoft's philosophy seemed to be that if it worked on a PC, it would work on a smartphone or a PDA, too. I used a number of Windows CE and Mobile devices over the years, and I never got used to navigating a full-on Start menu, complete with cascading sub-menus, with a stylus or thumb keyboard. It was as if Microsoft never actually used its own mobile products out in the field, and never listened to users who complained bitterly that its design philosophy simply didn't work out there.

With Windows Phone 7 Series, Microsoft seems to have finally gotten the mobile message. It's built from the ground up as a modern, competitive, lean and efficient mobile OS. I suspect the cut-and-paste omission is the company's way of overcompensating for years of heavy Windows legacy on its mobile products, a hackneyed way to break with its past.

Memo to Redmond: There are other ways to accomplish this.

It's only temporary

If Long Zheng's reporting is accurate (and it often is), I'd wager that v7.1 will have copy and paste...that is, if Microsoft doesn't cave to the firestorm earlier and release it as an on-the-fly fix. Either way, the only way Microsoft will ever gain traction in the mobile OS market is by listening to both customers and prospective customers and integrating their suggestions -- well, the value-added ones, at least -- into successive generations of their product.

This is a gaffe Microsoft simply can't afford. Its mobile OS is in the fight of its life as Microsoft battles the Apple/Google/RIM juggernaut on one hand and its own declining mobile market share on the other. Beyond the numbers, there's the risk that the market has already given up on Microsoft succeeding as a mobile vendor. That psychological factor (something Palm knows all too well) is something Microsoft needs to fix by reinstating cut-and-paste support. Now wouldn't be soon enough.

Google improves Maps for Android, rolls in bonus features

Publié: mars 18, 2010, 6:13am CET par Tim Conneally

Google Maps 4.1 search results screen Today, Google has rolled out a significant update to the Google Maps application for Android 1.6+ devices, which now includes a new search results page, support for multiple accounts, a new Latitude home screen widget, and a new Maps live wallpaper for 2.1 devices.

Previously, when you performed a search in Maps, you would have to choose a result from a list of markers on the map. When you clicked the marker, it would open a page with three tabs: Address, Details, and Reviews. Under the Address tab, there were options to Show the result on the map, get directions to it, call it, look at it in Street View, or add it as a contact. The other two tabs contain exactly what you'd expect, details and reviews. If you wanted to pick a different listing, you'd have to go back to the map view and pick a different marker.

Now, Google has completely eliminated the tabs, turned all the actions from the "Address" tab into buttons, included digested versions of the other tabs on the first page, and added the ability to "Buzz" about the location you have picked.

Additionally, you no longer have to navigate back to the map to check out other nearby results. You can simply swipe across the page to leaf through all the results.

The Latitude widget that accompanies the 4.1 update lets users view their nearby Latitude friends at all times from their home screen. The Maps live wallpaper, probably the coolest bonus feature, lets 2.1 users turn their entire homescreen background into a live animated map.

The update is available now from the Android Market.

Preliminary results: IE9 tech preview performs 7.8 times better than IE8

Publié: mars 17, 2010, 11:50pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Test Results

In the first series of comprehensive performance tests comparing Microsoft's Internet Explorer 9 technical preview, released yesterday, to stable Web browsers in current use today, Betanews confirmed superb speed gains by the IE9 chassis in specific categories. Not everything in the new IE9 was faster than IE8, but in the computational department, the development team's Chakra JavaScript engine shows much-needed gains.

In anticipation of IE9, Betanews has been developing a radically improved set of performance tests to complement (and, in a few categories, replace) those we've used in recent months. Our objective is to determine not just how much faster IE9 is, but how much better and more efficient it will be, in computing data, in rendering on-screen objects, and in adapting to varying workloads.

Betanews estimates that the IE9 chassis on Windows 7 offers 9.32 times better raw computational performance than IE8 on Windows 7, on the same machine. That's a welcome number due in large part to vastly improved scores in the widely respected SunSpider battery, as well as high scores in a new set of variable-workload computational tests produced by Betanews. Specifically on the SunSpider, the IE9 preview scored a 44.77 on Betanews' relative performance index, compared to 5.59 for IE8. Our index is based on cumulative relative performance in each category of the test battery, compared against the score posted by an old, slow Web browser: IE7 on Vista SP2. This means, yes, IE9 (thus far) offers almost 45 times the computational speed of IE7 on the older operating system -- easily the single largest surge we've seen between generations.

A recent dev build of Google Chrome 5 on Windows 7 scored a 69.83 on that same SunSpider index, followed closely by the first stable version of Opera 10.5 with 68.64.

As Microsoft embraces HTML 5, it's also managing to eke out some marginal speed gains in the rendering department, although it must be noted that the IE9 chassis is running in an almost feature-less window with very minimal overhead. As of now, the IE9 preview offers 23% better rendering performance (CSS, DHTML, support for the Canvas element in HTML 5) than IE8.

Looking for the good

What Microsoft did yesterday was give outside developers, for the first time, direct access to just the engine of its next-generation Web browser, long before the functionality and usability features are attached to it. The reason, the Internet Explorer 9 product team says, is to elicit real-world feedback so that the product can be fine-tuned.

That describes exactly what we intend to do. Over the last few weeks, Betanews has been compiling a suite of next-generation browser tests, having taken into account the feedback we've received from both our readers and browser manufacturers, Microsoft included. As rapidly as browsers have evolved in just the past year, it's become clear to us that when we compare brands, at one level, we truly are comparing apples to apple trees, or lawnmowers to bulldozers. When we concentrate on the prowess or power angle, with all the adrenaline-rushing metaphors and superlatives, we sometimes forget that sometimes, what the world really wants is an efficient lawnmower.

Last year, IE General Manager Dean Hachamovitch asked me to take a closer, fairer look at Internet Explorer. Specifically, he said that there were architectural efficiencies to be found in the product line, if only we took the time to look for them.

How I opted to respond to that challenge was to focus on one under-appreciated aspect of the Web browser that will become more important as its components are transported to six-core desktop systems on one end, and Snapdragon handsets and netbooks on the other: scalability. Specifically, I started exploring whether there was a way to effectively measure how well a browser handles increasing workloads, of ever higher orders of magnitude.

Mozilla helped to begin making scalability an issue with its introduction of the TraceMonkey JavaScript engine in Firefox. Tracers make problems that appear complex in coding simpler for their processing engines to execute, by pre-processing instructions ahead of time, converting and optimizing long sequences into easily digestible, assembly language-like instructions. Theoretically, the simpler and longer the sequences, the easier the digestive process should become.

So in this new era, it becomes necessary to test the efficiency of a browser's capability to digest those long sequences, to make harder problems simpler for themselves. This is the scalability element which will represent 30% of the score in our revised Relative Performance Index.

Yesterday, Dean Hachamovitch played down the importance of just-in-time compiling as a factor in improving browser efficiency, promoting instead the option of moving the interpreter to a background process. But doing that alone, as we're discovering now, may not effectively combat what has historically been IE's biggest problem as a Web apps platform: the ability to fall off a cliff (see: "stack overflow") when problems get especially difficult. On new tests involving sorting algorithms, for instance, where recursion easily becomes thousands of layers deep, IE8 can spin off into a coma. So far, we have not seen the comatose effect in the IE9 tech preview, which could be the first sign of very good news for Web app developers.

What I was surprised to discover in crafting this new set of tests was that IE was not alone. Chrome can fall off a cliff too, just several orders of magnitude later (after 10 million iterations, for example, rather than 100,000). As the problem gets more and more complex, the gap between Chrome or Safari or the new Opera's performance and that of IE becomes wider and wider...and wider. And that's a problem because you could arbitrarily choose some point out in space, where Chrome is a thousand times faster than IE rather than, say, ten. Wait long enough and you might get 10,000.

And that, as IE proponents assert, would not be fair. It's actually the reason we chose not to include Google's V8 benchmark battery in our tests: because there does not appear to be a real-world correlation between the hundreds of times greater performance the V8 battery can report over IE, and the differences we see in ordinary use.

So the goal of our scalability tests is to recognize that smaller engines can still be efficient in what they do, even when they offer lesser horsepower. Maybe IE can't run a 10-million-iteration test. But the difference between its performance in 100,000 iterations and in 10,000 can be compared to Chrome's difference between 10 million iterations and 1 million. That factor may still be meaningful.

In the very first report of browsers' scalability compared to IE7 in Vista SP2, the IE9 tech preview in Windows 7 scored a 6.57 compared to IE8's score of 1.13. That means, we believe IE9's new "Chakra" interpreter offers 581.4% greater efficiency than IE8 at speeding up when workloads increase. Betanews is applying these new tests to the latest stable browsers from the other Top Five browser makers; and yes, Ross Perot fans, we'll have the charts ready when the numbers come in.

Unboxing: TiVo Premiere

Publié: mars 17, 2010, 10:47pm CET par Tim Conneally

Though you might come to Betanews expecting an article with either performance testing and graphs or inflammatory diatribes, we're not above a good unboxing; especially when it's a brand new piece of hardware that we intend to thoroughly test (or just very seriously play with.)

Today, we're fortunate enough to have received a new TiVo Premiere, the first TiVo DVR with an HD interface designed especially to unite content from multiple sources under a single experience. They call it "The One Box."

Have a look!

Click the TiVo logo above for the Grand Premiere Unboxing Slideshow!

Sprint assures that it's getting the Nexus One, too

Publié: mars 17, 2010, 8:36pm CET par Tim Conneally

Yesterday, an updated version of Google's Nexus One Android smartphone was released, compatible with AT&T and Rogers Canada's 3G networks. Today, Sprint is letting everyone know that it is getting the device too.

This means that all four major wireless carriers have secured a spot for the Nexus One this year. Google sells versions of the device optimized for T-Mobile and AT&T's wireless networks, and a version for Verizon's network is still expected some time in the Spring, but the operator has not put out any further notices about its availability.

Likewise, Sprint today isn't disclosing exactly when Google will start selling a Sprint-compatible Nexus One, nor is it disclosing any pricing plans associated with the device. Today's announcement is simply a confirmation that one is on the way "soon."

Google has not updated its online store to reflect Sprint's announcement.

Things to look for at CTIA: America's first 4G smartphone

Publié: mars 17, 2010, 7:23pm CET par Tim Conneally

Sprint is making the bold first move into 4G smartphone market next week, a Wall Street Journal report said today. At that time, the carrier is expected to show off its new WiMAX-enabled HTC Supersonic.

The Supersonic has been a pretty big blip on the Android community's radar for several months, after a whole list of HTC device names was uncovered in a leaked Sense UI ROM last December. Since that time, a few more details have been discovered, and a few blurry spy camera shots and renders have surfaced; but as far as official specs go, there are none. It looks to have the same massive 4.3" screen that the HD2 has, run on the Android platform, and possibly contain a Snapdragon processor.

Sprint is the only major mobile network operator with a higher-speed "4G" network immediately available to consumers, but it is currently only accessible through USB dongles and portable hotspots like the Sierra Wireless Overdrive, and these are still only available in about 10 markets nationwide.

There are nearly 30 WiMAX networks active in the US now under the Clear brand (a joint venture of Sprint and Clearwire), and this year Clearwire expects to complete 80 more cities including major markets Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Seattle, and Washington DC.

Since Betanews is headquartered in Baltimore, we've been using Sprint's WiMAX network since it first launched in 2008. I ran a quick test this morning to see how well the WiMAX connection holds up against my smartphones' 3G connections, and the performance was actually only marginally better.

Using the FCC's Ookla network tester three times for each network, Sprint 4G averaged 5.35 Mbps / 0.30 Mbps with 130 ms latency, Verizon 3G averaged 1.61 Mbps / 0.65 Mbps with 122 ms latency, and T-Mobile 3G averaged 0.5Mbps / 0.45 Mbps with 215 ms latency. Unfortunately, I didn't have a device handy to test AT&T's speeds in the area this morning.

We will be meeting with both Sprint and HTC at CTIA next week and will be able to give you a crystal clear look at the device if it does, in fact, show up.

Microsoft loses another jury verdict, this time over obviousness of VPN patent

Publié: mars 17, 2010, 5:06pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Usually the purpose of a virtual private network is to establish a secure, tunneled route between two points in an IP network. Is the idea that such a network could be secured using two encryption layers rather than one, and without the need for a user to log in first, worthy of a patent? These were questions central to the latest Tyler, Texas patent infringement case for Microsoft to lose: VPN technology provider VirnetX was awarded $105.75 million yesterday, in a case closely followed by the Seattle P.I.'s Nick Eaton.

It's clear from a reading of VirnetX's key patent on VPN technology, issued in 2002, that it is an attempt to go one step further with the VPN concept. The firm calls its system Tunneled Agile Routing Protocol (TARP). Here, the communications between VPN hosts are encrypted at one level, but then the routing information is hidden behind a second level. The intent is to hide not only what's being talked about or shared over a VPN, but who is sharing it, and what route it's taking to get there.

"Each TARP packet's true destination is concealed behind a layer of encryption generated using a link key," reads a portion of the summary from US Patent #6,502,135. "The link key is the encryption key used for encrypted communication between the hops intervening between an originating TARP terminal and a destination TARP terminal. Each TARP router can remove the outer layer of encryption to reveal the destination router for each TARP packet. To identify the link key needed to decrypt the outer layer of encryption of a TARP packet, a receiving TARP or routing terminal may identify the transmitting terminal by the sender/receiver IP numbers in the cleartext IP header. Once the outer layer of encryption is removed, the TARP router determines the final destination."

Microsoft implemented its own interpretation of VPN technology for Office Communicator, the endpoint for the company's bold Unified Communications project -- its effort to render the phone networks, and PBXes that support them, obsolete. To make the Internet work more like a phone, people using a telephone console need to be able to pick up the receiver and dial. They shouldn't have to go to some dialog box and log in. Avoiding that option is what UC tries to do, and is one of the acts for which VirnetX cried foul.

In hearings last July (which Eaton also covered closely), Microsoft defended itself by asserting that the whole point of a VPN is to establish both secure and anonymous communications between points, so the idea that VirnetX was somehow inventing the addition of anonymity was absurd. If you doubt that a VPN is supposed to be anonymous, counsel argued, just look it up in a glossary. Which the judge did, and that got into a wholly separate argument over the quality of glossaries, resulting in the judge in the case issuing his own glossary for the jury to interpret as fact.

An excerpt from Judge Leonard Davis' opinion last July shows the extent of the argument over how deeply a glossary may define a concept, especially if that concept may be proof of "prior art" that could invalidate a patent (PDF available here, from SeattlePI.com): "Microsoft cites the portion of the 'FreeS/WAN' glossary definition for 'virtual private networks' that states, 'IPSEC [Internet Protocol Security] is not the only technique available for building VPNs, but it is the only method defined by RFCs [Request for Comments, Internet documents -- some of which are informative while others are standards] and supported by many vendors. VPNs [virtual private networks] are by no means the only thing you can do with IPSEC, but they may be the most important application for many users.'...Microsoft points out that IPSEC is the only method defined by RFCs and supported by many vendors. Microsoft argues that this narrow language shows that the 'FreeS/WAN' glossary does not identify Secure Sockets Layer ('SSL') or Transport Layer Security ('TLS') as methods for building 'virtual private networks.' Microsoft then argues that VirnetX's proposed construction is overly broad because it allows for a network using SSL and TLS. However, Microsoft's cited excerpt is an ancillary portion of the 'virtual private network' definition and is set apart in a different paragraph from the primary portion of the definition...Also, Microsoft selectively asserts that IPSEC is the only method defined by RFCs and supported by many vendors and ignores that its cited excerpt states that, 'IPSEC is not the only technique available for building VPNs.' Thus, Microsoft's cited excerpt does not support that the 'FreeS/WAN' glossary restricts 'virtual private network' to IPSEC."

If Microsoft could have proved that VirnetX's contribution to VPN architecture was so obvious that it would still be covered by a published glossary definition of the term, then it might have persuaded the jury that no patent should have been issued in the first place. But that assertive defense became problematic (at best) last summer when it was revealed that Microsoft itself attempted to patent the same technology, in an application that was denied by the US Patent Office. The basis of the denial was prior art -- specifically, the pre-existence of patents issued to VirnetX.

As the jury no doubt heard from plaintiff's counsel, if Microsoft didn't know about the existence of VirnetX's patents before, it did when it received its rejection notice. No haggling over glossary definitions could save the case at that point. In a statement, Microsoft continued to assert the invalidity of VirnetX's patents, and will begin the long and arduous process of appealing to overturn the verdict.

Two months after the Nexus One, Motorola Droid to get Android 2.1

Publié: mars 17, 2010, 3:05pm CET par Tim Conneally

Motorola's Droid has been by far the most popular Android smartphone to hit the US market, selling at a faster pace than the first generation iPhone, and making up, by some accounts, at least 15% of all Android phones in use.

It was the first handset to launch with Android 2.0, a significantly redesigned version of Google's mobile operating system, and it was the first Android device on Verizon, making it a popular choice for the wireless provider's huge subscriber base.

Though it remains a very strong consumer device, the Droid's popularity in the tech community was quickly overshadowed by Google's Nexus One, which was launched only three months after it. The Nexus One became Google's first attempt at directly selling smartphones, and the first handset with Android 2.1.

Motorola's Droid from Verizon Wireless

Version 2.1 was only a minor platform upgrade, with no new features as substantial as those brought by 2.0, but it included full multi-touch support, tweaked the UI with eye-catching animated wallpapers, became an object of desire for Android enthusiasts.

This week, just two months after 2.1 debuted in the Nexus One, Verizon will begin pushing it as an over-the-air update to the Motorola Droid.

The foremost feature will be the addition of multitouch to the browser and photo gallery. The Droid supports multitouch, but only recently got pinch-to-zoom in Google Maps. It will also natively support voice-to-text entry, include a new 3D gallery application, a new weather and news app with a related widget, and the famous animated wallpapers.

Android Central reports that Verizon approved the update today, and that it will roll out to 250,000 Droids at a time starting at 12:00 pm Thursday, March 18.

Internet Explorer 9, the HTML 5 browser: Better than half-way there

Publié: mars 16, 2010, 11:54pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Download Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 Platform Preview via Fileforum now.

[Today's delay in Betanews bringing you Internet Explorer 9 news was brought to you as a public service by the Cable Modem: Your Best Friend When It's Crunch Time. Remember, where there's smoke, there's a Comcast cable modem. Smell one today.]

It is perhaps the unlikeliest scenario any technologist could imagine as recently as two years ago: Microsoft evangelizing developers to embrace Web standards by helping it to build its Web browser. Although one of the first browsers to be distributed for free, Internet Explorer has never been open source. Historically, it's always been ready when it's ready; its value proposition has been to the consumer who prefers convenience over adaptability; and when the fact that it was dirt slow was pointed out, the response typically was, the consumer isn't going to care.

Today, the value proposition started to take shape for IE9, the browser that in an earlier era didn't need a value proposition. Microsoft's strategy, which premiered today at MIX 10, was to seize control of tomorrow's key talking point, HTML 5 compliance and compatibility -- to make HTML 5 identifiable with Internet Explorer. In fact, IE General Manager Dean Hachamovitch's greeting sentence to MIX 10 attendees this morning wasn't without the term "HTML 5."

Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 General Manager Dean Hachamovitch speaks to MIX 10 on March 16.

"When we started looking deeply at HTML 5, we saw that it enabled a whole new class of applications," was Hachamovitch's second sentence. "These applications will stress the browser runtime and hardware, as today's sites just don't. We quickly realized that doing HTML 5 right -- our intent -- was more about designing around what HTML 5 applications will need, rather than a particular set of features. Done right, HTML 5 applications will feel more like real apps than Web pages, and our approach to HTML 5 is to make standard Web patterns that developers already know and use, just run faster and better by taking advantage of PC hardware through Windows."

Developers have always known that Microsoft has always had the capability to leverage its mastery of Windows APIs to build smoother applications. But as other Microsoft applications have weaned themselves off of the old Win32 dependencies, such as rendering using the old GDI and GDI+ libraries, Internet Explorer has fallen further and further behind. In fact, you could make the case that Silverlight gives Web developers opportunities to use the modern rendering libraries that IE should be using now natively.

Soliciting general developers' help in improving IE (some will say for the first time), Microsoft today began distributing the bare-bones chassis of the IE9 Web browser -- no frills, no features, not even bookmarks. Just a rendering engine in a window. With Google Chrome, Apple Safari, and now even Opera having made effective cases for the Web being "the platform," Microsoft desperately needs to resume defining the platform before someone else ends up defining it instead.

But one element of Microsoft's IE message remains the same even today: Those areas where the competitors say they have the advantage, may not be all that important to end users. Case in point: just-in-time compilation, the factor that has catapulted Mozilla Firefox and WebKit-based browsers such as Safari and Chrome into today's speed race.

Microsoft's chart of relative SunSpider test performance claims dramatic improvement, including better performance than Firefox.

For example, Hachamovitch did cite the IE9 chassis' speed improvement on the widely accepted SunSpider performance test, created by the originators of the open source WebKit engine. On Microsoft's chart, Opera is the fastest performer on the SunSpider, followed by a Chrome 5 dev build, a Chrome 4 stable build, and the latest Safari 4.0.5, released late last week by Apple (apologies for the fuzzy screenshot of Microsoft's chart). So yes, IE9 comes in fifth, rather than dead last. But the difference isn't that much of a difference, he said:

"It's interesting to note that the gap between IE9 and some of the other browsers to its right is about an eye-blink -- it's about 300 ms. And it took 70 seconds to identify that 300 ms difference."

When it comes to HTML 5, Microsoft wants to be perceived now as leading that standard. But with respect to standards at large, the company's position remains unchanged from last year: As long as Web standards are up in the air, compliance is a foggy term anyway. Today, Hachamovitch implied that if the goal of standards bodies were the same as Microsoft's goal of one language, the fog would be lifted:

"Developers want to use the same HTML, the same script, and the same markup across browsers. That's the goal of standards and interoperability. No need for different code paths for different browsers. That's a key goal for HTML 5. We love HTML 5 so much, we want it to actually work. In IE9, it will. We want the same HTML, the same script, the same markup to just work across browsers. So in IE9, we'll do for the rest of the Web platform what we did for CSS 2.1 in IE8. Now, at the same time, we want to be responsible about the standards that are still emerging, the standards that are in committee, and the standards that are partially implemented, often in different ways across browsers. So to make decisions on this front, we started from data."

As an Acid3 test runs in the background (it's not done yet), Dean Hachamovitch demonstrates how 'standards' support varies between even Firefox and Chrome (lower right) for the same markup. From MIX 10.

As an Acid3 test runs in the background (it's not done yet), Dean Hachamovitch demonstrates how 'standards' support varies between even Firefox and Chrome (lower right) for the same markup.

The IE9 team leader went on to describe an internal tool that measured the script activity on 7,000 active Web sites. The telemetry that it received showed, for instance, that the #1 method in use was indexOf(), on 94% of sites measured. Number 17 on the list, used by 65% of sites, was addEventListener, a method that's key to W3C's advanced event registration model, but not yet supported in IE8.

"Because we started from data, what developers like you really use was our starting point for what to support." As a result, the IE9 chassis passed 578 out of 578 in the CSS3.info selectors test, putting it now on a par with Firefox. That's important, Hachamovitch noted, because developers want that one language -- one CSS, one HTML -- to work with for all browsers across the board.

A MIX 10 test of graphics object rendering shows more things tend to move more fluidly in IE9 than Google Chrome. Meanwhile, the IE9 preview posts a 55% score on the Acid3 standards compliance test -- up from 20% for IE8, and 12% for IE7. The latest stable Firefox, by comparison, scores 94% on this test; and Safari, Chrome, and Opera all score 100%. Could the CSS3.info test be fair, and the Acid3 test unfair?

"Some people use Acid3 as shorthand for standards support. Acid3 is kind of interesting, it exercises about a hundred details of a dozen different technologies. Some of them are under construction, others less so," Hachamovitch said. He added a promise that Acid3 scores will continue to improve "as we make more of the markup that developers actually use, work."

Next: Offloading processing to the background and to the GPU... Offloading processing to the background and to the GPU

The architectural development that helped Firefox and others vault from banana-like bars such as those on the left of Microsoft's SunSpider chart, to peanut-like bars like those on the right, was the implementation of just-in-time compilation (JIT) -- a concept first implemented in Java and .NET, re-engineered for JavaScript. Today, Hachamovitch's tactic was to characterize JIT compilers as "JIT-ters," complete with the wimpy sound and unstable connotations, similar to how AMD characterized Intel's introduction of "hyperthreading" five years ago.

"In the beginning, the Web had lots and lots of HTML, and little pieces of script here and there. And an interpreter was good enough for that. Over the years, different browsers have added JIT-ters and different kinds of JIT-ters, many different kinds of JIT-ters. The problem with JIT today is that so much time and energy goes into managing the time and scope that the JIT-ter operates in. Users have to wait if the JIT-ter JITs too much, because the JIT-ter is sitting there compiling the code, and you don't get to run it. And the user has to wait if the JIT-ter JITs too little, because then the JIT-ter did a little bit, and the user is stuck running a slower interpreter."

Something vaguely similar to the phenomenon Hachamovitch described is what we at Betanews have seen in a recent round of high-level browser testing, on IE and other platforms, in preparation for today's release of the IE9 tech preview. JavaScript interepreters, by today's design, are single-threaded. Their ability to run JavaScript very fast depends, to a great extent, on the relative complexity or simplicity of the instructions. JIT compilers produce much simpler machine code, but only in situations where the JavaScript instructions are relatively simple to parse, and not entangled in competing loops with unsightly timeouts. Long stretches of uniform code -- 100,000, one million, even ten million iterations -- are like butter candy to browsers like Chrome, smooth, silky, and easy to digest. But break up those instructions with interruptions (for instance, updates of an on-screen timer at one-second intervals), and what once seemed like butter now processes like rock-filled concrete. And sequences that Chrome could execute in under 30 seconds, all of a sudden, could take (by my estimate) days to execute if left unattended. It's in situations like this where the JIT-ter is jittering, to borrow Dean's phrasing. But about the only place you're going to find someone trying to do 10 million iterations of an algorithm in succession, is at Betanews, where the guy doing the testing is on his sixth cup of coffee and is jittery anyway.

Still, in anticipation of the types of advances Dean described today, we've been working to create a new class of tests that would enable IE9 to shine if it truly does what Dean says it does. Today, he described how IE9 moves the JavaScript interpreter to a background process:

"Compiling in the background puts hardware to use here without having to re-code the site. And the key here is to bring the best technology to the most important language you use, JavaScript."

Microsoft Windows Division President Steven Sinofsky duels IE9 General Manager Dean Hachamovitch, in a demonstration that the IE9 chassis renders more like a computer, at MIX 10 on March 16. HTML 5 in large print, SVG in small print

Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG), a W3C standard since 1999, has never been actively supported by Internet Explorer even to this day. During today's demonstration of what he called, on the surface, "HTML 5 applications," Microsoft's Dean Hachamovitch was joined onstage by Windows Division President Steven Sinofsky to jointly demonstrate the IE9 technical preview's new GPU-assisted graphics rendering support, with Sinofsky on the new browser and Hachamovitch playing catch-up with Chrome.

Tucked away in the background of that clever little duel was the fact that IE9 was, for the first time, directly and openly supporting SVG.

A MIX 10 test of graphics object rendering shows more things tend to move more fluidly in IE9 than Google Chrome.

It's difficult to see from the screenshot of Microsoft's presentation above, but Sinofsky's IE9 browser at the upper left is rendering 100 simultaneous 3D extrapolations of 2D logos from various browsers, at 64 frames per second. Hachamovitch's Google Chrome, meanwhile, is rendering about 36 simultaneous logos at about 8 fps.

HTML 5 may have had little or nothing to do with this result. The real takeaway from this demo is the following: For years, Web developers have relied on Adobe Flash for vector graphics that are scalable, mainly since it's the only platform that can be plugged into all the major browsers and that can run uniformly within all of them. The reason for that is IE's reluctance to embrace SVG. Well, now that embracing SVG is necessary in order for Microsoft to demonstrate its graphics processing prowess, this could change the ballgame for Web developers, who may soon have at their disposal, at long last, a single open standard for animating Web sites.

Clippy, that lovable character from Microsoft Office XP, makes a cameo appearance in this graphics demo from MIX 10. In IE9 and Google Chrome, Clippy gets lost in a sea of translucent circles, but in the IE9 version, you can still see him. From MIX 10.

Who better to celebrate that news with than the lovable Clippy character we all adored from Office XP? In a demonstration not only of processing prowess but of standards compliance, the two executives enlisted Clippy as the hero in a 3D game of Asteroids, where the targets were multi-colored circles of translucent plastic. Rendered properly, Clippy could hold his own; but stuck in Google Chrome, which doesn't appear to apply relative opacity properly, it looks like Clippy may be in trouble. And it looks like he's writing a letter of distress.

A MIX 10 test of HTML 5 video in the IE9 developers preview shows variable opacity on multiple live videos in a carousel, thanks to GPU-assisted rendering.

Microsoft has posted links to the tests Sinofsky and Hachamovitch demonstrated on stage, on its special site devoted to the IE9 developers' preview. There you're also likely to find the stunning IE9 video carousel, which HTML 5 has everything to do with. Here, four HD videos of underwater scenes are rendered on translucent screens, that simultaneously travel along an invisible carousel-like path. Of course, you may always have known this kind of rendering power existed in your GPU, but you might never have seen your Web browser go this far to exploit that power.

The IE team has always been careful to say that the advances that matter are the ones that users see and feel. Last year, the company advanced the argument that millisecond differences were imperceptible. Which they are, unless they become fruitful and multiply -- and in a Web applications environment, that will happen. The news from Las Vegas today is this: Microsoft is building a Web applications platform. Finally.

Microsoft's Bill Buxton tells UI developers to 'do it naturally'

Publié: mars 16, 2010, 8:32pm CET par Joe Wilcox

Microsoft should make Bill Buxton its front man -- the main spokesperson. Buxton, principal researcher for Microsoft Research, has style, great enthusiasm and vision. In an alternate universe, Buxton founded a company like Apple; only better. Buxton is more visionary than Apple CEO Steve Jobs, has better sense of good design (he is a designer, after all) and understands great design in context of the flow of history. Perhaps if Buxton had more ego, he would run a company as successful as Apple, or Microsoft. But humility is part of his appeal.

Buxton stormed the Microsoft MIX10 stage today, bringing along hearth of wisdom and loads of energy. His energy is simply intoxicating. Last year, Buxton kicked off the MIX keynotes. This year he ended them -- and not with enough stage time. The first keynote, yesterday, started with sedate Scott Guthrie, Microsoft corporate vice president, talking Windows Phone 7 Series. Today's keynote began with Internet Explorer 9 team leader Dean Hachamovitch debuting the new browser, which is available as developer preview.

Hachamovitch, like Guthrie, is a competent speaker. By comparison, Buxton is dynamic, enthralling -- and he tells great stories about great design. Buxton roams the stage like a caged tiger, but his ferociousness is insight. Scattered grey hair and lean build give him a stereotypical mad scientist look, and he rambles like one, too. I look at Buxton and think of Uncle Monty from Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. "Some of you might say I'm hysterical," Buxton joked today.

Microsoft should have made MIX10 Buxton's birthday bash. He turned 61 last week. Buxton shows that excellence knows no age -- that Baby Boomers have user interface design and user experience (UX) wisdom that tech-savvy Gen Xers and Net Gen-ers need to understand. Today's cutting-edge technologies are descendants of earlier generations' bleeding edge tech. Decades, sometimes centuries, of refinement define many established technologies' UX. Take the design of AAA batteries, for example (mine not Buxton's).

Bill Buxton, Microsoft Research Bill Buxton is principal researcher for Microsoft Research

Buxton's personal mantra reveals something important about his design philosophy. From his Website:

Ultimately, we are deluding ourselves if we think that the products that we design are the 'things' that we sell, rather than the individual, social and cultural experience that they engender, and the value and impact that they have. Design that ignores this is not worthy of the name.

This philosophy defines the differences between his approach to good design and UX from Apple's. Buxton sees good design as an expression of culture and history rather than the personality of a single designer or company. For Apple, good design is about "the things that we sell."

Bill Buxton, Microsoft Research Buxton is an expert about natural user interfaces and their historical context

Good UI design is often about human usage context, and understanding longstanding design interfaces requires some understanding of historical context. Buxton used the example of buttons on a woman's shirt. He called the buttons wrong, because of their placement. But why are they that way? Buxton explained that when buttons were introduced, women didn't dress themselves. The buttons were correctly positioned for the person doing the dressing. Men dressed themselves, so the buttons are on the right, rather than the left.

"Do it naturally," Buxton commanded the MIX10 audience, referring to user interface design. While Microsoft and some other tech companies treat natural user interfaces as something new, Buxton made clear they are something very old. Natural user interfaces are varied, depending on function.

Bill Buxton, Microsoft Research Buxton demonstrates a natural user interface

Buxton asked: "What the heck does natural mean?" One of his answers: "It's the ability to acquire skills." Good natural user interfaces affect the skills that the users have acquired. He answered with another question: "How well does it [the user interface] reflect me, the end user?"

Ultimately, a good natural user interface must address four human skill sets:

Motor sensory skills
Cognitive skills
Social skills
Emotional skills

Stated differently, good natural user interfaces answer the question: "How do people function?" He emphasized that it's not technology that is changing but people. Good user interface design isn't about technology. It's about people. The message is particularly important for MIX's developer audience.

Pen and touch UI Demonstration of what Buxton calls a "pen and touch" user interface

Sadly, Buxton could only briefly touch on one of the most important natural user interface challenges facing Microsoft and many other technology developers: Mobile devices. Development of applications for mobile must have a "sense of place," understanding changing contexts, he said. Mobile devices are all about usage context.

Buxton joined Microsoft about four years ago, after running his own Toronto-based design firm (Yes, he ran a company in this universe). Before Microsoft, Buxton was perhaps better known for being chief scientist of Alias/Wavefront -- from 1994 to 2002. He is one of Microsoft's best hires in years.

While Buxton talks about putting user interface design in context of human use, it's his ability to put UIs in cultural and historical context that makes him so unique among technologists. Microsoft should set up a mentorship program under Buxton and his research team for all product managers. To Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer I ask: Do you get it?

In light of news that it has 'flopped,' Google's Nexus One lands on AT&T and Rogers

Publié: mars 16, 2010, 6:53pm CET par Tim Conneally

Nexus One

Google's first attempt at directly selling an Android-powered mobile phone is already being called a flop thanks to reports from mobile analytics company Flurry that estimate sales to have been around 135,000 units in the first 74 days on the market (compared to 1.05 million Motorola Droids, 1 million iPhones.)

However, Google's approach to selling the device is vastly different from the more common methods employed by wireless carriers: it has been primarily sold unlocked for $529 directly from Google, or for $179 with a special T-Mobile plan. Since the device was released, there's been a "Coming soon: Spring 2010" section that shows Verizon Wireless and Vodafone as the next US and European carriers.

Today, Google expanded the device's compatibility in a different direction, and rolled out a version compatible with AT&T in the U.S. and Rogers in Canada. It is now the second Android device on AT&T behind the Motorola Backflip. Rogers currently offers a goodly amount of Android devices, including the HTC Dream and Magic (known as the G1 and MyTouch 3G in the U.S.) LG Eve, Samsung Galaxy Spica, and soon the Sony Ericsson Xperia X10.

So instead of a CDMA version as expected, today we've got a device that supports 850/1900/2100 MHz 3G/UMTS bands, and one that supports the 900/AWS/2100 MHz 3G/UMTS bands used by T-Mobile.

Selling the device unlocked is unlikely to greatly expand its popularity, as it still only appeals to a niche audience.

FCC: Wireless spectrum 10x more valuable for wireless broadband than for TV

Publié: mars 16, 2010, 6:51pm CET par Tim Conneally

The 300+ page National Broadband Plan that the Federal Communications Commission submitted to Congress today contains some logical goals, some ambitious ones, and some that are sure to cause a good deal of conflict between industries.

One of the most contentious issues also happens to be the most important aspect of the broadband plan: the re-allocation of wireless spectrum for the use of mobile broadband.

Last October, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Americans' consumption of mobile broadband has grown so quickly that we are almost at a bottleneck, and that more wireless spectrum is needed for it immediately. The plan, therefore, says that it will increase the 255 MHz - 3.7 GHz spectrum available to "terrestrial broadband services" (a.k.a., non-satellite) by at least 300 MHz in the next five years, and 500 MHz within the next ten.

But where will all of this wireless spectrum come from?

Of the 300 MHz due in the next five years, 120 MHz will be coming from the broadcast television bands.

It's no secret that the radio and television broadcast industry is still sitting on huge chunks of unused wireless spectrum, and the recent transition to digital broadcast freed up a significant amount of spectrum in the 700 MHz band that was auctioned off to mobile network operators in 2008. By re-purposing the wireless spectrum for mobile Internet services, the FCC says it increased its value to about $1.28 per megahertz/pop. Right now, the FCC estimates that the spectrum the broadcast TV industry has is only worth about $0.11 to $0.15 per megahertz/pop.

In short, the spectrum is ten times more valuable for wireless broadband than it is for broadcast television.

This is due to a couple of factors. Firstly, it's because only 10% of the population is estimated to still rely on free over-the-air broadcasts. Secondly, it's because broadcast TV licensing has interference protection built into it, which leaves significant amounts of spectrum intentionally unused.

So to get this extremely valuable wireless spectrum, the FCC is going to try a multi-pronged approach to restructuring the broadcast TV industry:

1. Update the rules on TV service areas, distance separations, and revise the table of spectrum allotments starting at the 6 MHz channel.

2. Fix the licensing framework so two or more broadcast stations can share the 6 MHz channel. (The Commission estimates that two HD video streams or several SD streams can exist within that channel.)

3. Get government approval so broadcasters who have voluntarily consolidated their channels will be able to share the profits of the remaining spectrum that is auctioned off.

If that is not approved, then other methods of restructuring the broadcast industry must be explored, such as by transitioning to a cellular broadcast architecture (smaller, lower power transmitters that cause less interference than the big broadcast towers) or by auctioning off "overlay" licenses where licensees must negotiate directly with broadcast TV stations to clear out the bands.

Some of these alternative methods would be a little more forceful to broadcasters.

"We were pleased by initial indications from FCC members that any spectrum reallocation would be voluntary, and were therefore prepared to move forward in a constructive fashion on that basis," Dennis Wharton, Executive Vice President of the National Association of Broadcasters, said in a statement yesterday evening. "However, we are concerned by reports today that suggest many aspects of the plan may in fact not be as voluntary as originally promised. Moreover, as the nation's only communications service that is free, local and ubiquitous, we would oppose any attempt to impose onerous new spectrum fees on broadcasters."

Now that the value of the wireless spectrum has been clearly proven and outlined, television broadcasters who have faced declining ad revenue and declining viewership could be standing before a huge pile of money. The 700 MHz spectrum block alone garnered more than $19 billion from wireless network operators in 2008 for a little under 100 MHz of spectrum. License holders in the bands to be vacated are holding very strong cards indeed.

IE9 technology preview goes live, Microsoft claims scores 55% on Acid3

Publié: mars 16, 2010, 5:31pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Download Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 Platform Preview via Fileforum now.

The Internet Explorer 9 technology preview scores a 55% on the Acid3 standards test, Microsoft's highest score to date. From MIX 10. This afternoon, Microsoft lifted the curtain on the first Internet Explorer 9 technology preview for developers. Initial demos at MIX 10 in Las Vegas by IE9 team leader Dean Hachamovitch reveal a minimum of end user features at this point -- the preview is described as a lightweight frame on top of a highly improved chassis.

"We are committed to updating the preview every eight weeks," Hachamovitch told developers today, just after a demo (along with Windows Division President Steven Sinofsky) of various graphics-oriented tests and games that the IE9 preview rendered with extraordinary precision. It is not a complete browser by any stretch of the imagination, but it's purpose is to show developers where the company is going with the new chassis.

HTML 5 is the message of the day, almost the first word (or abbreviation) out of Hachamovitch's mouth. At the time of this posting, Hachamovitch promised an update of the platform preview to come later, that will attach compliance with HTML 5 video standards. That's browser-based rendering of full-motion video, for the first time in IE.

FOR MORE:

Internet Explorer 9, the HTML 5 browser: Better than half-way there by Scott Fulton

UK Lords pass bill to create Internet anti-piracy enforcement office

Publié: mars 16, 2010, 4:56pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

The British House of Lords has passed a bill that might, if enacted into law, put the UK's Parliament at odds with the European Commission over how best to enforce copyright anti-infringement laws. Called the Digital Economy Bill, it would charge Internet service providers with the task of keeping track of suspected file sharers and copyright violators, and reporting on them to copyright holders as well as to the country's Office of Communications (OFCOM).

As the bill is currently written, OFCOM would be charged with determining the "initial obligations" of Internet service providers with respect to suspected infringers, provided those obligations meet the specific guidelines. It would be up to OFCOM, should the bill be enacted, to determine all the specifics -- the "fiddly bits" -- such as how ISPs monitor their customers ("subscribers"), at what stage it becomes necessary to report on their activities, how long they retain information on those customers, and what else they do with that data. In the UK, regulations enacted by a regulatory body such as OFCOM are called codes.

Specifically, the bill would require that OFCOM "makes provision about how internet service providers are to keep information about subscribers; that it limits the time for which they may keep that information; that the requirements concerning subscriber appeals are met in relation to the code; that the provisions of the code are objectively justifiable in relation to the matters to which it relates; that those provisions are not such as to discriminate unduly against particular persons or against a particular description of persons; that those provisions are proportionate to what they are intended to achieve; [and] that, in relation to what those provisions are intended to achieve, they are transparent." (This page from Parliament.UK contains the exact text of this section.)

ISPs would be indemnified from any responsibility for the infringing activity, but only if they fulfill their obligations as OFCOM would define them. Those obligations would include, according to the bill, expedient response to requests from copyright holders, as well as some sort of "technical measure" to punish the "relevant subscriber." As the bill is written now, it appears the fuzziness of "relevant subscriber" may be intentional, so as not to imply that the customer must first be found guilty of charges.

"A 'technical obligation,' in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against some or all relevant subscribers to its service for the purpose of preventing or reducing infringement of copyright by means of the Internet," the bill reads. "A 'technical measure' is a measure that: (a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use; (c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way. A subscriber to an internet access service is 'relevant' if the subscriber is a relevant subscriber to the service...in relation to one or more copyright owners."

From here, the bill proceeds to the House of Commons, where elected officials will debate whether it would be fair, under the terms of the last paragraph, to punish suspected subscribers prior to their hearing in court. Liberal leaders there were quoted by the BBC this morning as having indicated such a law would be contrary to the EU's Technical Standards Directive.

Last week, in a near-unanimous vote of the European Parliament, a resolution was adopted to compel participants in the multi-national Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) to report to the EU Parliament, and eventually publicly, on terms being negotiated between countries. Such terms might compel member countries in ACTA to adopt laws similar to what the House of Lords just passed.

Ironically, this entire affair comes on the same week as MPs begin debate on a measure, first reported by the London Telegraph, to replace the House of Lords entirely with a second, publicly elected body of Parliament. The new upper house -- which may, the report states, be dubbed the "Senate" -- would include members who may very well be lords and landowners, elected for staggered terms of up to 15 years. Some say the Labour Party is unveiling the plan now in order to attract opposition from Tory leaders, who currently have an edge in public opinion polls. Painting the Tories as "pro-Lords" could, in turn, color them as "pro-establishment," and thus out of touch with modern-day British interests.

The National Broadband Plan is complete, now the hard part starts

Publié: mars 15, 2010, 10:03pm CET par Tim Conneally

The Federal Communications Commission is expected to deliver the National Broadband Plan to Congress tomorrow, and today the commission released an executive summary of what the document will contain.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski called it, "An action plan, and action is necessary to meet the challenges of global competitiveness, and harness the power of broadband to help address so many vital national issues."

Some of the goals outlined in the summary include:

* Having 100 million households connected at broadband of speeds at least 100 Mbps downlink and 50 Mbps uplink.

* Having 1 Gbps connections in schools, hospitals and military installations in "every American Community"

* Freeing up 300 MHz of wireless spectrum for mobile broadband use within five years, and 500 MHz in 10 years.

* Establishing a nationwide wireless, interoperable public safety network for first responders.

* Collecting and providing the best data possible about each network provider's offerings so that consumers can better choose their services.

* Moving adoption rates from 65% to 90%.

"Based on the executive summary, it is clear the Broadband team recognized the importance of the mobile Internet to the economy and to meeting many national priorities. We applaud their commitment to providing everyone equal access to the most advanced wireless communications," said Steve Largent, President of CTIA - The Wireless Association.

Of course, completing the plan was just a tiny fraction of the work needed to improve the nation's broadband conditions.

"Now comes the hard part: achieving the vision articulated in this plan," Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communications said in a statement this afternoon. "Verizon will review the plan when text is available, and continue to work closely and cooperatively with the FCC and Congress to help meet the nation's broadband policy goals. It is clear that virtually all of these important goals will be achieved through private investment. So it is important that the policies enacted encourage investment and innovation across the Internet ecosystem."

About half of the Plan's recommendations are addressed to the FCC, and the rest are for Congress, the Executive Branch, and state and local government, who will work with the private and nonprofit sectors.

The full Plan will be released tomorrow.

Windows Phone 7 Series actually looks pretty good

Publié: mars 15, 2010, 10:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

Zune -- along with Expression Blend, Silverlight, Visual Studio and XNA -- may yet save Windows Phone 7 Series. During the kick-off MIX10 keynote earlier today, Microsoft product managers showcased features, development scenarios and, most importantly, user experiences derived from Zune HD. Perhaps Windows Phone 7 Series isn't a hopelessly lost cause after all. Microsoft's competitive postion would actually look good, if phones were shipping now and not in six to eight months.

In September, I asserted that Zune HD should have been the Microsoft phone. The user interface and user experience (some of that derived from Zune 4.0 software) is exceptionally good -- particularly coming from Microsoft. Finally, Microsoft is carrying forward and extending a great user interface motif. Better: Windows Phone 7 Series is inheriting and extending the social sharing concepts imbued into Zune 1.0.

Microsoft launched Zune 1.0 in November 2006 with marketing tagline "Welcome to my social." Zune distinguished from iPod by making music a more social and sharing experience. It was a visionary approach for the time -- sadly held back by Microsoft's limited commitment (Zune distribution in United States only) and iPod's huge market share lead.

But social as executed by Microsoft was truly visionary in 2006. Many of the most popular social media/networking tools taken for granted today originated in 2006 or later. YouTube officially opened in November 2005. Facebook opened to the public in 2006 and Twitter a few months later. Most of the most popular or growing popular tools for community and self expression launched within the last three years: Disqus, FriendFeed, tumblr, Twine, Qik and USTREAM, among many, many others.

Joe Belfiore Corporate Vice President, Windows Phone Program Management Joe Belfiore, Corporate Vice President, Windows Phone Program Management

What differentiates Windows Phone 7 Series from iPhone is the same thing that made Zune so different from iPod: Social sharing. Sure, there are other mobile phone social sharing alternatives available, like Motorola's MotoBlur user interface for Android phones.

Windows Phone 7 Series a social hub Windows Phone 7 Series as social hub

But Microsoft is making social a platform that runs deep into Windows Phone 7 Series. I've repeatedly asserted that the smartphone will replace the PC as primary computing device. As the social hub for all communications, the smartphone already has replaced the PC for many people.

Shazam for Windows Phone 7 Series Shazam detects music and provides tools for social sharing

That's communications within limitations. It's one thing to use Facebook on a mobile phone. It's a whole other order of experience interacting around disparate content repositories, which is the differentiating direction Microsoft is taking Windows Phone 7 Series -- and it's a path Apple has failed to follow with iPhone.

Netflix streaming for Windows Phone 7 Series Netflix app streams movies to Windows Phone 7 Series

Social is Apple's achilles heal, because it's not in the company's corporate DNA. Apple has historically only allowed social sharing where it has some control. The company has a deserved reputation for deleting negative forum threads, going back years. Try to comment on Apple's YouTube channel. Comments are disabled.

Windows Phone 7 Series calendar Every aspect of the Windows Phone 7 Series UI reminds of Zune HD

Then there are iPhone limitations to consider, such as truncated multitasking and (related) the fixed battery and battery life. Apple's idea of social interaction is the push notification. It's a weak compromise that Microsoft seems ready enough to exploit (granted, Windows Phone 7 Series has push notifications, too).

Comics for Windows Phone 7 Series Comics in this app can be dynamically and quickly resized

By comparison, "Welcome to my social" is a platform on Windows Phone 7 Series. Social sharing and interaction are seemingly available from pretty much anywhere, including third-party applications.

Associated Press app for Windows 7 Phone Series This Associated Press app packs real-time social sharing features

I'm still not overly optimistic about Windows Phone 7 Series because Microsoft is restarting so late and from so far behind. That said, there's hope if Microsoft is willing to commit as much marketing -- and really loads more -- as Bing. What I saw today is encouraging. Finally.

Windows Phone 7 Series has Netflix streaming, Xbox Live gaming

Publié: mars 15, 2010, 8:22pm CET par Tim Conneally

Netflix application created by Vertigo for Windows Phone 7 Series, from MIX 10. One year can change a lot.

Today, Microsoft used the MIX '10 stage in Las Vegas to show off a lot of the applications that are currently being prepared to launch with Windows Phone 7 Series, and they are a far cry from the poor Windows 6.5 showing at last year's MIX event.

The inclusion of Silverlight 4 and the XNA Framework into the Windows Phone platform has afforded developers a lot of power, and today's demonstration showed off how they can be harnessed to make Windows Phone stand out in the mobile crowd where it has lately faltered.

While it included a number of attractive apps such as popular Twitter client Seesmic, location-based social network Foursquare, music identification service Shazam, and the Associated Press, a couple of demonstrations were real show stealers.

The Netflix app on Windows Phone 7 Series, having downloaded and run an episode of 'Rescue Me,' from MIX 10.

Netflix was one of them. While the popular video rental service has applications across all mobile platforms right now, they are limited to accessing and modifying the user's queue of movie titles.

The popular Netflix instant streaming service which has landed on everything from TiVo to the Wii has until now been limited to stationary devices. Thanks to Silverlight, streaming videos can now be watched on Windows Phone 7 Series devices. The cross-platform runtime was first used to bring the streaming video service to the Mac, and now it's brought it to its first official mobile application.

The other standout wasn't really a single app, but more the Windows Phone gaming category as a whole. Three screens from the 3D game The Harvest, adapted from Xbox 360 to Windows Phone 7 Series using XNA Game Studio 4.0, from MIX 10. Thanks to the iPhone's popularity as a gaming device, games are increasingly being developed for mobile devices first and then being "ported up" to the console and the PC. Today, Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb showed off games -- such as The Harvest, shown below -- that could be played on a Windows Phone, PC, or Xbox 360. This means that no matter what platform you're playing the game on, you can unlock achievements, increase your gamer score, access leaderboards, and connect to your friends over Live.

While a lot of this was discussed at the unveiling of Windows Phone 7 series, there were not full-scale demonstrations of gameplay like there were today. And unlike cross-platform ports of iPhone games; for example, games by Chillingo which have been ported to the Nintendo Wii and DS, these games can take advantage of the strengths of each platform with the XNA Framework.

"Developers and designers can now build their code once and optimize it to take advantage of the unique capabilities of the phone, Web, PC or Xbox 360. Due to common shared libraries, controls and runtimes across these many screens and the cloud, developers now have the opportunity to reach over 1 billion customers," Microsoft's Charlie Kindel said in the Windows Phone developer blog today.

Google: No word yet on China pullout, negotiations continue

Publié: mars 15, 2010, 7:29pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Despite an erroneous headline crossing wire services early this morning, which led blogs and even news services to believe Google had already begun a pullout from China, a Google spokesperson has clarified for Betanews today that no announcement has yet been made about any such pullout.

Declining to speak further on the matter, the spokesperson reiterated an earlier statement, which the spokesperson says remains true as of this moment: "We are in active discussions with the Chinese government. We have also been clear that we will no longer self-censor in China."

The confusion apparently stems from a statement that Google Deputy General Counsel Nicole Wong made to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, during a hearing on the subject of the alleged attacks on Google and other US online assets last January. Wong told the House, "Google is firm in its decision that it will stop censoring our search results for China. If the option is that we'll shutter our [Google].cn operation and leave the country, we are prepared to do that."

Although earlier statements from the Chinese government appeared to corroborate Google's claims (as well as those made by US State Dept. officials) that it has been in negotiations with Chinese authorities about how to proceed, last week, a vice minister for information denied that talks between China and Google had even begun. In a statement issued through China Daily last Friday, the Information Ministry attempted to "clarify" the contradictory facts by literally stating they coexisted: Google has been, the MIIT now officially states, in direct talks with Chinese authorities, though in an indirect way. (Perhaps this means by e-mail.) No "headway" has been made through these indirect, direct talks, the Ministry added.

Minister Li Yizhong issued what some took to be a threat, until one reads on to the bottom where another self-contradictory clause was added: "If you don't respect Chinese laws, you are unfriendly and irresponsible, and you will bear the consequences," Li began. Then the small print: "If Google chooses to stay, that will be beneficial to China's Internet market and we welcome that," implying that it will be up to the search company whether it stays or goes.

Silverlight 4 RC, the Windows Phone 7 platform, downloadable today

Publié: mars 15, 2010, 7:12pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Download Windows Phone 7 Series Developer Tools Customer Technology Preview from Fileforum now.

Update ribbon (small)

As expected, Microsoft is opening the gates for the first (probably the only) Release Candidate for Silverlight version 4 today, for developers who have been playing with the beta in Visual Studio 2010 since last November. The message of the day for Monday from Microsoft is Silverlight 4 as the functionality platform for Windows Phone 7 Series. (The "other series," for now, isn't being mentioned -- at least it wasn't as of 10:20 Pacific Time this morning.)

Last month, developers were informed that Silverlight 4 will be the application platform for WP7S. What we learned today is that Express editions of Visual Studio and Expression Blend will be distributed for free, starting today, for developers to build complete S4 apps from Windows-based PCs, and emulate those apps within Windows using a real virtual machine. Silverlight for developers itself is, of course, already free.

the Music library, the Pictures library, and the Associated Press news reader, from MIX 10.

Three example apps on Windows Phone 7 Series: the Music library, the Pictures library, and the Associated Press news reader.

"Using Silverlight, you can deliver awesome applications for Windows Phone 7," Corporate Vice President Scott Guthrie told attendees. "It's fully hardware-accelerated; it enables you to build smooth, fluid UI; you can choose to use either the default look-and-feel of the Windows Phone app [light text on dark background] or...you can have a custom app UI yourself. What this means is, you can build killer applications for this device.

Microsoft Corporate Vice President Scott Guthrie speaking at MIX 10.

Microsoft Corporate Vice President Scott Guthrie

"Importantly, though, the Silverlight for Windows Phone programming model is the same Silverlight you already know today. It's the same programming model, it's the same code, it's the same set of tools. This isn't 'Silverlight Lite,' this isn't 'Silverlight Different,' it is Silverlight," Guthrie added, to the most applause of the day.

At the start of today's demonstrations at MIX '10 in Las Vegas, Guthrie had shown off the Silverlight 4 Pivot control (shown below), which will also be made generally available to developers. It's a kind of grid for the arrangement of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of objects and thumbnails for presentation as lists or tables. "Deep Zoom" plays a role here, as transitions between thumbnails that are arranged in a heap chart or a grid are fluid and elastic, with every element appearing to effortlessly flow across the screen.

Demo of the Pivot control used in Silverlight 4, from MIX '10

What we haven't seen yet is the new Pivot control specifically being used on Windows Phone 7 Series, although we can assume attempts will be made. With Visual Studio 2010 (as of this moment in the Release Candidate stage, though that could change at any time), a developer creates a phone app almost the same way he'd build a dialog box, by dragging and dropping controls into place and attaching code.

An instant Twitter client app written in about a half-hour's time using Visual Studio 2010 and the Windows Phone 7 Series VM, from MIX 10.

Guthrie's example was actually quite impressive: He remodeled a "Hello, World" app into a Twitter feed follower (above) by binding a list box control to the output of a Web service that contacts Twitter. The response from Twitter is wrapped in XML, and the list box control is capable of parsing XML output. Headings, messages, and avatar icons are attainable as properties. Although Guthrie inserted the layout code for the XML output from a pre-stored snippet, there were only a few lines there, and one can imagine the creation of that code could not have consumed more than a half-hour.

We saw the application that Guthrie developed on the WP7S virtual machine, also released to developers today. This is important, because in lieu of a physical phone for developers to touch and hold (that's still a ways off, we don't even really know what the phones themselves will look like or what they'll be called), this virtual machine will be the only way many developers will be able to tinker with WP7S functionality for the first time.

We did not see the actual transfer of the application to the phone itself. If it's anything like the way .NET Micro Framework apps are transferred from Visual Studio to an embedded device, experience could take on multiple new meanings. In place of direct information on this at the moment, there's a possibility that phone apps are transferred from the PC into a developer's cloud space, and then downloaded to the phone over the air.

SketchFlow in Microsoft Expression Blend is used to generate a mockup of a Windows Phone 7 Series application, from MIX 10.

A similar "Express" version of Expression Blend will also be made available for "designers" (those who build an app visually rather than lexically), apparently with the ability to create SketchFlow mockups of Phone apps. SketchFlow was created a few years ago for Expression developers to generate semi-workable mockups of Silverlight apps on PCs.

Microsoft gaming engineer Larry 'Major Nelson' Hryb demonstrating what comes out of his department for Windows Phone 7 Series, from MIX 10.

XNA Game Studio 4.0 is also being released for Windows Phones (we are not seeing the word "free" being attached here yet, though we may yet see something "Express"), with the promise of giving VS 2010 developers a single platform for deploying games on PCs, Windows Phones, and Xbox 360. It's important here that Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb cleverly demonstrated the existence of a game that he described as transported from Zune HD with minimal changes -- it's a way of admitting that Zune HD is not one of those seamless platforms supported by this latest XNA Game Studio.

The Shazam song identifier service on Windows Phone 7 Series. And what do you know, it just happened to correctly identify a Black Eyed Peas song. From MIX 10. The apps demonstrations were rapid-fire this morning, which is actually a bit unusual for a Microsoft conference that typically demos tools and PC applications in a casual fashion. Helping WP7S to lay some claim to coolness, Microsoft's Jeff Sandquist successfully demonstrated a good-looking, easy-to-use version of an app/service made popular on the iPhone: Shazam. And surprise, wouldn't you know it, it just happened to successfully identify the song "I'm a Bee" by The Black-Eyed Peas (good thing it was censored a bit; this is, after all, a family-friendly conference). I wonder whether Shazam would have recognized the Neil Innes version?

Time for Microsoft's Scott Guthrie to get out a little aggression: A 'test' app for Windows Phone 7 Series called 'Mannequin,' from MIX 10. And while we're on the subject of family friendliness, what's a Microsoft conference without a little torture? Taking after the Nintendo Wii's implementation of "Mii's" -- the little people you create to look like you, or like someone, to play your games for you inside the Wii environment -- Scott Guthrie showed off a little Windows Phone "tool" called "Mannequin." It's a little doll you can dress up and manipulate using the phone's multitouch, whom you can carry around with you (be careful not to shake the phone too hard), and whom you can torture at your leisure.

Which the typically shy Guthrie demonstrated with unusual and somewhat effervescent gusto. Wrapping his mannequin with a certain person's face, and forcing him to utter the phrase, "Phone developers, phone developers, phone developers!" he made little Stevey dance around like Howdy Doody. Using fine-tuning (seen here in the middle), the utterance can be made to sound like a malfunctioning Dalek.

Certainly all of that is in good fun for the folks at Microsoft. But it's here that one suddenly realizes how highly unlikely it would be for an Apple demo to frame Steve Jobs in a similar circumstance.

Microsoft unveils a host of Windows Phone 7 Series developer tools

Publié: mars 15, 2010, 5:40pm CET par Tim Conneally

Now that Microsoft has effectively restarted its mobile strategy afresh with Windows Phone 7 Series, third party developers need a way to dig into the platform. So today, Microsoft announced Windows Phone Developer Tools are now available as a free download at developer.windowsphone.com

The tools include: Visual Studio 2010 Express for Windows Phone, Windows Phone 7 Series Add-in for Visual Studio, a Windows Phone 7 Series emulator, and XNA Game Studio 4.0. There is also a Community Technology Preview of Expression Blend 4 for Windows Phone available as a separate download on developer.windowsphone.com today. This beta provides exactly the same visual development workflow for Windows Phone that was previously used in Silverlight and .Net application development.

This was all wrapped up with the announcement of the official Silverlight 4 Release Candidate, which Microsoft says will complete an end-to-end development platform that uses Silverlight for Rich Internet Applications, and the XNA Framework for game development. A beta of S4 has been in circulation since October.

IE9, Windows Phone, Silverlight: What can we expect from Microsoft at MIX?

Publié: mars 15, 2010, 4:57pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

At this moment, Microsoft is kicking off what is probably the most important MIX conference since 2006, with three make-or-break developments in key product categories taking the spotlight. Since January, the company has dished up a very cloudy picture of Windows Phone, and I don't mean in the sense of "cloud computing." That incomplete picture of the company's newly bifurcated roadmap was perhaps intended to spark anticipation and excitement, but instead in some quarters, it's sparked outright anger: What is the system that we now know to be Windows Mobile, supposed to become?

Windows Phone, and Windows Other Phone. At CES, we were told to expect the future of Windows Mobile. Correction, we were told later, it's not Windows Mobile. That particular episode was reminiscent of a 1970s detergent commercial: No, Mrs. Clawson, you're not using Tide, you're using new improved Tide! So we had a cute little name change. Correction, no we didn't, because New Improved and Classic will co-exist. But will they be compatible? Well, suppose Classic edition is called "Starter Series," or something to that end. If you start at one end of the product line, that naturally implies you're progressing to the other end, and that implies compatibility, right? Sure. Correction, not necessarily.

So what are the developers, developers, developers who comprise the audience of MIX 2010 supposed to do? How do they plan their projects? What do they develop for? Does Windows Phone 7 Series have a specific "interface," but for "Starter Edition" or "6 Series" or whatever it ends up being called, they use whatever the phone manufacturer decides? And whose apps marketplace does a "6 Series" app go to? Will we get answers today, or corrections?

Internet Explorer 9 is expected to be demonstrated at length tomorrow, though we may get some glimpses of it today. It's probable that MIX attendees may be the first to get their hands on the early code, with MSDN and TechNet subscribers next -- it would be a surprise if a public beta were to be released first before the developers see it.

What we expect from IE9 is more features under the hood than on top of it. Microsoft has been promising to build a more efficient and more standards-compliant browser this time around, but at this point, it would need a total replacement to become competitive in those departments against Firefox, Chrome, and now Opera. Some have advised Microsoft that a total replacement is indeed easy to do, if it were to embrace the open source WebKit engine used by Safari and Chrome (and soon to be partly embraced by Firefox). Adopting open source may be against Microsoft's genetics, but certainly its development team knows the browser field has become extremely competitive in the past year, and that Microsoft lags far behind.

Expect a warm embrace of the concept of HTML5 -- the next generation Web language, whose first complete working draft was published earlier this month with Microsoft playing a role. But in terms of the broader concept of Web standards, expect the company to continue its policy of "cafeteria compliance" -- warmly embracing some segments, and with others (such as high Acid3 scores), casting doubt as to the legitimacy or authenticity or public acceptance. ("Who writes these standards anyway?" was one message we heard frequently at last year's PDC.)

Silverlight will also be important this week because developers are expecting a cross-platform bonanza. Specifically, they've been led to believe there will be a breakthrough in mobile Web-driven video across a wide spectrum of new platforms, including this time Symbian. Last year at PDC, we saw the first glimpses of Silverlight video on iPhone, delivering the kind of quality developers know is feasible from Flash, if only politics didn't continue to stand between Apple and Adobe. It's ironic that Microsoft should have fewer boundaries between it and Apple than does Adobe...but not extraordinarily ironic, given the three companies' histories.

The whole cross-platform question will come full-circle this week with the issue of Silverlight on Windows Phone. Developers already know they'll be able to use Silverlight as both an applications and video platform for 7 Series, but what does this mean for "Other Phone?" If Silverlight can run 1080-line HD video with .NET speed and efficiency on what we've called Windows Mobile 6 in the past, then why shouldn't it? Wouldn't any barriers preventing it from doing so, be artificial?

These are the three questions which Microsoft may or may not answer this week, but we do know it will respond -- and how it responds could set the course of the company, and of Web development in turn, for the next several years.

The missing dimension in 3D TV

Publié: mars 15, 2010, 3:30pm CET par Carmi Levy

Poster from the first widely-distributed 3D movie, Bwana Devil (1952). I risk being tagged a curmudgeon, but I'll say it anyway: 3D television isn't ready for prime time. It isn't ready for your living room, either (or any living room, frankly).

Headlines claiming 3D TV to be the greatest thing since the creation of 2D TV, are sadly more than a little hyperbolic, and I wish the industry would ease back on the PR push to get us to replace our still-new LCD and plasma televisions with 3D versions.

I know this comes as a bit of a disappointment for vendors like Samsung and Panasonic, which last week started selling 3D TVs through US retailers. But anyone who ponies up a triple-digit price premium for the right to wear goofy, overpriced glasses to watch content that doesn't exist yet and can't be broadcast over conventional distribution channels is, to put it gently, gullible.

Someday isn't here yet

Samsung, Panasonic, and other television vendors have been working themselves into a tizzy over 3D TV ever since this year's Consumer Electronics Show, where 3D TV was the darling. Unfortunately, they're all in for a very hard lesson. Despite the headlines, breathless press releases, and similarly breathless product reviews, 3D TV has no immediate future in the living room. That may very well change, someday, but it'll take a whole lot of evolution -- in technology, content and marketing -- before 3D makes the mainstream leap from movie theaters to living rooms. Here's why: Carmi Levy Wide Angle Zoom (v.2)

No content. While a growing percentage of top-grossing movies over the past couple of years have been 3D, the vast majority of movies and virtually all televised content remain conventional 2D. While Avatar has used breakthrough 3D cinematography to become the most successful movie of all time, it's an exception to the rule. How many other movies really need the full-on 3D treatment?
No distribution. If you want to watch a 3D movie, you're buying or renting a 3D Blu-ray disc. Current-generation cable or satellite-based distribution simply can't support the bandwidth required by a 3D broadcast. Will this change someday? Certainly, and for DirecTV customers, who may have access to a grand total of three 3D channels by June, soon. But for the rest of us, the best you can hope for is a half-resolution 3D signal from your television provider. And don't be surprised if you're charged a premium even for that half-baked "solution." Either way, if you do the math, your fancy new screen will be yesterday's news by the time the majority of distributors get with the 3D program...assuming they ever do.
No affordability. Every new technology carries a significant premium, and 3D screens are no different. Samsung's $2,899 package for a 46-inch screen, two sets of glasses, and a Blu-ray player seems rich in a world awash with sub-$1,000 sets. Want more glasses? They're $250 a pop, a figure which will be inscribed into your brain the moment you discover your five-year-old has left them on the living room floor just as the dog sniffed around for something new to chew. Economies of scale will, as they always eventually do, bring prices down. But do you really want to wear special glasses every time you watch television? As technology advances and potentially (or hopefully) makes glasses unnecessary, will your expensive new acquisition even be compatible? Don't count on it.
No relevance. 3D has been around in one form or another for decades. It's had more just-about-finally-almost-here moments than any technology deserves to have. Despite the fact that it's finally moving past its cheesy/campy movie past and becoming an accepted cinematographic tool, television is an entirely different ballgame. We don't watch TV like we watch movies. The typical TV viewing session isn't an event. Watching the local news, Stephen Colbert, or the mercifully last few episodes of Lost will never qualify as events, either. And I don't want to see my local weather dude in 3D any more than I want to feel as if I can touch Mr. Colbert as he faux-grills his guests. Although 3D adds some value to some admittedly limited forms of entertainment (such as movies), it adds patently none to the vast majority of today's televised content.

I understand the full-court press to move us all into 3D TV. Manufacturers are hurting. After spending most of the decade coaxing us out of our now all-but-gone CRT-based televisions and into bigger, flashier and, yes, more expensive LCD and plasma flat panels, they sat quietly by as we hunkered down though the recession. Now they want -- nay, need -- for us to have an entirely new reason to buy new stuff. There's always got to be a reason to drive the consumer need to replace things before their time. And if this year's reason doesn't take off, watch for next year's CES to carry an entirely different theme.

When my Betanews colleague Tim Conneally called it kids-stuff in an article last week, he was uncomfortably (for vendors) close to the truth. For all the novelty value of watching a 3D movie on a properly equipped home theatre, the realities of content and economics mean it'll be a long time before any of this is as routinely workable as regular old 2D HDTV is today.

The magnificent John Candy as 'Dr. Tongue' from 'Evil 3D House of Pancakes.' Dreams don't always come true

In the ideal world, vendors announcing products based on radically new technologies would be greeted by thunderous applause and near-universal approval from rapturous consumers eager to spend whatever it takes to remain current. In the real world, however, announcements are rarely met with such unmitigated adulation. Buyers who have seen and heard it all before are growing tired of overly optimistic vendor claims, and are rightfully challenging them. In many cases, they're simply ignoring them outright.

That seems to be happening in my immediate circle of friends and colleagues, where no one has any plans to replace their current equipment with 3D anytime soon. Their universal conclusion -- which I share -- is it's too early, and too many additional pieces have to come into play before it becomes a reasonable and reasonably affordable choice for consumers. As hard as vendors have decided to push their 3D wares in 2010, they're dreaming in three-dimensional Technicolor if they think this is the year the mass television market moves beyond two dimensions.

Apple's HTC patent lawsuit is a bluff

Publié: mars 14, 2010, 9:27pm CET par Joe Wilcox

Now that buzz about Apple's patent lawsuit against HTC has quieted a bit, I'm ready to pipe in with some contrarian analysis. I agree with other pundits suggesting that the lawsuit is competition by litigation, where Apple hopes to scare off mobile manufacturers from licensing Android. Surely some handset manufacturers will pull back, but they would be foolish to do so. For other existing and potential Android licensees, the lawsuit is a get out of jail free card. Apple's patent case should embolden, not restrain them. There may never be a better time to license Android than now.

Apple claims infringement of 20 patents related to iPhone's user interface. Engadget's March 2nd patent breakdown is a must-read clinical analysis. But there's more to competition by litigation than the actual patents. Lawsuits often aren't so much about what's right but what lawyers think they can prove; often the winner tells the more believable story, even in patent cases. Similarly, much strategy goes into lawsuits -- how they're presented, where they're filed and when. Then, of course, there is whom. In this case, Apple took on HTC and not Google. Now why is that?

Apple's initial goals have little to do with protecting intellectual property as much as scaring away competitors. I hone in on this because Apple chose not to sue Google, Android's major developer, but instead the largest licensee of the mobile operating system. HTC's Sense UI gives Apple a bit more range to single out the one manufacturer, but based on various analyses of the patents that's more bark than bite.

Why HTC and not Google?

Why not sue Google? Eight primary reasons:

1) Apple potentially gains more by scaring off potential Android licensees than engaging in a protracted patent lawsuit. It's easier and more effective to raise bluster (and loads of free press) by engaging HTC than Google. Meanwhile, Apple can drag out the lawsuit as a distraction for HTC and other (frightened) Android licensees -- for years.

2) Apple doesn't want to take on Google, which already has come to HTC's defense. Google would fiercely fight Apple, understanding that mobile devices are the future of search and advertising.

3) Apple needs Google more than Google needs Apple. Unless Apple is willing to switch to Bing -- not a good idea considering iPhone buyer demographics -- Google search and maps are a necessary evil. If Google is willing to play tough with China, Apple is easy enough for Google to snuff off. Apple won't take on Google from a weaker position.

4) HTC is somewhat disadvantaged, being a Taiwan-based company. Google has home-court advantage (like Apple), making it a much more formidable opponent than HTC.

5) Patent lawsuits take years to resolve, hence Apple's separate complaint with the International Trade Commission. Again, Apple is using scare tactics to psychologically attack existing and potential Android licensees. So, this is quite similar to No. 1.

6) The patent claims are likely not as sure as they appear. Since most of the claims are really about Android, Google is the more sensible target of any lawsuit. If Apple lawyers were truly confident of winning against Google -- and in reasonable timeframe, they would file lawsuit against the search giant.

7) Android's open-source status creates all kinds of logistical and legal problems for Apple. The company really doesn't want to be labeled with a big Scarlet Letter as an open-source opponent. Apple has benefitted from open-source community development. It's a vocal group Apple doesn't want to piss off. Then there are all the nasty legal issues and potentially damaging precedents should Apple make a frontal open-source assault.

8) The iPhone-Android phone market looks much like the Mac-Windows PC market did in the 1980s and 1990s. Apple unsuccessfully sued Microsoft for infringing on Macintosh user-interface intellectual property. The lawsuit dragged on for years, ending in settlement in 1997. But what if in the early days of the Windows PC, Apple had sued clone king Compaq instead? Compaq was more vulnerable to a UI copyright claim than Microsoft, and other DOS/Windows licensees would have received the message to back off. By attacking HTC, Apple hopes to prevent a repeat "us against everyone else" scenario.

What Apple Fears

Apple has good reasons to fear Android. In the three months from December to February, Android's US smartphone subscriber share shot up from 2.8 percent to 7.1 percent. Worldwide, in 2009, Android smartphone market share -- based on sales -- rose from 0.5 percent to 3.9 percent, according to Gartner (The first Android phone, the T-Mobile G1, shipped in late 2008). Last month, Google CEO Eric Schmidt asserted that 60,000 Android handsets are shipping by the day.

All this circles back to my claim that the patent lawsuit is a bluff. My reasoning:

1) Apple chose HTC, not Google. There is no immediate risk to any patent claims against HTC. Since the real claims are against Google, Apple may find the court -- or even the ITC -- reluctant to rule against an Android licensee in good faith. There is perceived risk, but none in the short term, which is long enough for a united Android front to do market damage against iPhone -- particularly in emerging markets.

2) Apple filed against HTC and not other licensees. Apple had its chance to take on Android licensees, choosing instead to go after one. HTC is enough:

If the claims are shaky.
If Apple is looking for one case to establish precedent.
If the more immediate objective is to scare off existing or would-be Android licensees.

HTC being enough for this lawsuit isn't enough to legally or even logistically hurt other Android licensees.

3) Apple is unlikely to sue other Android licensees anytime soon. A good legal strategy -- from cost and logistical perspectives -- is to make a single case. Rather than being afraid, existing and would-be Android licensees should feel emboldened by the HTC lawsuit. Behind the bluster, Apple has really given the all clear -- it's safe to go ahead; that's Apple's tell. Apple's bluff is meant to convince other licensees that they can't win; so they lay down their Android hands. Yes, Apple could file against other Android licensees, but the only immediate benefit would be to create more fear -- that licensees should fold their hands. Hardware manufacturers should look at Google's backing HTC; there is a heavy-sitting ally at the table across from Apple.

Bing gains show why Microsoft-Yahoo search deal is a dumb idea

Publié: mars 12, 2010, 11:11pm CET par Joe Wilcox

One of Microsoft's major justifications for the Yahoo search deal is scale. CEO Steve Ballmer has repeatedly asserted that greater scale would allow Microsoft to improve search accuracy. Just last week he told Search Marketing Expo West attendees: "The ability to put together Yahoo's volumes and Microsoft's volumes and use that in a way that improves the experience more, let's call it all involved parties, we think is absolutely fantastic."

But the scale argument presumes that Microsoft and Yahoo would combine search share. The deal is in place but not fully implemented, and already Microsoft's Bing is taking away search share from Yahoo -- not Google. In February, Bing's US search share reached 11.5 percent, up from 11.3 percent month over month, according to ComScore. Yahoo share declined to 16.8 percent from 17 percent during the same time period. In June 2009 -- the month before announcing their search deal -- Yahoo search share was 19.6 percent and Microsoft 8.4 percent. But Microsoft already was rising, because of the Bing launch and millions of dollars in supporting advertising. For perspective, Google search share was 65.5 percent in February and 65 percent in June 2009.

The Microsoft-Yahoo search deal is a dumb idea, for three main reasons:

1) Microsoft's marketing push behind Bing shows that share can be gained organically, without taking on the expense or logistical hassle of managing Yahoo's search business.

2) Microsoft search share gains foreshadow the inevitable: Microsoft-Yahoo combined search share will diminish rather than aggregate. Combined share would have been 28 percent in June 2009; 28.3 percent in February. At first blush, the numbers might seem encouraging for aggregated share but the cost is declining Yahoo share. Cannibalization is inevitable.

Also the ComScore share data is for search engines and doesn't include heavily searched cross-domains like YouTube. Americans conducted 9.9 billion searches at Google in February, 2.496 billion at Yahoo and 1.498 billion at Bing. YouTube (and a few other Google sites): 3.553 billion or about 30 percent more than Yahoo. If ComScore ranked YouTube like Google, Yahoo would be No. 3 in search share.

I first warned about flawed combined search share math about a year before (May 2007) Microsoft gave up its hostile Yahoo takeover: "There is no guarantee a Microsoft-Yahoo could successfully aggregate search share." Bing is more likely to cannibalize Yahoo share than combine with it over the next 12 months. In July 2009 I predicted: "Combined Microsoft-Yahoo share will be less than 20 percent within 12 months of the deal's closing." We'll see.

Feb 2010 Search Share

3) Search is -- or was -- Yahoo's crown jewel. Yahoo started as a search engine and remained a contender even as Google gained share. As I asserted in May 2008: "Removing search would be akin to lobotomizing Yahoo." That's essentially what the Microsoft search deal will do to Yahoo.

Yahoo's banner advertising business is still big, but its future is uncertain during the Microsoft search-take-over transition. Meanwhile, Google has added banner ads to YouTube and to mobile search.

Yahoo is little more than a beloved brand without search, particularly with CEO Carol Bartz dismantling the company's other prized assets. You know, little things like disbanding the mobile group earlier this week. Would someone please take away the axe from that woman!

So what do you think? Should Microsoft and Yahoo have cut that search deal? Please answer in comments.

Italy launches a beta of Microsoft Tags for tourism

Publié: mars 12, 2010, 10:34pm CET par Tim Conneally

Actual Beta News feature banner Last week, I wrote a little article about Microsoft's four-color approach to QR black-and-white barcodes, the still-in-beta Microsoft Tag, which was also related to the company's first official Android application.

I only briefly touched upon the many things that are being done with QR codes: advertisements that you scan with your cell phone camera to pull up related content on the Web, business cards that you can scan for an instant call to the card's owner, or boxes that you can scan for an instant Web-based list of contents.

One area that I neglected to mention is tourism. For the last couple of years, more and more cities have begun to employ black-and-white QR codes as virtual tour guides. Historical sites and points of interest are being labeled with QR codes that tourists can scan with their mobile phones to obtain relevant information.

One of the first places that started using these codes was San Francisco, where restaurants were tagged with QR codes in the front window that linked to Citysearch listings and user-submitted reviews. Likewise, New York City's Gotham Tours has slapped yellow QR stickers all over Manhattan which provide more information about famous locations in the area.

The barcoding craze is now being picked up by tiny American towns that recognize it as a cheap way to keep tourists interested. This week, Long Beach, Washington (pop. 1,283 as of the last census) announced that it has tagged sites such as the "World's Longest Beach" arch, the "World's Largest" frying pan, the World Kite Museum & Hall of Fame, a gray whale skeleton, and a 20-foot tall bronze evergreen tree as scannable points of interest in its town. It may not be the most enriching stuff, but it has its uses.

Today, the Northern Italian city of Turin (Torino), site of the 2006 Winter Olympics, announced it has joined in on the craze as well. But it's the first city to use Microsoft's four-color HCCB Tags instead of the more common black and white QR codes. With the TagReader app, users can scan Tags around the National Museum of Cinema, Palazzo Madama, Museum of Oriental Art (MAO), Civic Gallery of Modern and Contemporary Art (GAM), and the Borgo and Rocca Medioevale Museum. All of these launch mobile browser pages with text information, video, or MP3 content.

Again, it's over: Microsoft loses second review of Word appeal

Publié: mars 12, 2010, 5:41pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

A permanent injunction against Microsoft selling versions of Word that contain XML editing ability effectively remains in place today, after a shot-in-the-dark appeal by Microsoft of its appeals loss last December was shot down Wednesday by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Although Microsoft is no longer distributing versions of Word or Office with an XML editor that a jury found infringed upon the patents of former development partner i4i, it made a face-saving effort to change the record of history. Such a change would have shown that Microsoft did not borrow the ideas behind a Word plug-in that i4i demonstrated, for its own purposes, knowing that i4i held a patent on those ideas.

What may be more historically important about Wednesday's ruling -- which replaces the December ruling -- is that it may re-establish an older legal precedent with respect to patent infringement. Patent reformers, including Supreme Court judges, have been utilizing their own judiciary discretion with respect to a benchmark for damages. Legislation still on the table in Congress would change US patent law so that judges must estimate what a product would have been worth had it not been infringed upon, under normal market circumstances, in setting damages.

The reason many damage awards by juries reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars, using formulas that sometimes seem arbitrary, is because they agreed with plaintiffs' attorneys that the real-world damage is so great that any attempt to really estimate loss in monetary value is pointless. That was the case in the i4i trial, where in District Court, a jury decided there was no real formula for measuring the extent of Microsoft's transgression.

The problem considered with the District Court trial was that the base of the damages award was set at $200 million, a figure which admittedly came from a rough estimate of how many copies of Word that Microsoft probably sold during the period in question (2.1 million) times the amount of royalties i4i contended it should have received for each of those copies ($95). Microsoft argued against that formula for numerous reasons, including the fact that not all 2.1 million users of Office or Word would even see the XML editor function in question. Weighing against the need to consider the validity of that strict formula was the notion that i4i had suffered irreparable injury, which the law literally defines as something the law cannot define.

Specifically, i4i argued, Microsoft destroyed the relevant market, so that you couldn't measure it any more. Given that set of circumstances, how would it look for judges to go questioning the jury's formula on nickel-and-dime issues of royalties?

"The district court concluded that there were inadequate remedies at law to compensate i4i for its injury," wrote Judge Sharon Prost for the three-judge panel. "The district court found that before and after Microsoft began infringing, i4i produced and sold software that practiced the patented method. The district court found no evidence that i4i had previously licensed the patent, instead finding evidence that i4i sought to retain exclusive use of its invention. It was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to conclude that monetary damages would be inadequate. In this case, a small company was practicing its patent, only to suffer a loss of market share, brand recognition, and customer goodwill as the result of the defendant's infringing acts. Such losses may frequently defy attempts at valuation, particularly when the infringing acts significantly change the relevant market, as occurred here. The district court found that Microsoft captured 80% of the custom XML market with its infringing Word products, forcing i4i to change its business strategy. The loss associated with these effects is particularly difficult to quantify. Difficulty in estimating monetary damages is evidence that remedies at law are inadequate."

So the injunction stands, but not after tossing Microsoft the most hollow of victories: Sixty days, the Appeals Court decided, was not a fair amount of time for Microsoft to comply with the District Court's order, so it extended the period to five months...from the date of the order. That means the injunction now takes effect on January 11...two months ago.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: On Microsoft's request, we changed our original headline, taking note of the fact that Microsoft did not file a complete appeal on December 22. What it did file was a petition for an en banc rehearing of the existing appeal, and that petition was actually granted, even though the revised opinion issued Wednesday effectively clarifies the Appeals' Court's earlier stand.]

In a more complicated gaming world, OpenGL 4.0 gets simpler, smarter

Publié: mars 12, 2010, 12:13am CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Despite the fact that game console manufacturers still drive studios toward exclusivity for individual titles, so that a popular Xbox 360 game isn't available for PlayStation 3 and vice versa, developers within those studios are insisting more and more upon cross-platform flexibility and portability. While they may be restricted to one console, they don't want those borders to extend to computers or to handsets.

For this reason, the Khronos Group has become more and more important to developers, and OpenGL is no longer being perceived as some kind of fallback standard, as in the phrase, "Your graphics use only OpenGL. Today, OpenGL is developers' ticket to portability between PCs, consoles, and handsets, and it's the only technology shining a ray of hope for cross-console portability should it ever become politically feasible.

Today at the annual Game Developers' Conference, Khronos (whose principal members include AMD, Nvidia, and Sony) unveiled on schedule the 4.0 version of its OpenGL cross-platform rendering language for 3D virtual environments. To understand the significance of this event, you have to understand a bit more about the challenges that game developers are facing. Specifically, as screen sizes become larger on average, screen resolutions grow finer, and screens by number increase beyond one per system, the types of simplifications that made 3D scenes look "good enough" for older PCs actually look bad on modern systems. More finely-detailed systems make typical "fuzzifications" (my word for it, not Khronos') look more obvious.

It's still too arithmetically costly to expect 3D games and artistic applications to be ray tracers -- they can't assume the shading values for a huge number of traveling photons in space in real-time. We've talked before about how some graphics cards, including the first DirectX 10.1 cards from ATI in late 2007, can track a few photons, and fudge the remaining shader values for the rest.

But applying that type of calculation to OpenGL -- so it can be used with ATI and Nvidia (Intel? Maybe someday) -- requires the application to calculate how much...or more accurately, how little detail it can get away with, for certain points in space. Typically in OpenGL, developers have used lookup functions to determine the level of detail required to map any given area. As screen dynamics change, the number of functions required for a given space may increase, and their efficiency may decrease. As a result, it could take exponentially more time to make a scene look realistic -- to fuzz the focus of areas that are on the sidelines or out of range, or to blur regions that we're supposed to be flying by.

Khronos' engineers tackled this problem by extending the research begun earlier in the last decade (PDF available here) by SGI, the company that originally got the ball rolling for OpenGL. Technically, the whole technique is called "level of detail," but another way to refer to it is shader simplification. Used judiciously, it's a way to make certain elements of a scene seem clearer by selecting which others appear not so clear.

Screenshot of an early build of the Icarus Scene Engine, an OpenGL-based 3D scene editor that is itself rendered in 3D, using the OpenTK toolkit.

As scenes are processed, OpenGL effectively determines the active level of detail for any given shader (the equivalent of what Direct3D calls a "pixel," which isn't always a "pixel" per se). OpenGL 4.0 expedites this process by realizing that levels of detail should be remembered, so that when a function looks it up from the outside, it doesn't have to be recalculated. Thus, top of the list on version 4.0's list of changes is the new textureLOD function set, which will not impact how developers use the API -- it's like a retroactive fix. The new functions recall levels of detail rather than recalculate them.

These new functions are actually necessary for OpenGL to work (properly) on ATI Radeon HD 5xxx series graphics cards, which began shipping last year. Now developers are looking forward to ATI upgrading its 5xxx drivers to enable 4.0, now that 4.0 has enabled them.

The result may be an avoidance of the exponential lags that developers had been seeing as resolution and screen complexity increased. Double-precision floating-point vectors will be supported for the first time, also signifying the new dynamics of 3D rendering. And now, cube map textures can be layered, potentially for more iridescent effects that will substitute for bump mapping. As one contributor to Khronos' OpenGL forum noted this morning, "I just had a look on the extension, it's so much more than whatever I could have expected! I think there is a lot of developer little dreams that just happened here."

The first rollout demonstrations of OpenGL 4.0, along with its WebGL counterpart, were scheduled for late this afternoon, West Coast time. That's probably where we'll see our first screen shots of the final specification at work.

We'll also learn more about just how viable the new edition is for cross-platform development. This afternoon, another forum contributor from Montreal noted the remaining political roadblocks to true cross-platform development: "As a cross-platform developer I would like to use OpenGL exclusively but it's commercially unviable to use it on Windows, due to the fact that OpenGL just doesn't work on most machines by default, which forces me to target my game to both DirectX and OpenGL. The OpenGL shortcomings on Windows aren't a big deal for hardcore games where the users are gonna have good drivers (although they are a cause of too many support calls which makes it inviable anyway) but it's a show-stopper for casual games...Until OpenGL isn't expected to just work in any Windows box, it is dead in the Windows platform. Do something about this please."

Android vs. iPhone vs. BlackBerry vs. OS X vs. Windows, brought to you by Namco

Publié: mars 11, 2010, 10:37pm CET par Tim Conneally

Namco, one of video gaming's most iconic brands, today announced a new cross-platform game engine called UniteSDK, which will let gamers play with one another irrespective of the platform they're playing their games on.

A user playing a UniteSDK-based game on their iPhone, for example, will be able to play against a PC user, who will be able to play against a Mac user, and so forth.

"Allowing gamers with the option to play anywhere, anytime and on multiple platforms will be a true milestone for Namco Networks -- wanting to play a friend that has an iPhone when someone only has a PC will no longer be a prohibiting factor," Kirby Fong, executive producer of web development and online gaming at Namco Networks said today. "UniteSDK allows Namco and in the near future, external developers, to create games that provide cross platform and cross game social community."

Namco's first title built on UniteSDK is called Pool Pro Online 3 and will launch on PC, iPad, Mac, Android, Java, BREW, RIM and Windows Mobile. All of these platforms will be able to engage one another.

In addition to allowing interoperability, UniteSDK also gives games the ability to support achievements, records, leaderboards, gamer profiles, in-game chat, buddy lists, one-on-one challenges, and tournaments.

It's another move by a game company toward unifying the disparate platforms under a single interoperable umbrella. A similar move was made by Valve Corporation this week when it announced it will sell copies of its games for both Mac and Windows for a single price, and that all its future releases will launch simultaneously on PC, Xbox 360, and Mac.

Namco's strategy however, has much more potential for revolution in that it makes community building considerably easier. When the platform is no longer a factor that separates players from one another, a community of gamers can get together, socialize, and play much more quickly.

FCC releases iPhone app to learn more about network conditions

Publié: mars 11, 2010, 8:49pm CET par Tim Conneally

With just six days to go before the National Broadband Plan is due before Congress, the Federal Communications Commission today launched a pair of consumer tools -- an app for iPhone/Android, and a Web-based reporting tool -- to help inform both consumers and the Commission itself about broadband conditions across the US.

The mobile application bundles the Ookla Speed Test (a.k.a., Speedtest.net) and Network Diagnostic Tool together into a single package simply branded "FCC Test." Users can check their downlink/uplink speeds and network latency against different US-based servers, and can then export the results as a .CSV file. The FCC says it may use the data collected from the Mobile Broadband Quality Test to analyze coverage and quality on a geographic basis across the US, but it does not endorse one particular testing application over another, so there may be more tests rolled into the app in the future.

The Commission's Broadband Dead Zone Report is much less a tool than a simple complaint dropbox. On the page, the user confirms that they do or do not have broadband available in their home, answers one related question and then provides their address. This is intended to help the FCC determine where the demand for broadband is high despite low coverage.

"Transparency empowers consumers, promotes innovation and investment, and encourages competition," said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in a statement today. "The FCC's new digital tools will arm users with real-time information about their broadband connection and the agency with useful data about service across the country. By informing consumers about their broadband service quality, these tools help eliminate confusion and make the market work more effectively."

Early praise for Google Maps' bike routes

Publié: mars 11, 2010, 8:44pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Improving Software series banner

Google Maps with bicycle directions The nice thing about the Internet, or so I've been told, is that it has all this information. Perhaps you've noticed this lately, but the big problem has been that there's no one way to get at this information with any kind of consistency.

Supposedly Google is the "portal" for most of the world's information, which may be why so many people find Betanews by typing "Betanews" in Google. In one respect, you might expect Google to have an interest in creating that consistent methodology for getting at information. On the other hand, given that so many folks depend on Google Search just as it is now, you could see how Google might very easily come to the conclusion that there's no new benefits to be gained through improving its software, just to keep the user base it already has.

My friend and colleague Carmi Levy touched on that point this morning in Wide Angle Zoom, where he turned a reluctant thumb down on the Google Buzz social network experiment. You can call it "beta" or, as Google strangely decided this time around, not call it beta, but after using it for a while, it's difficult not to come away with the opinion that this is indeed an experiment...and you're the subject. But as Carmi also noted, different Google services are so inconsistent with one another that they may as well have been developed on different planets -- which suggests that Google may have been copying the Microsoft development model after all. Perhaps the best case-in-point example comes from Google Maps. Yesterday, to the delight of many, it added bicycle routes to its plotting options.

If you're a biker, you know that there are peculiar distinctions between the routes you plan as a pedestrian, and those you use on a bicycle. In cities whose planning commissions have added lanes to boulevards by destroying sidewalks, you know that unless you enjoy motocross and frequent encounters with beat cops, you can't plant bicycle tires on the same places you can plant your feet. I grew up decades ago in Oklahoma, at a time where for most areas of the state, "downtown" was denoted by the presence of the stoplight. Before I could drive a car, I biked four miles back and forth from my first high school, and (sometimes) the ten miles back and forth from my second, at a time when that was considered a normal way for a kid to get around town. Even then, I distinctly remember there were spans of a few hundred feet or so every so often where, if the paved road ended and the granite rock paths began, I'd pick up my bike and tread on foot between people's houses. It helped to get acquainted with them first (see: "beat cops").

The brilliance of the Google Maps experiment is that it accumulates the data that Google has gathered, not just through map scanning and satellite imagery and those strange cars you see cruising every little granite path, but through its advertising service as well. As a result, from day one, the bicycle route part of its service is capable of guiding cyclists using the tools that matter to cyclists: the landmarks they see along the way -- the gas station, the church with the tall steeple, the Italian restaurant. No service established exclusively for the purpose of mapping the world, for motorists or cyclists, would have ever assimilated information at this level of granularity; only through co-opting the advertising and location database with the mapping database could this ever be feasible from a business standpoint.

When I tested Google Maps last year as a pedestrian/public transit dependent in Los Angeles, I discovered it was using a form of "reverse tunnel logic" to compile its suggested routes. Quite literally, it would have me traveling by foot one mile south to catch a bus that would take me 1.1 miles north; and it also would have had me scaling viaducts where there were drainage ditches below and barbed wire above. I pointed out to Google at the time that Maps appeared to fail to consider time and effort consumed as factors in assimilating its routes. The response I got at the time from Google was, thank you for your input but, well, you can't know everything about everything. As I've learned from experience, yes, you can. Living in Indianapolis, for example, I know there is a kind of "superhighway" exclusively for non-motorists, formed from the brilliant idea of paving over a disused railroad track. Named for the railroad that used to own it, it's called the Monon Trail -- a 16.7-mile stretch of track that's well kept, fairly well patrolled, and is the most foot-friendly stretch of asphalt I've ever traveled.

Since it bisects most of the city north-to-south, there are a multitude of ways someone could get to the Monon Trail. Indianapolis is notable for having plenty of bike trails in certain areas of the city, and no way in hell a bike could get through in others. For my initial test of Google Maps for cyclists, I wanted to see whether it would make the same decisions I would, having lived here now for 18 years.

With pedestrian maps, Google's suggested route is plotted in blue, with the relatively foot-friendly paths outlined in solid green, or dotted green for "better than most." If I wanted to walk from my house all the way to, say, Conseco Fieldhouse downtown where the Pacers play, Google Maps would try to plot the most direct foot route it could. Even though I know for a fact that walking the Monon Trail is much, much faster than down the side of a boulevard, the fact that the Trail is a half-mile out of my way means that Google's walking map won't suggest it.

It is a very different story for cyclists, and here it's clear that someone at Google listened to my advice. It takes a little more effort to pedal west a half-mile to get to the Trail, but once you're there, the effort pays off with a four-and-a-half mile stretch of paved roads, overpasses, and relatively safe crosswalks ("zebra crossings"). Tunnel logic evidently was not used to compile this route, but rather an assessment of the time and even luxury benefits to be gained from going out of one's way -- the type of assessments Google Maps did not make last year in L.A.

Google Maps for bicyclists reveals the smartest route a cyclists, not a pedestrian, would take to ride to downtown Indianapolis. Here's what I mean: This screenshot shows the suggested route from one of my favorite neighborhood pizza joints to Conseco downtown. Now, Google knows that Allisonville Road recently added a bike lane (not a good one, it's in dotted green), that it leads to a nicely protected sidewalk down Fall Creek Parkway, and that would be the most direct route downtown. Indeed, if I were a pedestrian, that's the route it would suggest. But as a cyclist, I know that's not the route I want -- crossing onto Fall Creek over Binford Blvd. means running across ten lanes of traffic without a crosswalk, where motorists are speeding through on a shortcut to I-69.

So Google Maps takes my bicycle (a vintage Takara racer, if you're interested) a mile out of my way, through a residential area, just to get me to the Monon Trail. And that's exactly right -- there's no question it's a lovelier, easier, and in good weather, faster route.

Next: Seeing where you're going, and where you shouldn't go...

Improving Software series banner

Seeing where you're going, and where you shouldn't go

Perhaps the most wonderful feature of this service, which pedestrians already discovered, is the opportunity to blend Street View with maps to let you walk the route ahead of time. This way you see in advance all the landmarks you'll encounter along the way -- the waypoints that let you remember in your head what to look for and where to turn. Here is where I encountered a little bug in the program, and you can actually see it if you look closely here. Street View should show you a blue line, coordinating with the blue line in the overhead map, to let you follow the suggested route. The overhead map, shown below, appears correct -- travel west on 54th St., and turn left at the Trail. The landmark at that turn is one of my favorite Italian restaurants in all the world, Mama Carolla's. In the photograph, notice the trail runs right alongside it.

Your eyes say one thing, but the map says another. That happens to me all the time, but it's definitely happening here in Google Maps for bicyclists.

Notice also that the map's blue line has you making a left turn at Mama's onto the Trail (correct), but that Street View has you making a right turn. What happened here? A check of the turn-by-turn directions reveals that, for some strange reason, Maps wants you to travel down 54th St. for 72 extra feet, then make a U-turn, head back the other direction, and make a right turn. It's probably a little database problem, where the point of contact with the Monon Trail meets up with the street is off by a few feet. Nevertheless, if you printed off these directions so you could follow them from your bike, you'd be confused at this point.

Here's also where you discover a problem that Google can't solve, at least not right away: You can't take a Street View walk down pedestrian trails. There's an obvious reason for this: Towns don't want Google going down walking trails snapping shots of people anonymously.

The next best thing is to try to reposition yourself (the little orange man on the overhead map, who I've noticed isn't on a bike) on actual street intersections along the way. Here's where the software starts to fail: I should be able to just click on the blue path at an intersection where there's a photo. Instead, I have to drag the little man up in the air (he actually "flies" while this is happening, like a repositioned character in Peter Molyneux's game "The Movies") and deposit him in the vicinity of the blue line. Where it ends up dropping him, despite what the pointer says, could be up to three blocks out of the way.

The problem here appears to be with the front end of the program, not with the fundamental design. If you'll recall earlier my statement that you can know everything, the way you do so is by listening and learning. Google Maps is, to its great credit, capable of doing this: In cases where I know full well a certain route is safer or better than another, I can drag the blue line where I believe it should go. Not only is that an easy way for me to plan my own route, but for Google, it's a source of new information: If Google is smart about this (and there's no reason for me to believe it isn't), it will learn from my changes and those of others, and may suggest safer routes for other Maps users in the future.

An adjustment made to an incorrect suggestion in Google Maps for bicyclists takes the rider on an unexpected excursion. But it can only do this if it gets its front end right first. The slightly incorrect portion of its suggested route for my trip downtown was a 72-foot diversion that actually does show up when you zoom in the map. But partly because the granularity of the line-dragging routine does not appear to be as fine as the map's own zoom capability, and partly because the U-turn is a three-step process which Google Maps presumes must lead from point to point to point in every circumstance, my attempt to simply shave off the U-turn in the directions was mistaken as a way for me to take a lap around the strip mall parking lot, shown here.

Because Google is leveraging its massive platform in multiple areas to provide an exclusive service that wouldn't have been feasible on its own, little adjustments can have big consequences. Someplace within the Google database right now, there's probably the recording that some Indy cyclist weirdo suggested that instead of a simple 72-foot loop around the middle of 54th St., one should take a big two-block oval around the strip mall. As long as that little route-adjustment bug is in there, the validity of information Google is gleaning from changes that sensible people are making to suggestions everywhere, may end up not being very sensible. And as a result, over time, someone will probably be advised to walk one mile north in order to get on the route that leads her 1.1 miles south.

Despite that little discovery, I can easily see where Google Maps will become an invaluable tool for bicyclists who want to explore not only their home town, but areas of the world they've never been. I can imagine a depression in car rentals across the country. I'm also imagining folks with their Android GPS-enabled phones in their pockets maybe someday getting spoken directions. "Turn left onto Monon Trail...No, silly, your other left."

Opera Mini 5 solves some of Android's native browser problems

Publié: mars 11, 2010, 7:56pm CET par Tim Conneally

Following up on last week's beta release of Opera Mini 5 for Windows Mobile 5 and 6, Opera software today launched Opera Mini 5 for the Android platform.

Opera Mini 5 on Android With Mini 5, Opera Software has managed to make a cross-platform browser that provides an almost uniform experience across all the operating systems it runs on. Today's release on Android feels almost identical to the version I tested last week.

However, with Android, we're taking a different look at Opera and its comparisons to other browsers. It's easy to say, "Oh, Opera is faster than IE Mobile, but not as comprehensive as Skyfire," when comparing browsers on Windows Phones. Everybody does that.

Because there are four different versions of Google's mobile operating system in circulation right now, there are at least three different native Android browsers to compare Opera Mini 5 to. Android versions 1.5 and 1.6 have an older version (v. 4.0) of the Android browser, while Android 2.0 and up have a browser with a new UI and new features. Android 2.1 has the same browser as 2.0, but it is endowed with multitouch gestures.

We tested Opera Mini 5 against the two main Android browsers.

Opera Mini 5 on Android 1.5 & 1.6

For devices that run upon the "Cupcake" and "Donut" builds of Android, Opera Mini 5 provides a number of different experiences from the stock browser. First, Opera provides an actionable address bar which can just be clicked upon to enter URLs. In Android Browser 4, the user has to tap Menu > Go to bring up the address bar. Secondly, Zooming in and out with the Android browser is done with the preview tool and magnifying glass buttons, but Mini 5's is mostly pre-ordained. If you set it to "mobile view," pages are formatted to fit your screen so you don't have to do too much resizing. However, Mini 5 defaults with mobile view off and full screen mode off, so your pages are first going to load very quickly, but will require zooming (done by double-tapping the screen, a gesture that Android Browser version 4 actually lacks).

When considering Mini 5's interface alone, it's not a significant improvement over the stock browser. However there's much more to love about Opera than its UI, so we'll talk more about that later.

Next: Opera Mini 5 on Android 2.0+...

Opera Mini 5 on Android 2.0+

Devices running Android 2.0 and beyond are generally equipped with stronger processors, so browsing with the stock Android browser is a tough experience to compete with. Fortunately for Opera Mini 5, the experience it provides on these devices actually holds up quite well thanks to some of the features it adds that Android lacks across the board.

Principal among these is tabbed browsing. In all Android browsers, your browser tabs are a whole sub-screen which pulls you out of your current window and into a new one. In Opera Mini, browser tabs appear as an overlay in your main window with a rack of thumbnails that can be chosen from. This adds a lot to the feeling of continuity within Opera, and is an area where the Android browser suffers.

Another major complaint about the Android browser is that it does not sync your mobile bookmarks with anything. They're currently something of a dead end. This has been a big argument in favor of the Dolphin browser, which offers that feature. Even better, however, is Opera Mini 5, which actually can sync to your desktop version of Opera with Opera Link. So if you're a desktop Opera user, not only will your Speed Dial screen be automatically populated, but it also gives you instant access to your bookmark folders and RSS feeds.

The final issue to mention when talking about any of Opera's products is the addition of server-side rendering. Pages in Opera Mini 5 are digested on an Opera server before they hit your device's screen, so browsing is sped up considerably. Though browsing on a 3G connection is enjoyable on all Android devices, Opera Mini 5 can knock out pages appreciably faster.

So what's the bottom line on this beta?

It's a "Must Have" if:

You're a desktop Opera user using Android 1.5 or 1.6.

It's a "Must Try" if:

You're in an area with poor 3G coverage using Android 1.5 or 1.6.

For everyone else, it will be worthwhile to play around with it and see if you like what Opera does. After all, it is the most popular mobile browser in the world.

Opera Mini 5 beta can be downloaded today in the Android Market.

Second thoughts about Google Buzz

Publié: mars 11, 2010, 4:24pm CET par Carmi Levy

So it's been a few weeks since Google Buzz launched, and because I'm a good little geek-soldier who eats his own (figurative) dog food, I've invested lots of time to learn how it works and, more importantly, how it can work for me. Although I'm doing my best to be an optimist, I can't seem to warm up to Buzz. Yes, folks, I think I'm falling out of like with Google's new social media darling service.

Or, to be blunt, Google Buzz sucks.

Maybe that's a little harsh. Maybe it sucks for me and not for others. Maybe other users absolutely love the thing because they feel it's already transformed how they connect to each other. If you're one of them, please let me know, because so far, no one I know has bothered using it to any great degree.

And there, dear readers, is the core problem. Despite the fact that Buzz leverages our existing Gmail contact lists to give us a head start in the friend-population game, it doesn't seem to be translating into actual, sustained, meaningful activity.

In the early going for Facebook, as you may recall, its friend approval process often left your universe as pathetically empty as a sixth grade prom dance floor. Google, by contrast, leveraged Gmail to avoid repeating Facebook's mistake, but its jumpstart philosophy doesn't seem to be resulting in anything remotely approaching an enjoyable party. Whenever I click on the Buzz link from Gmail, I feel like I'm right back in the sixth grade, down to the dim gymnasium with the lousy acoustics and watered down punch.

Carmi Levy Wide Angle Zoom (v.2) There are so many reasons to rant on Google for foisting yet another social media failure on us, but for now, I've narrowed it down to these four:

Conversation stream hijackers. Every time I sign in, there's a monumentally long conversation thread from Robert Scoble at the top of my list. Now, don't get me wrong: I've long been a fan of Robert Scoble and decided to follow him precisely because I appreciate his perspectives on the rapidly evolving social media landscape. But his overwhelming presence at the top of my Buzz feed is starting to annoy me. To his credit, he's recognized this flaw and has apologized for it -- though he really shouldn't, because it's not his fault that bad interface design allows uber-users to overwhelm the feeds of regular folks like me.
Interface from hell. I wouldn't mind Robert Scoble's extreme ownership of my screen real estate if I had the ability to move things around to suit my needs. But Buzz's no-customization philosophy means you're stuck with whatever's there. You can't filter out users or threads that don't interest you. You can't prioritize the ones that do. You're stuck. And those things that look like overlaid folders? They don't work. For all the criticism that Facebook has received over the years for its revolving door of radical interface changes, at least we can eventually tweak that interface to somewhat reflect the things that matter most to us. Google Buzz assumes we all subscribe to the old Eastern Bloc notion of one size (badly) fits all.
Inconsistency with other Google services. Remember the nasty old days of DOS when every app had its own interface and command structure, and moving data from one to another was the PC-era equivalent of Babel? Well, after a couple of decades of getting used to Microsoft's cross-application philosophy -- with across-the-board methods for printing, saving files, cutting and pasting content, among others -- it almost seems as if Google wants us to go back to the pre-Cambrian period. Every Google service seems to come with its own unique interface and, as a result, its own unique learning curve. While I understand that a social media tool like Buzz will necessarily have a fundamentally different feature set than, say, an RSS reader like Google Reader, there's no reason why some of the baseline conventions of Google Reader, such as the ability to expand and collapse conversations and seamlessly connect to and manipulate feeds, can't be adapted for use in Buzz as well. Using the two services side-by-side reinforces my belief that they may as well have been designed on different planets. There's no reason for this.
Cryptic contact management. After years of finding friends in Facebook and identifying interesting folks to follow in Twitter, the Buzz approach to adding contacts is a major letdown. Not that I'm surprised, as contact management within Gmail has never been a Google strong suit. But it's particularly botched here, starting with a "Find People" routine that first forces you to scroll through the friends you're already following. Once you get to the Suggestions field at the bottom, you're faced either with a long list of people you don't know (maybe they sent spam to your Gmail account six months ago) or a really short list of people you don't know. "Load More" buttons are few and far between. Right now, I've got one under the list of folks I follow. Which means it's useless to me. I'd like to have one that helps me find new people to follow, but that's nowhere to be found. Similarly counterintuitive design decisions abound throughout Buzz.

I'm apparently not alone, because the kinds of conversations that routinely happen on other social media platforms -- multiple back-and-forth messages that often pull in participants from near and far -- just aren't happening here. I fear Buzz may go down as yet another failed attempt by Google to figure out the social media Holy Grail.

I've always thought of myself as a pretty tech-focused guy who can figure out the peculiarities of virtually any piece of software or, increasingly, Web-based service. But Google Buzz makes it such a frustrating, annoying process to get anywhere close to functional with people who matter to me that I've concluded my time would be better spent elsewhere. I'm not convinced spending hours fighting with Buzz's busted interface will do anything to get my "friends" to wake up and engage in this new environment. From where I sit, I doubt it'll change without radically invasive surgery to the product. Even then, I wonder if users already entrenched in Facebook and Twitter will even care enough to chime back in to Buzz.

Giant inflatable pig used in recording studios' Washington war with broadcasters

Publié: mars 11, 2010, 12:33am CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

The danger with waging a populist political war is in potentially boiling down one's message to such a degree that it ends up insulting and patronizing the very people the message is targeting. The case in point could not be made clearer this afternoon in Washington, DC, as The Hill's Kim Hart first discovered: A handful of otherwise unnoticeable protestors outside the headquarters of the National Association of Broadcasters erected an 18-foot inflatable pig, bearing the message, "Fair Pay for Musicians."

The pig has become the mascot of the MusicFirst Coalition, the performers' rights agency that collects and distributes royalties. For the last few years, MusicFirst has campaigned extensively against the decades-old exemption of terrestrial radio broadcasters (as opposed to Internet radio) from paying performers' royalties. Stations continue to pay royalties to rights holders, which in the end, include many of the recording industry institutions also represented by MusicFirst.

Dueling bills stalled on Capitol Hill would continue this exemption indefinitely, or compel radio stations for the first time to pay performers' royalties on a scale comparable to what Internet streamers such as Pandora and Last.fm reluctantly agreed to last year. In an effort to gather momentum to move pro-royalties legislation forward, associations that support MusicFirst have formed the Radio Accountability Project; launched a Web site, PiggyRadio.com; and produced a new 30-second television spot, all of which heavily feature the poor pig.

The tactic appears to be to visually link radio broadcasters with two unpopular groups of citizens: the United States Government, and the executives of banks that accepted federal bailout money in 2008 and 2009 to remain solvent. Whether any substantive link between bankers and broadcasters actually exists is open for debate. Nonetheless, PiggyRadio.com clearly shows the corporate broadcasting pig feeding from an orange barrel marked "Bailout Funds." The theory is that, by not paying royalties, continuing to accept the exemption is virtually almost exactly similar to accepting a government bailout.

The front page of PiggyRadio.com, produced by the Radio Accountability Project on behalf of performers' rights holders.

However, one tactical error may have emerged today: In its invitation to the pig-out this afternoon (PDF available here), the RAP group estimated the amount of the "bailout" -- by association, the amount of royalties MusicFirst would receive from broadcasters -- as "billions." "These giant radio companies made more than $15 billion in revenues last year without paying musicians a single penny through a performance royalty," the RAP invitation read. "Worse, they have been using the public's airwaves to lobby and intimidate Congress on the issue. Specifically, here is what the broadcast corporations want: A bailout from the federal government in the form of billions for broadcast spectrum that they got for free and don't even use."

Thus the National Association of Broadcasters -- its office windows covered in pink -- found itself today doing two things it never expected to do: explaining that its members actually have never requested federal bailout money, and buying sausage pizza for the handful of protesters (by one estimate, five) who accompanied the giant pig.

NAB Executive Vice President Dennis Wharton issued this statement this afternoon: "It's no surprise that [the Recording Industry Association of America] is now employing silly frat-boy stunts, given its well-documented practice of suing college kids to rescue a bankrupt business model. It also seems appropriate for RIAA to use an inflatable pig as its mascot, since its foreign-owned members would be the biggest beneficiaries of performance tax pork. RIAA is losing this issue on Capitol Hill and in the court of public opinion, and today's demonstration represents a new low in a campaign of utter desperation."

Wharton then went on to suggest that the recording industry at least buy a sausage pizza for "the scores of exploited musicians who have had to sue their record label to recoup allegedly unpaid album royalties."

Apple's business database for Windows and Mac (you read right) moves forward

Publié: mars 10, 2010, 9:54pm CET par Jacqueline Emigh

Box shot of FileMaker Pro 11 FileMaker Pro 11 left beta testing for general release on Tuesday, adding a host of new capabilities for better productivity in database use, faster database creation, and easy production of eye-catching charts.

Now updated for Microsoft's Windows 7 and Apple's Macintosh native Mac OS X "Cocoa" platform, FileMaker Pro is the only software in its category that runs on both Windows and Mac, noted Ryan Rosenberg, vice president, marketing and services for FileMaker, Inc., in a briefing for Betanews.

"We're number one on Mac, and number two after Microsoft Access on Windows," according to Rosenberg.

With so few rivals for FileMaker Pro on either platform, why is the Apple division adding so many new features this time around? "We want everyone to become a database user," the VP responded.

In contrast to FileMaker's Bento personal database program, a Mac-only product targeted at consumers and very small businesses, the division's flagship FileMaker product is designed mainly for "knowledge workers" at mid- to large-sized businesses.

Rosenberg said that FileMaker, Inc. now eyes expanding the adoption of FileMaker Pro among both advanced database users and novices, who might have been performing tasks such as invoicing using spreadsheets instead.

Like Bento, FileMaker Pro requires no familiarity with programming languages. In recent releases, the product has gained external links to Oracle, MySQL, and Microsoft SQL Server databases.

Rosenberg also contended, though, that FileMaker Pro has long contained a number of features -- such as Web publishing, for example -- still unavailable in the Windows-only Microsoft Access. He then argued that, on the whole, FileMaker's interface is smoother and easier to use.

Screen shot from FileMaker Pro 11

Key enhancements in FileMaker Pro 11 include:

FileMaker Charts for quick production of colorful bar, line and pie charts.
Quick Find, an intuitive, iTunes-like search engine for database information.
A Quick Start screen for making new databases, managing files, and finding help resources.
Quick Reports for setting up data in a similar way to the popular pivot charts in spreadsheets.
Snapshot Links for easy sharing of the most up-to-date database query results with co-workers and business partners.
Layout Folders allowing advanced users to capture and reapply their favorite layouts across multiple types of reports.
Inspector, a "master tool palette" for controlling layout objects and properties.
A new Invoices Starter Solution, one of 31 template-based built-in solutions for performing specific tasks.

Rosenberg also acknowledged a certain amount of "cross-fertilization" between FileMaker and Bento, even though the two database programs are geared to different audiences.

"Features such as Quick Reports have been heavily influenced by Bento. But it really goes both ways, because Bento was originally based on the FileMaker product, anyway," he observed.

The new FileMaker series actually comes in four flavors: FileMaker Pro, FileMaker Pro Advanced, FileMaker Server, and FileMaker Server Advanced. Rosenberg said that FileMaker Server Advanced has been enhanced to remove limits on the numbers of supported users, while adding the ability to set different permission rights for various groups of users.

More 3D TVs launch, this time from Panasonic...but it's still kid's stuff

Publié: mars 10, 2010, 9:50pm CET par Tim Conneally

The awe-inspiring 3D giraffe

Yesterday, Samsung launched its 2010 line of 3D TVs, which includes LED, LCD, and plasma screens between 46" and 65", with prices that start at $1,999 and go up to $6,999. Today, Panasonic added its products into the mix at a launch event in New York City with partners Best Buy, 20th Century Fox, and DirecTV.

The event marked the debut of a 3D home theater package that will sell exclusively at Best Buy that includes a 50" Panasonic Viera 3D plasma TV (VT20- $2,499), a Panasonic 3D Blu-ray player (BDT-300 - $399) and one pair of active shutter glasses for 3D viewing. It's comparable to the package Samsung announced yesterday, except that it comes with one fewer pair of 3D glasses. The whole package will go for $2,899, starting today.

Panasonic said it will also launch 54", 58", and 65" models later this year.

Unfortunately, there is still no new content available for the 3D systems, and therefore no really compelling reason to rush out and upgrade your HDTV to 3D right now, especially if you're not particularly fond of Pixar-style "family fun" films.

Early adopters will only be able to enjoy the 3D experience on a couple of features, such as Dreamworks' Monsters vs. Aliens which was announced at Samsung's CES press conference this year, and Sony's Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs which was announced at about the same time.

Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment Executive Vice President of Marketing Mary Daily also appeared at the event today, to announce that the studio's first 3D Blu-ray title will be Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, another animated children's movie.

My Bloody Valentine Blu-Ray, not on the BD-3D spec Panasonic's partner DirecTV appeared at the event today, and it is expected to launch at least three stations in 3D which will include sports and music video content, but those won't be until June at the earliest.

DirecTV says it is working with AEG/AEG Digital Media, CBS, Fox Sports/FSN, Golden Boy Promotions, HDNet, MTV, NBC Universal, and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. to develop 3D programming that will debut in 2010-2011. All of DirecTV's 3D channels will also carry the Panasonic brand for a year.

More electronics manufacturers will be showing off their 3D TVs in the coming months, but content is still lagging behind, and there has yet to be a mostly live-action 3D movie that takes advantage of the new 3D Blu-ray spec, or even one that is made for adults with a taste for movies a little less lighthearted.

Android picks up more US subscribers as Windows Mobile share plunges

Publié: mars 10, 2010, 8:16pm CET par Joe Wilcox

Windows Mobile phones continue to bleed US subscribers, with Android devices picking up most of the lost subscriber share. Can you say free falling? Today, ComScore released standard handset and smartphone data for the three-month period of November 2009 to January 2010. ComScore designates the platforms by vendor. Microsoft smartphone subscriber share fell to 15.7 percent from 19.7 percent three months earlier. Meanwhile, Google rose to 7.1 percent from 2.8 percent during the same time period.

What about iPhone, for which American bloggers and journalists are seemingly obsessed? If Apple is gaining smartphone subscribers, it's not substantially showing in the data. Subscriber share rose from 24.8 percent to 25.1 percent, which is statistically negligible. Meanwhile, Research in Motion slightly climbed -- to 43 percent from 41.3 percent.

There were 234 million mobile subscribers ages 13 or older between November and January, according to ComScore. Nearly 43 million Americans owned smartphones. The number of smartphone owners increased by 18 percent compared to the previous three months.

The data is obviously bad news for Microsoft, which is making a major mobile platform switch to Windows Phone 7 Series. First devices aren't expected until late third quarter at the earliest. Next week, T-Mobile is planning a launch event for the HTC HD2. Unfortunately, the Windows Mobile-powered device, considered one of the hottest smartphones on the market, isn't eligible for Windows Phone 7 Series. Can Microsoft gain lost share despite the HD2's non-upgradability? Future ComScore data will tell.

But the numbers aren't good for Apple, either. Huge growth marked iPhone's first three releases. Questions to ask now about iPhone's stalled subscriber growth:

Has Verizon Wireless "There's a map for that" counter-AT&T advertising hurt iPhone sales?
Is Verizon's other marketing campaign -- for Droid -- slowing network churn to AT&T for iPhone?
Are AT&T's well-publicized network problems (dropped calls and failed connections) hurting iPhone sales?
Is Android benefitting from the increasing number of handsets, which are available through all US major carriers while iPhone is tethered to AT&T?
Do smartphone buyers perhaps care about multitasking, which Apple hobbled on iPhone but is available on all other major competing platforms?

My answer is "Yes" to all five questions. Carrier subscriber data is revealing. During fourth quarter, AT&T gained 2.7 million subscribers for a total of 85.1 million. Verizon wireless subscribers grew by only 2.2 million, to 91.2 million, but beat Wall Street consensus of 1.5 million. Three months earlier, Verizon gained 1.2 million subscribers; 1.1 million in second quarter 2009. For third quarter 2009, AT&T gained 2 million subscribers; 1.4 million in second quarter 2009. Late-year AT&T gains are to be expected following release of iPhone 3GS in June last year. But Verizon's fourth-quarter surge is revealing and follows two major marketing campaigns and introduction of several Android-based handsets.

Marketing is a factor often overlooked by iPhone-obsessed bloggers and journalists. Apple spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year marketing iPhone. Verizon is spending $100 million on its Droid marketing campaign, which has helped raise Android smartphones' profile. Meanwhile, Verizon continues to club AT&T with aggressive advertising about network reliability. Verizon's marketing answer to Apple and AT&T is more bite than bark.

Oh and what about Microsoft? When did you last see Windows Mobile smartphone advertising from Microsoft? The company plans to spend big on Windows Phone 7 Series, but that's months away.

In early 2010, Apple changed tactics with iPhone marketing, and it will be interesting to see the affect on consumer perceptions. Presumably to combat competitor counter-marketing about there being no real multitasking, newer TV commercials insinuate that iPhone users can do many things at once.

Two of three newest iPhone commercials focus on families and feature female narration. That says heaps about where Apple sees the next big market segment for iPhone. Typically, gadget geeks (many of them male) are the first adopters of products like smartphones. Later, manufacturers tailor the products and their marketing for women and, more importantly, families. Timing is right if, as Sylvia Ann Hewlett asserts, "Women are the biggest emerging market."

As for Windows Phone 7 Series marketing, it's too soon to guess Microsoft's approach or its effectiveness. As for Android, its future looks bright.

Strongest condemnation yet of anti-counterfeiting, 'three strikes' from EU

Publié: mars 10, 2010, 6:51pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

The European Parliament today overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution compelling participants in multi-national negotiations over the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) to report on the status and substance of those negotiations, first to Parliament and eventually to the general public. This after a groundswell of public concern arose in the wake of documents purporting to be official ACTA material, the latest leaked by Wired last November (PDF available here from Wired), spoke of US negotiators' requests to include terms in the final Agreement that would force Internet service providers to police the content trafficked over their pipelines, or else face penalties.

A statement issued from Parliament this afternoon records the final vote as 633-13-16 in favor of the resolution, the motion for which (DOC available here) was drafted just yesterday on behalf of six of the continent's political parties and alliances, including Greens/EFA. That motion referred to the leaked documents by name, effectively confirming their legitimacy.

The motion warned that those documents referred to the institution of measures among ACTA members, including the EU, of criminal penalties for those accused of violating, or assisting in the violation of, intellectual property rights. The leaked Wired document, dated August 30, 2009, entitled simply "ACTA negotiations," indicated that US negotiators were not in a position to discuss even among other trade negotiators the substance of consultations with "a number of private stakeholders (bound to strict confidentiality clauses)" -- a group which presumably includes publishing and recording associations.

Rather than provide colleagues with written documents, the August 30 document stated, US representatives were free to give an oral summary of their requested proposal, which would be an abbreviated version of the existing US-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Clauses of the ACTA as US representatives proposed would narrow the legal definition of "safe harbor" as it pertains to ISPs, which today are protected from liability for IP violations under laws recognized as high up the chain as the Supreme Court. The ACTA, as discussed at the time, would only provide safe harbor to ISPs that instituted policies and installed technologies to deter IP violations, including the illicit trading of unauthorized files.

Later clauses would clearly classify the stripping of rights management provisions from any software as an IP violation, punishable with both civil and criminal penalties. And in a telling bit of legalese whose economy of phraseology speaks volumes as to its intent, the leaked August 30 document included this provision: "'Fair use' will not be circumscribed."

Last year, in an effort to diffuse growing public criticism (before legislators caught wind of it), the Office of the US Trade Representative issued a brief (PDF available here) discussing what it said could be discussed in public about ACTA negotiations. As to the matter of publicly revealing little things about, say, overriding the Supreme Court, the Office diplomatically gave credence to objections, while at the same time attempting to place them in a little box over to the side somewhere.

"A variety of groups have shown their interest in getting more information on the substance of the negotiations and have requested that the draft text be disclosed," the USTR document reads, referring indirectly to groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge. "However, it is accepted practice during trade negotiations among sovereign states to not share negotiating texts with the public at large, particularly at earlier stages of the negotiation. This allows delegations to exchange views in confidence facilitating the negotiation and compromise that are necessary in order to reach agreement on complex issues. At this point in time, ACTA delegations are still discussing various proposals for the different elements that may ultimately be included in the agreement. A comprehensive set of proposals for the text of the agreement does not yet exist."

The USTR paper went on to mention the need to empower judges to impose stricter penalties for IP violations, though by its authors' own admission, it leaves a gaping hole with respect to the broadening of the definition of what an IP violation is. Trade negotiations throughout history have been, by definition, confidential, and their secrecy has been mutually observed for centuries. However, the EP took issue today with the whole notion not only that certain elements of the negotiation should be kept secret from lawmakers, but that negotiators should continue -- as the leaked August 30 document and the USTR brief indicate -- to keep certain elements secret from themselves.

According to this morning's EP statement, the resolution as adopted takes a strong stand specifically against the adoption of "three strikes" rules against IP violators, such as those being tested now in France; and also against the enablement, perhaps through deliberate imprecision (see "circumscribed"), of restrictions on access to media. Parliament now says the final ACTA "should not affect global access to legitimate, affordable and safe medicinal products, including innovative and generic products," according to the resolution.

The USTR brief also refers to negotiations for a clause that would empower customs agents patrolling borders to seize any material believed to infringe upon intellectual property. Without being specific, "any material" could include a hard disk drive...or the computer or MP3 player containing a hard disk drive.

The EP resolution took a stand against that as well, calling upon trade negotiators to provide "full clarification of any clauses that would allow for warrantless searches and confiscation of information storage devices such as laptops, cell phones, and MP3 players by border and customs authorities."

The problem with today's resolution is that it may not be legally binding. While it takes a very public stand, trade negotiators may very well continue to argue that it's their duty to continue to safeguard the intellectual property of the private stakeholders who developed that IP...to protect the IP of the private stakeholders. While the resolution reminds European representatives of their duty to uphold the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, which include keeping Parliament abreast of negotiations, that treaty was only fully enforced last December 1. Since the ACTA negotiations began earlier, participants could argue that they've been "grandfathered in," for reasons which, to borrow a phrase, may not be circumscribed.

Google Maps now generates bike routes

Publié: mars 10, 2010, 4:50pm CET par Tim Conneally

Google Maps with bicycle directions

Different modes of travel often require different routes to be taken. If you're walking somewhere, for example, you're not likely to take a highway to get there, and you have the distinct advantage of being able to go through certain structures that cars cannot. The same goes for biking. When someone is planning to get somewhere by bike, they're going to demand different routes. This is why the Google Maps team today announced that it has added bicycling directions to Google Maps.

Shannon Guymon, product manager for Google Maps said, "We wanted to include as much bike trail data as possible, provide efficient routes, allow riders to customize their trip, make use of bike lanes, calculate rider-friendly routes that avoid big hills and customize the look of the map for cycling to encourage folks to hop on their bikes. So that's exactly what we've done."

Google has taken more than 12,000 miles of bike trail data from the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy's TrailLink.com database. The Washington, DC nonprofit has been collecting trail data since 2000, and has maps, pictures, descriptions, and listings for more than 30,000 miles of bike trails.

"The demand for trail maps and information has never been higher, especially as more people recognize biking as a viable, inexpensive and healthy alternative to driving," said Rails-to-Trails President Keith Laughlin today.

But simply having the data on hand is completely a different matter from the whole business of machine-suggested routes. Google had to incorporate trail data into its routing algorithm, include metropolitan areas with designated bike lanes, and include roads that have been recommended by other cyclists, all the while taking into consideration the business about certain roads. All that is just to determine the most biker-accommodating paths according to safety. There's also the whole issue of hills.

"Our biking directions are based on a physical model of the amount of power your body has to exert given the slope of the road you're biking on," said Google software engineer John Leen. "Assuming typical values for mass and for wind resistance, we compute the effort you'll require and the speed you'll achieve while going uphill. We take this speed into account when determining the time estimate for your journey, and we also try hard to avoid routes that will require an unreasonable degree of exertion." Likewise, the algorithm avoids routes that have too much downhill travel as well so the ride is balanced.

Today's launch of Google Maps for bikes is sort of the opposite of a development from last year, an Android app called My Tracks which targeted runners, hikers, and cyclists. Instead of suggesting routes, My Tracks collected live GPS statistics from the user's smartphone and mapped out total/moving time, (average) speed, distance, and elevation profile on Google Maps as the trips were being made.

Google Maps for bicycles is live right now.

Google unveils its cloud-based Apps Marketplace, wants 20% revenue share

Publié: mars 10, 2010, 3:50am CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Breaking News

Tuesday evening, during an event televised over YouTube called Google Campfire One, Google executives lifted the curtain on its cloud-based Apps Marketplace for PC-based applications, with the promise of opening its online store with 50 charter vendors later in the evening. The Marketplace is designed to feature applications that integrate with the company's existing Google Apps, Gmail, and other cloud-based services.

Google Vice President of Engineering Vic Gondotra told attendees at the company's headquarters that the company plans to utilize very simple terms of service. Think of a garden, but more with clearly marked paths as opposed to walls. Extending the concept of the Android Marketplace from handsets to computing devices, the company is inviting developers to build applications using its Studio tool, then deploy those apps by way of the Marketplace. Each developer is asked to pay a $100 sign-up fee, and then give Google a 20% revenue share for sales, at whatever price the developer charges. (We have not seen yet whether there will be a price cap.)

The front page of Google Apps Marketplace, as presented for the first time during a Google Campfire One presentation, March 9, 2010.

Update ribbon (small)

Google Vice President of Engineering Vic Gondotra, during a presentation of Google Apps Marketplace March 9, 2010. 11:10 pm EST March 9, 2010 · "The Google Apps Marketplace...[is] a great way to discover, to find, and install applications into your business. But not just any applications -- applications that are deeply integrated with Google Apps...that enable a single sign-on, that enable different kinds of cloud-based software to share data," explained Vice President of Engineering Vic Gondotra to the Campfire One attendees. "Applications that integrate with the navigation, integrate with the user interface of the tools that your employees already know and love and use every day."

The integration Gondotra spoke of will take place through a relatively simple XML-based manifest, the typical length of which is promised to be not very long. An actual Google Apps manifest (not the abbreviated version used in Google's slides) is pictured below.

A screenshot of a complete XML-based app manifest for enrollment in Google Apps Marketplace.

Each category in this manifest represents a point of integration with the Google Apps environment -- actually, with any online service that Google Apps is capable of reaching. Gmail is one of these places; tonight, the company's director of engineering, David Glaser, promised a theoretical level of integration with Gmail that would enable business apps developers to create Gmail plug-ins that would appear to match, or maybe rival, the functionality available in Microsoft Outlook.

Glaser demonstrated the creation of an app manifest, which would also contain the "pages" (actually resources identified with URLs) that link to Google Apps' various points of integration. Perhaps the one that will be most often used is single sign-on, which will enable the identity of the Google Apps user to be shared with that of the custom app. Through the OAuth-based authentication protocol Google will use, developers will be able to deploy databases for their cloud apps using their own clouds, if you will, and then let Google's authentication pass through to the developers' clouds to validate users and enable the granting of permissions.

David Glaser, Director of Engineering, Google, during a presentation of Google Apps Marketplace, March 9, 2010. Glaser outlined another point of connection: "If you've ever used Google Apps, you've noticed at the top left of the screen, right above your mail or your calendar, there's a nav bar. That means you're a click or two away from getting at any of the other apps in the Google Apps suite...Well, if you have an application, you probably want it to be a part of the same navigation model, part of the same nav bar, so your users are a click or two away from not only the built-in Google Apps, but also from your app. How do you do that? You put an entry in the manifest -- a few lines of XML, you tell us, 'Here's the string that I want to have show up in the menu, and here's the link that it should go to when somebody clicks on it.'"

Google Apps' online development studio for the creation of applications to be deployed in Google Apps Marketplace.

The keyword here again from Google is "simple," which is what will distinguish its cloud-based apps ecosystem from Microsoft Windows Azure in almost every respect. An app in Google's environment would appear to be leveraged on an existing Google App or service. As Glaser explained, a custom app will have its own home page, if you will; but as Gondotra explained, what makes the app usable in the first place is its connectivity with the existing hub that Google has in place. So the development studio for such apps (itself a Web application, pictured above running in Firefox on Google's favorite PC operating system, Windows XP) is specifically geared to generate this manifest and plug apps into the existing hub.

Intuit Online Payroll, one of the first brand-name apps to appear in Google Apps Marketplace.

That's not to say apps won't or can't stand alone on their own, or even pre-exist, as Gondotra told the audience: "We're not mandating that you have to build on a particular platform. You don't have to use App Engine, although we'd be delighted to see that. You may already have an existing app built on your own infrastructure, your own tools, your own hosting environment...It's very easy to integrate even that existing app into Google Apps."

The ability for apps to stand on their own was exemplified this evening by charter partner Intuit's first entry into the Marketplace. It showed an online payroll application for small business that enables office managers to keep track of employees' payrolls, using tools that are also integrated into Google Calendar. (It's hard not to notice that Google's app development platform runs on Firefox, while it prefers to run the apps themselves on Chrome.)

Among Google's list of 50 charter developers, we noted, was Zoho -- a company whose existing cloud-based apps had actually competed against Google Apps, while using many deployment resources actually created by Google.

The exact terms and conditions that apply to Google's developers' agreement -- a $100 one-time up-front fee to enroll per developer (not per app), and a 20% cut of the revenue -- are not known as of this evening. Vic Gondotra did say, however, that Google will enable online resellers to promote and sell apps from the Marketplace, with 20% of the cut from resold apps also going to Google and the rest to their developers.

"Remember, with that rev share, you not only get to reach the 25 million customers, but you also get to take advantage of over 1,000 resellers who are not only going to be able to resell Google Apps, but may, in fact, be able to drive business directly to you," stated Gondotra. He did not say whether this resale operation would actually take place as part of Google's existing advertising platform, which may be why the early number of resellers (one thousand) is so high.

A few years ago when Google premiered its online apps on a mostly free business model (with some subscription revenue attached for upper-level apps more recently), folks wondered how Google would turn this into a revenue center. Now we know the answer: The company wants to earn its cut not from its core apps, but from a substantial slice of your apps.

Samsung launches its eReader, connects with Barnes & Noble

Publié: mars 10, 2010, 3:35am CET par Jacqueline Emigh

After showing a prototype of its first electronic reader at CES in January, Samsung on Tuesday officially rolled out the new device, spilling all the details about the final feature set while also unveiling a new partnership with Barnes & Noble.

The Samsung eReader, marketed in partnership with Barnes & Noble.

Unlike other gadgets in the increasingly crowded field, the Samsung eReader lets people make notes in the margins of e-book pages, pointed out Vickie Cullen, a Samsung spokesperson, at a press event in New York City where the company launched a number of CE products including this device, 3D TVs, and a 3D Blu-ray player.

Users of Samsung's eReader can modify the electronic pages by underlining words, for example, and they can use built-in voice recording functionality to produce audio memos and annotations. It's also able to read text aloud, but only with electronic books that support text-to-speech (TTS) technology.

A reader can make notes in the margins through the use of a special electromagnetic resonance (EMR) stylus pen. In a demo at the event, we saw how you can easily make the brushstrokes wider or narrower or even turn the pen into an "eraser" by touching the tip of the pen to icons at the bottom of the screen.

The Samsung eReader, marketed in partnership with Barnes & Noble. The eReader comes in a slider form factor with a six-inch E-ink screen displaying at 600x800 resolution in eight shades of grey.

Cullen said that you can import drawings and photos in JPEG and BMP formats as well as other files downloaded from the Internet to a PC, using the eReader's mini-USB port. Other supported file formats include e-pub, PDF/a, and TXT.

Slated to ship this spring for $299. Samsung's new device offers 26 GB of internal memory, plus an external Micro SD slot capable of increasing storage by another 16 GB.

The product also comes with built-in speakers and Bluetooth technology for playing back music or TTS translation, she said.

Readers can use the gadget's built-in Wi-Fi, together with Samsung's proprietary EmoLink technology, for sharing content -- including notes jotted in e-book margins, for instance -- between two devices.

Samsung has also joined the growing list of e-reader makers now partnering with Barnes & Noble -- the arch rival of Amazon.com, the pioneer of the field. Through a new deal between Samsung and Barnes & Noble, users of Samsung's new eReader can use either a Wi-Fi or PC connection to browse, sample, and download content from B&N.

Get your glasses ready: Samsung soars into the third dimension

Publié: mars 10, 2010, 3:31am CET par Jacqueline Emigh

At a press conference in New York City on Tuesday, Samsung unveiled new 3D products that include six HDTV series, a Shrek 3D movie, and a DVD player designed to handle 3D along with regular Blu-ray and standard DVD disks.

Samsung's initial 3D TV line-up -- which requires 3D glasses for viewing - ranges from the LED 7000/8000/9000 Series to the LCD 750 Series and the Plasma 7000/8000 Series.

Samsung also debuted the 3D-capable BD-C6900 Blu-ray player, a 3D-enabled release of Dreamworks' Monsters vs. Aliens along with the entire Shrek series, and a large set of Internet-downloadable applications for the 3D Blu-ray player and some of Samsung's 3D TVs.

Kicked off by an ad campaign broadcast during Sunday's Academy Awards show, the first two 3D TV models from Samsung -- the 46" and 55" editions of the LED C7000 -- are already available in stores, said Dave R. Das, director, Visual Display Marketing, in an interview with Betanews at the event.

So, too, are the first 12 apps for Samsung's 3D gear, with others slated for completion by the end of March, said Jason Han, senior manager, content partnership, CE Division.

The remaining 3D TVs -- and the 3D Blu-ray drive, priced at $399 -- are expected to roll out over the next few months.

Internet applications available for downloading to Samsung's new 2010 line of HDTVs.

The widget-enabled 3D apps will run not just with the new Blu-ray drive, but also the LED TVs, all of which are IP-capable. The first dozen apps include Rovi TV Listings, Yahoo, and streaming video movie apps from Netflix, Blockbuster, and Vudu, along with several games. One of the applications due out later this month is a Skype video conferencing app that will use a custom camera. The camera is slated to sit on top of a Samsung TV and to be sold by Skype.

Although all of the apps released in March will be offered free of charge, Samsung plans to start selling "premium" apps over this summer, Betanews was told.

A grid of Samsung 3D video displays showing a scene from a 3D Shrek movie.

Samsung dubbed the press conference "3D Wonder," and the name turned out to be apt for more reasons than one. Many of the journalists did marvel at the quality of the Samsung-supplied 3D experience, particularly during an airing at the event of a 3D Dreamworks' Shrek movie displayed on a huge "cube" of LCD panels.

Yet some also wondered aloud whether, during the current deep recession, all that many consumers will be willing to invest in the 3D ware, which Samsung is pricing at the rate of $150 for a pair of 3D glasses and about $1,599.99 to $6,999.99 for a 3D TV.

American cities fight for Google's attention

Publié: mars 10, 2010, 12:13am CET par Tim Conneally

One month ago, Google put the word out that it was looking to build and test its own fiber-to-the-home networks in a couple of cities. The speeds would be up to 1 Gbps and the reach would initially be about 50,000 homes.

Immediately, hundreds of cities began making pitches to attract Google's attention, some earnest, some outlandish.

Topeka, Kansas unofficially renamed itself "Google" for the month and garnered a considerable amount of attention; Sarasota, Florida quickly followed suit and re-named its City Island "Google Island".

Duluth, Minnesota's mayor Don Ness jumped into a 35 degree Lake Superior as a dual-purpose media event for Google Fiber and the Special Olympics; and 1,000 Morgantown, West Virginia residents last week held up signs saying "We Want a Gig" at the WVU-Georgetown basketball game.

But the majority of the cities interested in getting Google Fiber haven't resorted to cheap publicity stunts, and are hoping that their answers to Google's Request for Information will be much more convincing.

"I think we're going to draw the line at silly stunts," Madison, Wisconsin alderman Mark Clear said today. City officials there are hosting a public meeting to gather ideas for their pitch and show the community's interest in the project.

Juneau, Alaska has made the case that its isolated, mountainous location will serve as an ideal testing ground since it is both environmentally challenging and populous.

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley reminded us of Baltimore's historical significance as "that place from which our nation's railroads emanated, and the place that was the source of the first telegraph message ever sent."

Kalamazoo, Michigan is using health care as its wager. The Kalamazoo Gazette's Editorial board argues that its modern health care facilities and its major medical corporations Pfizer and Stryker could benefit greatly from the fiber network.

In just under three weeks, we will be able to see which approach worked. March 26 is the last day Google will accept submissions for its fiber optic trial, and it will announce which cities it has chosen shortly after.

Almost #3 now: Dell's decline is Acer's gain

Publié: mars 9, 2010, 11:38pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Dell With the economic sinkhole of 2008-09 now a figment of many technology companies' past, most PC manufacturers are back on their regularly scheduled growth curve. Last month, Dell had indicated to investors that it was returning to that curve as well, reporting "product shipments...up at double-digit rates year-over-year" during its end-of-fiscal year 2010 earnings report.

According to iSuppli, which tracks worldwide PC unit shipments, that Dell claim -- which not a single analyst even questioned at the time, according to Seeking Alpha's transcript of Dell's February 18 earnings conference -- gives "plus or minus" a whole new meaning. The market analyst firm's statistics on full-year unit shipments, published today, show Dell's numbers declining by 9.946% during calendar year 2009. Dell's fiscal 2010 began in February 2009, so iSuppli's numbers cover most of that period plus January 2010 -- in a quarter where Dell actually recovered slightly.

Dell shipped just under 39 million PCs, which is beneath the psychological benchmark of 10 million units per quarter. In the last quarter, Acer topped Dell for the first time in quarterly units shipped; and this last quarter, put some distance between itself and Dell, gaining 1.5% of worldwide market share in the last quarter of 2009. Acer shipped 11.86 million PCs during that quarter -- almost 29% more units than for the previous year's final quarter -- and 38.48 million for the full year.

Estimates of PC unit shipments for calendar year 2009, based on figures supplied by iSuppli.

What's Acer's secret? According to the breakdown by iSuppli principal analyst Matthew Wilkins, Acer doesn't waste its time selling desktop PCs in markets that don't want them. As a result, four out of every five units Acer ships are notebook PCs, and it can concentrate on selling those notebooks in heavier volume in markets such as North America.

Dell's breakdown is a little fuzzier, with iSuppli only being able to ascertain that its mix of desktop PCs to notebook PCs has declined at a lesser rate than the rest of the industry. (Again, nobody asked.) Last February, Dell executives credited higher shipment rates in the storage systems segment (a non-consumer division) as contributing to the company's generally better revenue numbers. Perhaps that's the double-digit gain Dell was referring to. But the second quarter report credits the Mobility division with 31% of net revenue for fiscal year 2010, versus 25% for desktop PCs. Gross margin for Dell in its last fiscal year slipped to a minuscule 16.6%.

That wasn't supposed to happen: IE usage share steady since choice screen

Publié: mars 9, 2010, 10:10pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

The window of opportunity may be closing for the first test of government mandated fairness and equal choice among Web browsers, with neutral results. There are a number of studies recently that say computer users in general have a tendency to automatically distrust notices that pop up on their screen. More attention was paid to those studies since last March, after Microsoft's deployment of Internet Explorer 8 over Windows Update was followed by a general downtrend in IE usage, interrupted by a brief respite in early October, according to global tracking data from analytics vendor StatCounter.

If what Microsoft's security representatives have said is true -- that the key window for adoption of an update or patch usually comes a few days after Patch Tuesday -- then StatCounter's tracking data for IE usage in Europe could count as sweet revenge. Since Microsoft deployed its browser choice screen for European users, in compliance with European Commission directives, on March 1, StatCounter reports European usage share for all versions of Internet Explorer has stayed steady at about 46.6%, with negligible gains since the beginning of the month.

This while Mozilla Firefox continues an unusual decline of about two points of European usage share since the first of the year, and relative newcomer Google Chrome ticks up at about one point per month.

So far, Internet Explorer 6 usage remains rock solid at 6.37% as of yesterday, tied with Chrome 4 in usage share for Europe. This as the adoption rate of Firefox 3.6 among former users of version 3.5 has tapered off somewhat. Worldwide usage share of IE6 continues to decline at the almost invisible rate of a tenth of a point per week.

Source: StatCounter Global Stats - Browser Market Share

Thus far, there's no indication from StatCounter's charts that the browser screen has impacted the usage rate of any browser on the continent, one way or the other. The trends that had been in place, including the tapering off of Firefox 3.6 adoption, appear to be continuing.

Anyone looking for a technical reason for this lack of a trend may not be able to point to faulty algorithms anymore. In recent days, Microsoft implemented a fix to the randomization of browser choices on its browserchoice.eu Web site, in response to a discovery that was validated last week by IBM's Rob Weir, that the JavaScript function Math.random used by IE wasn't shuffling browsers' positions fairly. The revised code now clearly employs a random shuffling algorithm, which creates arrays of pointers that exchange places with one another like shuffling cards -- an alternative that Weir and others had suggested.

As Weir posted on Saturday, Microsoft's revised code is now about as fair as it gets, with each of the top five browsers getting 20% placement, plus or minus only a few thousandths of a point. As a suggestion for the future, Weir pointed out the irony of searching for proper programming methodologies using, ironically, Google Search.

"Several commenters mentioned that if you search Google for 'javascript random array sort,' the first link returned will be a JavaScript tutorial that has the same offending code as Microsoft's algorithm. This is not surprising," Weir wrote. "As I said in my original post, this is a well-known mistake. But it is no less a mistake. If you use Google Code Search for the query "0.5 - Math.random()" lang:javascript you will find 50 or so other instances of the faulty algorithm. So if anyone else is using this same algorithm, they should evaluate whether it is really sufficiently random for their needs. In some case, such as a children's game, it might be fine. But know that there are better and faster algorithms available that are not much more complicated to code."

Sony proves PS3 is still a movie machine with HD content from all major studios

Publié: mars 9, 2010, 8:52pm CET par Tim Conneally

Sales of Sony's PlayStation 3 have lagged behind Nintendo's Wii and Microsoft's Xbox 360 for most of this generation, and the PSP and PSP Go now face a serious threat from Apple's iPhone OS-based handhelds. Despite these factors, though, Sony has managed to set up one of the strongest Web-based storefronts for digital content distribution to its consoles. Offering full downloadable games, add-ons, XMB customizations, game trailers, and HD Hollywood feature films and television episodes for rent or purchase, the PlayStation Network is an attractive and easily navigable repository for media on Sony game machines.

It's a shame that setting up and hosting online games for the PS3 isn't as simple as its store.

Today, Sony announced the "Movies" section of the PlayStation Network has finally been completed, and HD content from all six major US movie studios (20th Century Fox, Walt Disney Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal Pictures, and Warner Bros.) is now available.

"PlayStation Network is the first and only service to deliver high definition home entertainment from all six major studios, directly to consumers for download," said Peter Dille, SCEA senior vice president of marketing and PlayStation Network.

Sony did not give a number today of how many titles are available from these studios, but instead listed 19 releases that hit the US PlayStation store in High Definition today.

The "completed" store will launch next in the UK, France, Germany, and Spain.

Samsung reveals just how expensive 3D in the home is going to be

Publié: mars 9, 2010, 6:12pm CET par Tim Conneally

At CES this year, every major consumer electronics company involved in the HDTV market had floorspace dedicated to 3D TVs. They were convinced that 3D in the home is ready for widespread adoption, and the popularity of James Cameron's Avatar would kickstart adoption.

Samsung today announced its full 2010 3D TV lineup, which shows just how expensive it's going to be to upgrade your home theater to the third dimension.

Samsung's 2010 3DTV and HDTV pricing chart

The 3D TV lineup includes the LED 7000/8000/9000 Series (starting at $1,999.99, about halfway down the chart), the LCD 750 Series, and the Plasma 7000/8000 Series. The 46" and 55" LED C7000 will be available this month, and the rest will roll out at different points during the spring.

But the TV is only one part of the whole setup. You will need at least a 3D-capable Blu-ray player, one pair of active shutter glasses for every viewer, and, of course, the 3D discs. Samsung will be selling its 3D Blu-ray player for $399.99, and its Blu-Ray home theater system for $899.99 this April.

With the immediate point of entry at $2,400, Samsung could at least throw in some stitches to close the wound to your bank account. So the company announced a promotion program where customers who buy a 3D TV and 3D Blu-ray player will get two pairs of active shutter glasses and a 3D Blu-ray copy of Monsters vs. Aliens for free.

Tomorrow, Panasonic is expected to unveil its 3D offerings for the year with a similar promotional tie-in with Best Buy.

Welcome back to the big leagues: Opera denies severity of 10.5 exploit

Publié: mars 9, 2010, 5:52pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Update ribbon (small)

12:02 pm EST March 9, 2010 · A spokesperson for Opera Software provided Betanews this morning with a summary of a complete blog post on the alleged exploit of Opera 10.5, published moments ago:

"The original report about the Windows-only malformed Content-length header problem is not a security issue, but a variant of the issue, brought to our attention by Secunia, has a theoretical possibility of allowing arbitrary code to run. We have developed a fix for the problem, which is being tested, and are planning to release an update of Opera soon. Until then, if Opera crashes on an untrusted site, you should avoid visiting that site again."

11:52 am EST March 9, 2010 · Though Opera, like all Web browsers, has never been immune to exploits, the news of the first serious exploit to affect its new and groundbreaking version 10.5 now has the company's representatives taking time away from shoring up the final Mac version of 10.5, to respond to what security firm Secunia is calling a "highly critical" exploit in the new product.

Last Wednesday, purported PHP server-side exploit code for Opera appeared on a "gray-hat" Web site where such exploits are commonly found. The author's name is credited as Marcin Ressel -- who, contrary to blog reports, does not appear to be an engineer either with Secunia or Vupen Security (it could just be a made-up identity, for all anyone knows). In his code listing, Ressel left contact information for an e-mail address using the Polish .PL domain, along with a playlist of favorite music from a Polish streaming site.

In the comments section of the code, Ressel describes the exploit as, "Integer overflow leading to out of bounds array access R/W [read/write]." The overflow is apparently triggered by a maliciously malformed HTTP response header; specifically, the Content-Length property is replaced with a bunch of '9's.

An examination of the code indicates, by the author's own admission, it may not be very sophisticated. For example, the statement that generates the malformed header is capped with the comment, /*Generated by my own fuzzer*/ -- which could mean that he wrote a fuzzer, or that he happens to own an effective fuzzer. The code does appear to try to establish a stealth socket connection with the client, which the code presumes is Opera (it does test for operating system, but does not appear to test for browser brand).

So the question is whether the exploit code, after generating an exception, delivers a malicious payload to the Opera browser. In a statement last Friday, Opera Communications Director Tor Odland told the Norweigian tech news service Digi.no all of one sentence: that Opera had confirmed the exploit was not harmful. And in a follow-up statement this morning on Twitter, Opera engineer Haavard wrote, "Our security guys are working on proper public information on Secunia advisory 38820." This after having tweeted earlier that no one on Opera's development team has been able to actually deliver a malicious payload using the exploit.

The Secunia advisory, published last Thursday, states, "Successful exploitation may allow execution of arbitrary code." The keyword here could be "may," as opposed to "does" or "will."

Ressel's comments indicated that while the exploit affected Opera version 10.5 for sure, he felt confident that it probably affected version 10.1 or earlier. The Secunia advisory made the same claim, effectively that older versions were possibly impacted. And while Vupen's advisory claimed its team had confirmed only that 10.5 was vulnerable, the term "prior" was used under "Affected Products." It might, or may, or will be nice for someone to actually try that out and see.

Latest HTML5 working draft published despite claims of 'sabotage'

Publié: mars 8, 2010, 11:01pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

W3C accompanying graphic (300 px) Should the next version of HTML, the Web standard that embodies how pages are laid out and constructed, include explicit specifications for inline, 2D dynamic graphics? There's valid arguments on both sides. One side believes that the ability to plot charts and animations would have been part of the original HTML standard anyway, had the technology existed on the back end in the beginning; giving HTML 2D graphics now, they say, plugs a hole left open for too long. Another believes the HTML5 standard should simply specify an API for plug-ins, to let separate groups of engineers evolve a methodology for plotting graphics at their own pace, and on their own track.

From one angle, the debate appears as innocuous as this: Should graphics be considered within the scope of a markup language, or not? But any debate on the topic of Web standards development has never sustained continued viewing from one angle alone. From another angle entirely, one can't help but notice that the principal advocate of letting the so-called Canvas element be developed separately, is an engineer with Adobe, which has more than the average stake in the outcome of Web graphics development.

When the Adobe stakeholder appears to agree with the co-chair of the working group, who hails from Microsoft; and the author of the would-be Working Draft document has ties to Google, it's not long before someone from Opera Software, quite literally, cries "Sabotage!"

Last month, among members of the W3C's HTML5 Working Group, a dispute arose over whether the Working Group had the authority to declare the specifications for the Canvas element (not just the plug-in, but the component itself) part of HTML5. Adobe engineer Larry Masinter raised the point that he believed the decision had already been made to split Canvas 2D into its own First Public Working Draft (FPWD).

Indeed, there was evidence to back Masinter up on this point, as other W3C participants were either working under the belief that Canvas 2D was on its own track, or noting that a dispute on that issue had yet to be resolved. During a W3C presentation last month, long-time project leader Philippe Le Hégaret acknowledged that a specific difficulty remained before the Last Call Working Draft -- the next-to-last stage on the diagram he was showing the audience -- could be completed.

"If you take a specification like the HTML5 specification, it's still in the Working Draft status," reads Yahoo's official transcript of the presentation. "We still have several open issues opened against the document. In particular, several accessibility issues that need to be resolved before we can move the document to Last Call."

By "accessibility," Le Hégaret was using a keyword in the argument in favor of breaking Canvas out from HTML5: that letting a separate group handle it at its own speed, would make Canvas more accessible to its own developers.

In an interview published by the W3C just last Friday, Le Hégaret corresponded with HTML5 Working Group Co-chair Paul Cotton, who also manages Web Services Standards Strategy for Microsoft Canada. In an obviously leading question (like I've never asked a leading question myself), Le Hégaret asked Cotton to explain what HTML5 has evolved to become, in the broad sense. "I agree that many of us use the term 'HTML5' very loosely," began Cotton's response, obviously agreeing with someone in the room.

"First, I believe that most people use the term 'HTML5' to refer to the HTML5 specification currently being worked on by the HTML WG," he continued. "The HTML5 specification defines the syntax and the semantics of the elements and attributes in the HTML markup language and several of the APIs that are used to process HTML documents. Recently the HTML WG has started to break the HTML5 specification into more modular and separate Working Drafts -- e.g., HTML+RDFa, HTML Microdata, and HTML Canvas 2D Context. The HTML WG is also publishing two additional documents to aid users of HTML5: the HTML5 differences from HTML4 specification and HTML: The Markup Language which is aimed at developers that produce HTML5 output. Each of these additional Working Drafts are still part of 'HTML5' and are all on track to become separate but related W3C Recommendations or Working Group Notes. I believe that the content of these WDs taken together will define the part of 'HTML5' being worked on by the HTML WG."

That's how Microsoft's participant described the situation just last Friday. Last February 5, in the Working Group's public mailing list, Adobe's Masinter made it clear he believed Canvas 2D was being split into a separate Working Draft document, and that he disagreed with others' assessment that the WG's own director could somehow also include it concurrently within HTML5.

A diagram of the typical evolutionary process of a W3C Working Draft, from a February 2010 presentation by HTML5 Working Group member Philippe Le Hegaret.

A diagram of the typical evolutionary process of a W3C Working Draft, from a February 2010 presentation by HTML5 Working Group member Philippe Le Hégaret.

The following Monday, it appeared as though Le Hégaret sided with the gathering consensus that Canvas is essentially already part of the understood scope of the broader document. However, he did suggest a kind of intermediate solution: the document modularization concept. "The scope of the [Working Group] charter says: 'This group will maintain and produce incremental revisions to the HTML specification,' and the deliverables indicates: 'a language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of documents and applications on the World Wide Web.' I don't think it sets boundaries on what ought to be part of the HTML specification. Whether the figure, video, or data-* is inside the HTML5 specification or in an adjunct doesn't make a difference. We've been encouraged on several occasions to modularize the HTML specification itself, in fact. The Context 2D API was part of the HTML5 specification even before the creation of the charter and was accepted as such by the Working Group."

As the minutes of the public meeting of the Working Group from the following Thursday, February 11, indicate, when one of the meeting co-chairs -- Microsoft's Paul Cotton -- stated that the requested changes (the "diffs") were being worked into the Call for Consensus document -- implying that all was going swimmingly -- Adobe's Masinter interrupted. "Do I need to repeat objections?" he asked. "The co-chairs are aware of the formal objection," Cotton responded.

The other co-chair was IBM engineer and Apache contributor Sam Ruby. "It would be helpful to repeat the objection," Ruby said. "It would be helpful to people who aren't reading w3-archive e-mail," Cotton added, referring to the administrative mailing list for private issues among members -- usually points of order.

But here, Le Hégaret made a bold statement: "We won't approve the [First Public Working Drafts] until the [Formal Objection] is resolved." What formal objection? Wasn't there a dispute over whether there even was an objection? Cotton asked Masinter and Le Hégaret to forward their objections to the public list for everyone to read; they agreed.

Next: The search for a conspiracy theory...

The search for a conspiracy theory

So how deep was this problem? According to the HTML5 document's designated author, Ian Hickson, it was the standards world's equivalent of a Senate filibuster: "The latest publication of HTML5 is now blocked by Adobe, via an objection that has still not been made public (despite yesterday's promise to make it so)," Hickson wrote. He cited a source who apparently wished to remain anonymous, for reasons he said had to do with belonging to "one of the secret W3C member lists," implying that the Working Group had a public agenda and a private one. This despite the fact that the differences between Masinter's and Cotton's perception of the matter may have been trivial at best.

Later, in a blog post entitled "Sabotage!" obviously intended to raise the eyebrows of would-be news aggregators, Opera Software engineer Anne Van Kesteren essentially alleged Adobe -- the manufacturer of Flash, a proprietary graphics technology -- was blocking the forward progress of HTML5 on a technicality: "The objection to HTML Canvas 2D Context is spurious in particular since it has been part of the W3C draft of HTML5 since the very beginning," Van Kesteren wrote. "The scope question for that API has been raised two years ago and was resolved back then, involving all the layers of W3C, including its Director. That it is now decided to publish it is a separate document does not change the resolution of this decision on scope."

But while the "sabotage" story was raging, the creator of the Web himself, Tim Berners-Lee, called upon the W3C to implement an "annotation" to the Working Group charter to enable the modularity that Cotton referred to. "I agree with the WG chairs that these items -- data and Canvas -- are reasonable areas of work for the group. It is appropriate for the group to publish documents in this area. On the one hand, they elaborate areas touched on in HTML4. On the other, these elaborations are much deeper than the features of HTML4, but also they form separate subsystems, and these subsystems have strong overlaps with other design areas. It is important (a) that the design be modular; (b) that the specifications be kept modular and (c) that the communities of expertise of the respective fields (graphics and data) be involved in the design process. I am asking the domain lead to annotate the charter in place to make these points clearer to newcomers."

Calling the entire substance of the blocking/filibuster allegation "hooey" in a personal blog post two weeks ago, Larry Masinter revealed not only that he followed through with his procedural objection, but he essentially got what he wanted: a change in the charter of the Working Group so that it did encompass Canvas 2D, rather than having a charter that appeared to contradict its own work. But then Masinter's retort took on the broader, and more timeless, topic of what the devil is going on here anyway.

"Updating the charter to say these things were in scope was always a way of bringing them into scope," Masinter wrote. "That W3C wanted to save face and call it an 'annotation' and skip the normal W3C rechartering process -- well, so many exceptions were made for HTML in the first place, that's fine. What makes a 'standard' process 'open' isn't just 'everyone can read the mailing list.' Trying to follow the HTML standard requires withstanding a 'denial of service' attack; thousands of e-mails, messages, posts, edits to track every single month. No one person can really follow what's going on.

"I've worked on scores (more than 20 and probably more than 40) different working group charters," Masinter continued. "I think I really understand why working groups have charters, how the words in a charter are chosen carefully, and why it's important to keep things in scope. Is that being nit-picky? Yes, but that's what I do. And, I claim, it's what makes good standards: Follow process, pay attention to details. My perspective is that what makes a good standard is very different than what makes a good implementation guide. Many otherwise good software engineers (even those with a great deal of experience) really don't see it, since their experience and intuitions have served them well in building complex software systems, or leading open source projects."

As of now, the HTML5 Working Drafts are officially published, with Canvas 2D among a handful of specifications broken out into modular drafts of their own, as Berners-Lee advised. And that prompted a note of applause last Friday from Microsoft's Internet Explorer 9 Program Manager Adrian Bateman: "Just like good software design, loose coupling and high cohesion are good principles for defining web standards. That doesn't make them easy to apply and there is still more work to do to reduce the coupling between drafts. The group is working on improving the tools used to generate the documents to improve the cross-references, which will help towards this goal."

Bateman's comments have contributed to blog posts today pointing to "rumors" that IE9, and Microsoft in turn, would come around to supporting HTML5. This despite the fact that its own man may be to thank for getting the whole draft put together prior to Microsoft's MIX conference next week.

PC gaming service Steam ported to Mac, lets users buy titles on both platforms at no extra cost

Publié: mars 8, 2010, 9:18pm CET par Tim Conneally

Valve Corporation's Steam is the leading digital distribution channel for PC games. With over 1,000 titles available for purchase, an integrated social network and database of open game servers, Steam has attracted more than 25 million users since launching in 2003.

Today, Valve officially announced Steam will be coming to Mac in April, along with Source, the 3D gaming engine used in popular games such as Half Life 2, Team Fortress 2, and Counter-Strike.

Jason Holtman, Director of Business Development at Valve said, "Our Steam partners, who are delivering over a thousand games to 25 million Steam clients, are very excited about adding support for the Mac. Steamworks for the Mac supports all of the Steamworks APIs, and we have added a new feature, called Steam Play, which allows customers who purchase the product for the Mac or Windows to play on the other platform free of charge. For example, Steam Play, in combination with the Steam Cloud, allows a gamer playing on their work PC to go home and pick up playing the same game at the same point on their home Mac. We expect most developers and publishers to take advantage of Steam Play."

John Cook, Director of Steam Development said, "We are treating the Mac as a tier-1 platform so all of our future games will release simultaneously on Windows, Mac, and the Xbox 360. Updates for the Mac will be available simultaneously with the Windows updates. Furthermore, Mac and Windows players will be part of the same multiplayer universe, sharing servers, lobbies, and so forth. We fully support a heterogeneous mix of servers and clients."

10 things Microsoft did right in 2010 (so far)

Publié: mars 8, 2010, 9:06pm CET par Joe Wilcox

It's throw-Microsoft-a-bone Monday, not that I can promise much meat on it. Microsoft may have fallen behind in mobile, been talking about a three-screen strategy off of two screens, and clumsily competed as usual, but some early 2010 actions deserve at least a little praise. So here's where I give it.

First, some context. There's doing right -- and there's doing right. Some of the stuff here I'll assert Microsoft did right I previously dinged the company for getting wrong. That's because what's right for Microsoft might be wrong in a greater competitive landscape, like taking right action A too slowly or not soon enough. With that introduction, here are 10 things Microsoft has done right in 2010 (so far), presented in no order of importance. Microsoft...

1. Started over with Windows 7 Phone Series. Microsoft was right to start with a fresh new mobile operating system (if it's really as new as claimed). Windows Mobile -- now called Windows Phone Classic -- had run aground. I called Windows 7 Phone Series a "lost cause" because new supporting handsets aren't expected until around the holidays. The time horizon is simply too long. But matters would have been much worse had v7 been a makeover v6.x and delivered (as rumored) next year. Microsoft made the tough decision of building new.

2. Put user experience before backward compatibility with Windows 7 Phone Series. I do hope this is a sign of more changes to come. For decades, Microsoft has prioritized back compatibility, often hobbling new products -- and so the developer and customer experiences. With Windows Phone 7 Series, existing 6.x devices will not be upgradable. From a Windows 6.x device sales perspective, the no-upgrade policy is nothing short of disastrous. That's a short-term sacrifice Microsoft makes now for possible long-term gain -- assuring a better user experience for Windows Phone 7 Series devices. Like many of the things in this Top 10 list, something done wrong also is something done right.

3. Took down the Waledac botnet. In late February, Microsoft wrangling gained a court order to shutdown nearly 230 Internet domains alleged to have been used by cybercriminals. Microsoft scored a major triumph against a major botnet.

4. Released Outlook Social Connector beta. Outlook is rapidly looking outdated, even with the spruced up user interface coming with Office 2010. Outlook Social Connector beta for Office 2007 mimics functionality built into v2010. The People Pane is a nice start, but Microsoft has got to expand its social circle beyond LinkedIn and in-company or outside-organization relationships exposed through Outlook (and other supporting Microsoft corporate software).

5. Filed a complaint -- and encouraged others to do so -- against Google in the European Union. Google is rapidly becoming a dangerous monopoly, more so than Microsoft in the 1990s. While the EU's investigation is at best preliminary, the complaints are potentially more dangerous than some Microsoft Watchers suggest. A single complaint, made by Sun in 1998, led to the Europe's Competition Commission 2004 ruling that Microsoft violated local antitrust laws. A second ruling followed, leading Microsoft last week to offer a browser ballot box in Europe. Microsoft's own experience is lesson enough how potentially beneficial a competitive complaint can be.

6. Killed Essential Business Server. EBS was a great idea in 2008 -- to offer midrange, midpriced server software for midsize businesses. But the weak economy and loss of the project's originator (from Microsoft to to the Federal Communications Commission) changed everything. Perhaps if Steven VanRoekel had stayed at Microsoft, EBS' fate would have been different.

7. Extended .NET, Silverlight and XNA development across three screens, including Windows Phone 7 Series. Microsoft already had development pieces in place for two screens -- PC and game console. By supporting Windows Phone, Microsoft creates opportunity for developers to create games or other applications one time for consumption on multiple devices.

8. Demonstrated Skinput. During last week's TechFest, Microsoft researchers showed off skin -- on the forearm -- as a natural user interface. Microsoft Research paper "Skinput: Appropriating the Body as an Input Surface" offers a wonderful overview of the concept. My teenage daughter writes reminders on her arm nearly everyday. In California, seemingly everyone under the age of 35 has several tattoos. Why not use the skin even more functionally? The technology takes advantage of the varying acoustic properties of skin and bones. Skinput is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that gives hope about future Microsoft innovation.

9. Launched Mediaroom 2.0. Microsoft's living room strategy is a work in progress -- and has been since the debut of Windows Media Center nearly a decade ago. Slow progress is still progress -- and Mediaroom 2.0 offers much for telcos looking to deliver a television programming experience better than cable (as an AT&T U-verse customer I can attest to the better-than-cable experience). Then there is the coming Mediaroom support for Xbox. As aforementioned in No. 7, Microsoft already is preparing developers for delivering games across three screens.

10. Set Office 2010 business launch for May. The timing is just about right for the first big wave of enterprises to deploy Windows 7. Traditionally, larger businesses deploy new versions of Office and Windows at the same time whenever possible. Microsoft simultaneously released Office 2007 and Windows Vista. But slow -- or no -- enterprise Vista migrations meant that simultaneous Office and Windows release didn't equate to simultaneous deployments. By offsetting Office 2010 and Windows 7 business launches by about 8 months, Microsoft gave business customers time enough to test and qualify Windows 7. Meanwhile, a very public Office 2010 preview allowed for additional testing, too. Many more businesses will now have the more logistically viable option of deploying both products simultaneously or around the same time.

Verizon claims 5-12 Mbps 4G LTE service in 25+ markets, but where's the hardware?

Publié: mars 8, 2010, 8:47pm CET par Tim Conneally

Still racing for an LTE launch in the second half of this year, Verizon Wireless has been testing its trial 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) networks in Boston and Seattle since last August.

Today the wireless network operator says it will be able to deliver speeds between 5-12 Mbps downlink and 2-5 Mbps uplink at launch.

"Our LTE rollout plan positions Verizon Wireless to be a global leader in 4G LTE deployment. We are on track to deliver an outstanding wireless data experience to customers in 25 to 30 markets covering roughly 100 million people by year's end," Tony Melone, senior vice president and chief technical officer at Verizon Wireless said in a statement this morning. "As device makers, manufacturers and others around the world begin to introduce newer and faster products to take advantage of these incredible new speeds, Verizon Wireless will be positioned to offer our customers new and exciting products on the nation's first 4G LTE network."

The first commercial deployments of LTE belong to TeliaSonera in Norway and Sweden, which opened for business last December. However, consumer equipment that can take advantage of the increased bandwidth continues to be seriously limited. Nokia announced it was the first to make an LTE modem, and TeliaSonera partnered with Samsung to offer a USB LTE dongle, but there are currently no smartphones or consumer devices utilizing the technology.

Last year, Verizon CEO Dick Lynch said LTE laptop modems and handsets won't be out until a year after the LTE network launches.

Meanwhile, the United States' fifth largest network operator MetroPCS expects its LTE network to be completed in the second half of 2010 as well. Like TeliaSonera, MetroPCS has partnered with Samsung for its first consumer LTE device.

WiMAX radios aren't the business for Cisco any more

Publié: mars 8, 2010, 7:31pm CET par Tim Conneally

In late 2007, Cisco Systems Inc. acquired a WiMAX company called Navini Networks, consuming the smaller competitor's 70 commercial WiMAX deployments, all of the network hardware, and its portfolio of Radio Access Network (RAN) patents. Though Cisco was never exactly hot on WiMAX as a wireless standard, the company saw that the 4G standard was maturing, and made its move into the WiMAX base station business.

At the time, Cisco senior vice president Tony Bates said, "Recently, the WiMAX radio systems to deliver broadband wireless have matured, customers are deploying live networks, and overall investment and demand has increased. Therefore, Cisco views this as the proper time to add licensed WiMAX products to our broadband wireless offer."

Not two years later, though, Cisco says it is halting that business to shift its focus away from radios.

A company spokesperson told FierceBroadbandWireless, "After careful review, our mobility strategy is to focus on providing a radio-agnostic IP end-to-end mobile multimedia services network. Cisco will continue to focus on the packet core and to also focus on investment in radio technologies such as femtocells and Wi-Fi. As part of this decision, we have decided to discontinue designing and building new WiMAX base stations. We believe the best way for Cisco to serve our customers is by delivering value at the edge and the core of our customers' networks."

Rather than focus on a single, isolated radio technology, Cisco is going to push the network-agnostic IP core technologies it acquired last October when it bought Starent networks. Starent's technology supports a much wider range of access technologies such as GSM, CDMA, UMTS, LTE and even WiMAX, and already has a significant number of customers. This way, Cisco can offer technologies to whichever network standards are out there without suffering if one becomes less popular than another.

Sai Subramanian, Director of Product Marketing for Cisco's Wireless Business Group recently said, "We expect to continue to be a significant player in the WiMAX market... just not in the access part of the network."

Who should buy the iPad? Hint: People of a certain age (and that's not you)

Publié: mars 8, 2010, 6:11pm CET par Joe Wilcox

"Who will buy?" is the question to ask now that Apple has turned on the advertising spigot. I saw the first iPad commercial three times during yesterday's Academy Awards program. No one should underestimate the power of Apple marketing for generating millions of initial iPad sales. Advertising will differentiate iPad from ebook reader or tablet competitors.

For years, Apple advertised iPod unchecked. Competitors simply didn't aggressively advertise their MP3 players. So from about 2002 through end of 2004, iPod owned media player advertising -- at least in the United States. For a short time, Creative had a campaign, then nothing after 2005. No wonder so many people bought an iPod -- it seemingly was the only choice.

What other competitor will offer another choice to iPad through such aggressive marketing? You tell me. The first commercial is very benefits oriented, putting common PC-like functions in the lap instead of on the tabletop. Apple should be wary of consumer confusion. Some potential buyers might not easily understand the difference from iPhone or iPod touch. Whom that might be will become more apparent in a few paragraphs.

I predict that within a few months of release, unless there is a shortage of storage cards, Apple will reconsider the 16GB model -- as it did the original 4GB iPhone; 16GB is the new 4GB, but for different reasons. From the start, summer 2007, 8GB iPhone quickly outsold the lower-cost 4GB model. Buyers wanted more storage. At $499, I expect the 16GB iPad to easily outsell the $629 16GB 3G or 32GB WiFi model. But in short order, many iPad buyers will find that 16GB storage is inadequate. They'll want more storage, which they didn't get at first because of price -- how affordable is $499 compared to $629. There are reasons why retailers use prices like $19.99 or $599. The six in $629 seems so much more than $499. I expect Apple to make price adjustments by summer. Latest. But only after an iPod touch price reduction or introduction of 128GB model at $399.

All this meandering finally leads to the question posed by this post's title: Who should buy iPad? With no backing data -- but a good sense about marketing -- I can see four consumer demographic groups that should buy iPad. I'm ignoring institutional segments like education or training; none of the four groups would fit nicely into analysts' survey spreadsheets. They are:

People Steve Jobs's age or older. Apple's CEO may run a company producing hip products, but Jobs is middle aged. Jobs turned 55 on February 24. He's a Baby Boomer, and iPad is for his generation and that of his parents. It's computing made easy, with all the basics covered in a device simply and comfortably handled.

Yesterday, a friend asked if his 85 year-old dad should buy an iPad. "Absolutely," I said. He was surprised because of my post "12 reasons why I won't buy an iPad." The iPad will get the dad on the Web with email and other connected features, serve up ebooks and provide applications that are easily chosen, purchased, installed and used.

Apple's tablet isn't right for me, or many other people comfortable with technology and used to multitasking. In its first iteration, iPad is more a single-task device, which is right pace for many older folks (Hey, this isn't agism just the reality of aging). Among the Boomer-plus set, I expect iPad will appeal most to digital immigrants, meaning those people who didn't grow up with computers and aren't all that comfortable with them (Gen Xers tend to be digital resident aliens and the Millennials digital natives).

The iPad as a device for the old (55 and older) could be quite good for Apple. According to a recent AdMob report, 65 percent of iPod touch users are 17 or younger. By comparison, 72 percent of iPhone users are between 18 and 54. Neither device has much pull with those 55 or older, 14 percent and 5 percent, respectively. The 55 and over crowd is a desirable market segment. Marketers assume this group has more discretionary spending power because of savings and less pull by outside factors -- children, for example. Then there is the large number of Baby Boomers (in the United States about 77 million still living out of 309 million total population, according to Census data). The oldest Boomers reached retirement age in the Noughties.

The Mac faithful. It's often called the cult of Mac for a reason. Anecdotally, this group can be relied on to buy pretty much anything new with an Apple logo.

Mac wannabes on a budget. From a marketing perspective -- looking at Apple computing products as a range of features and prices -- iPad fills a gaping hole in the Mac product line between the $399 iPod touch and $999 MacBook. More importantly, iPad lets people pining for a portable Mac get one for less than $500. Suddenly, the cheapest, functional Mac portable is $499. The average consumer doesn't care about the operating system, whether iPhone OS 3.2 or Snow Leopard. Mac wannabes will care more about what the device can do for them. Apple has packed most of the basic, most appealing functions of the Mac portable -- including iWork -- into iPad. Then there's the App Store offering loads of fun applications that are cheap and easy to install.

Niche buyers. Singly, niche buyers won't amount to much. Combined, they could be a sizable buying segment. Among them I see people interested in ebooks, gadget collectors (especially those obsessed with geek envy) and artists.

To many artists, iPad should be a desirable canvas. Anthropologically, used together, the mouse and keyboard are an unnatural user interface. Human beings are tool users. We experience and interact with the world through five senses. The best tools are really extensions of the hands; the mouse and keyboard UI is neither. Hands, fingers and touch are especially important for experiencing and manipulating objects or surroundings -- and for artistry. Apple's tablet is the canvas for which many artists' hands will create. What will the hand and finger create on the touchscreen? Who knows, the answer might be a future iPad commercial.

Cablevision and local station battle could signify coming cable rate hike

Publié: mars 8, 2010, 5:35pm CET par Tim Conneally

The dispute between Cablevision, the United States' fifth largest cable company, and New York ABC affiliate WABC-7 was tentatively resolved yesterday evening in time for the Academy Awards telecast, and the ABC blackout for Cablevision subscribers did not last 24 hours.

"ABC7 and Cablevision have made significant progress and have reached an agreement in principle that recognizes the fair value of ABC7, with deal points that we expect to finalize with Cablevision. Given this movement, we're pleased to announce that ABC7 will return to Cablevision households while we work to complete our negotiations," a statement from WABC-TV said yesterday.

Though resolved for the time being, this heated disconnection and re-connection is another example of the much larger-scale fight between content owners, local station affiliates, and the cable monopolies.

There are many who believe this fight will only result in all of our cable bills going up.

Broadcasters want to brace their weakened advertising revenue and shrinking viewership by negotiating higher retransmission fees from cable companies. These fees are frequently expressed as a per-subscriber charge, and the negotiating price thus far has been $1 per month per viewer.

That's the retransmission price that Fox tried to get from Time Warner Cable late in 2009, and reportedly the same price WABC sought from Cablevision. On New Year's day, Fox and Time Warner reached an agreement on the fees, but the amount of money was not disclosed.

Analysts at the time said the deal opened the door for a $5 billion increase in overall cable fees.

According to the Federal Communications Commission, "Every three years, broadcast stations must decide whether to demand carriage on local cable systems without receiving compensation or elect to negotiate a retransmission consent agreement. In return for allowing a cable system to carry its signal, a television station may require the payment of a fee or other consideration (for instance, carriage of another programming service or advertising time). Any new or additional costs incurred as a result of retransmission consent agreements may be passed through to cable subscribers."

Over the weekend, when it still appeared the Oscars would be blacked out for some New Yorkers, President and CEO of the American Cable Association Matthew Polka issued a statement, reading in part: "The Federal retransmission consent regime is a badly broken system that permits signal pulling and flagrant price discrimination against smaller cable companies that consumers should not be forced to tolerate."

China denies it's in any talks with Google, wonders why

Publié: mars 8, 2010, 5:31pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

After a Reuters report on Friday cited China's Industry and Information Minister, Li Yizhong, as having told an indeterminate parliamentary body that the government was in talks with Google over its claims of having been hacked in early February by a Chinese malicious source, a vice minister for the same government agency issued a statement through China's Xinhua news agency denying any negotiations have taken place at all.

The denial was covered by Reuters as a request by the ministry for more information, so that China could prosecute Google's complaint. The Xinhua report itself (not a Google English-language translation of the report) states the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's position that Google never filed a complaint in the first place.

Last Tuesday, Xinhua quoted a spokesperson for a key Chinese political advisory body, Zhao Qizheng, as strongly denying Google's allegations of Chinese malicious hacking, specifically the implication that the government was involved. But being consistent, Qizheng and the Xinhua report were careful not to call Google's accusation a "charge."

If one reads the Xinhua reports at face value -- putting aside Reuters' interpretations of them -- they could represent China's attempt to call Google's bluff. Ever since the incident, the state-run news agency has reiterated that Google has threatened to pull out of the country, but has not done so. And a political cartoon published by Xinhua last Friday, entitled "Google and the Spooks," depicts the political association it would prefer Chinese citizens draw in their minds. It shows the familiar Google search page, with the logo embellished with Nixonian eyes and an American flag necktie bearing a National Security Agency seal.

The prevailing theory, put forth last month in The New York Times, is that the perpetrators of the alleged incident may have been vo-tech students of a certain Ukrainian professor who has been suspected of online mischief before. While on the surface that might appear to exonerate the Chinese government, the Times' source, a noted intelligence research analyst, warned readers not to draw that conclusion too quickly, saying the Chinese "have a different model" for exploiting targets. That source may have helped the Times uncover that Google had been working with the NSA to determine the source of the incident.

Suddenly Apple hates Wi-Fi

Publié: mars 8, 2010, 4:36pm CET par Carmi Levy

Because removing porn from the App Store wasn't enough, now Apple's taking aim at software that helps iPhone, iPod touch and, soon, iPad users find Wi-Fi hotspots. Forgive me for cynically choosing to disbelieve the company's excuse -- that all of these apps use undocumented or private APIs and consequently must be removed for the sake of the platform's future. If Apple actually had a workable, believable strategy for approval, it wouldn't have approved any of these apps in the first place.

The apps are -- or, rather, were distributed under the trade names Sekai Camera, Wifi-Where, and yFy, among others; and they made it easier for owners of such devices to find Wi-Fi networks and thus avoid using their more costly and often congested 3G connections. In the bad old days of wardriving, we simply walked or drove along a public thoroughfare and constantly refreshed our network lists to identify convenient and often free hotspots. The process was manual and tedious, and these packages automated the process of discovery just in time for Wi-Fi to become table stakes on handheld devices. With more end users than ever before seeking safe havens to avoid busting their carrier-imposed 3G data caps, Wi-Fi finders, scanners, and stumblers had finally hit the big time.

Herding the subscriber sheep

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that Apple and its carrier-partners weren't particularly pleased with this trend. I'm going to assume the wizards at AT&T didn't much appreciate the potential long-term thinning of subscriber revenue, and quietly encouraged Apple to squash it before it became rampant. I'm singling out AT&T because it's such an easy target of consumer discontent, but this may as well apply to any other carrier in any other country. They're all cheering Apple's move because it tilts device traffic back onto their own wireless networks.

Carmi Levy Wide Angle Zoom (v.2) Never mind that developers have been begging Apple to open up the API so that they don't have to get in through the back door. Never mind that tech-savvy consumers now have another reason to jailbreak their devices. Never mind that this is yet another example of near-Draconian (or maybe full-on Draconian) control over a platform that, despite its extreme popularity, remains a prime example of the risks of leaving too much control in the hands of one provider.

What's to stop Apple from summarily choosing another category next week, or next month, or whenever, as a candidate for pruning? What's to stop Apple from deciding that developers, whose only option up to then was to creatively work around deliberately baked-in limitations in the SDK to bring consumer-friendly offerings to market, have gone too far and need to be taught a lesson?

To be blunt, no one can stop Apple from doing whatever it wants. I've said before that this is Apple's playground, which means it can make the rules, interpret them as it sees fit, and change them on a whim. And developers and other stakeholders have no say in any of this. They simply have to hope that the elephant they chose to sleep with doesn't roll over in the middle of the night and crush them.

I don't say this with malice or anger. It simply is what it is, and despite the platform's overwhelming success over the better part of the past three years, it leaves consumers and developers with a choice to either put up with Apple's model or seek alternatives.

Please hold that thought for a second.

A case of non-coincidental timing

All this comes just as Apple gets set to begin shipping iPads to an adoring public. Retail availability in the US is now set for April 3, and sometime toward the end of April in Canada. This means potential buyers are already deciding how much hard-earned cash to bring along when they wait in line overnight to buy one. Will they cheap out for the basic Wi-Fi version, or will they go full-on for a 3G-enabled iPad?

The timing of the latest app takedown is no coincidence: Apple and AT&T clearly want to influence potential buyers to stretch for a 3G-capable version to at least hold out the potential of ongoing subscription-based revenue. Think of this latest move as a scorched-earth strategy for wannabe-Wi-Fi-only iPad users. I'm betting that around this time next month, Wi-Fi-only iPads will be only slightly more difficult to find than two-headed Lincoln pennies, as Apple's carrier-friendly/consumer-unfriendly supply chain strategy snaps into focus.

Which brings us to the alternatives. As Microsoft is painfully learning, no platform remains dominant forever. Sooner or later, the conditions that allowed the market leader to become the leader in the first place will shift, and in so doing, will allow challengers to lay down roots and eventually outflank them. The incumbent's vulnerability to defeat in this manner can be influenced by how it treats its market. Do so with cooperative partnership and you stand a better chance of getting stakeholders -- namely developers and consumers -- to stick with you a bit longer. Do so with a cynical sense of arrogant protectionism, and they'll happily dance on your grave.

The crack in Apple's foundation?

Does this mean Apple's latest App Store move will lead to its ultimate demise? No. But does it shift a few more grains of sand in a different direction? I strongly believe that it does. And we all know how massive tectonic market shifts can begin with a few simple moves. It could be years before the rats begin to abandon any sinking ship with an Apple logo on it, but don't think for a second that seemingly small acts like this won't play an eventual role.

The iPhone/iPod touch/iPad universe remains the place to be if you're looking to build mobile apps. Google's Android is a distant second fiddle, and RIM is barely out of the gate. But Google's approach -- open source and decidedly less school marm-ish in its definition of what developers can and cannot do -- may yet be the kind of landscape that developers will target if Apple's mercurial form of relationship building becomes too onerous. Apple's Wi-Fi move is pushing things with this sensitive audience yet again. At some point, they may yet decide enough is enough.

Cablevision loses New York ABC affiliate for refusing to pay hiked fees

Publié: mars 7, 2010, 11:58pm CET par Tim Conneally

Today, New York's ABC affiliate WABC-7 has pulled its programming from Cablevision, just hours in advance of the 82nd Academy Awards show.

It was no surprise, though. Earlier this month, WABC said it would be pulling its programming from Cablevision if the cable company didn't increase its payments by 20%. Cablevision did not see this as fair, as network television has always been available free over the air and nothing new had been added to warrant the increased cost.

"It is wrong for ABC to demand $40 million in new fees to help pay the salaries and bonuses for top ABC executives," a statement from Cablevision said. "In these difficult and challenging economic times, it is not fair for ABC to force Cablevision and its customers to pay what amounts to a new TV tax for the same programming that is available today for free over the air and on the Internet."

The cable company started an extensive campaign to rally its subscribers against ABC, including an email writing campaign, a facebook page, and a toll free "No TV Tax" number.

"The FCC is in contact with representatives of both companies and is monitoring the situation closely. Consumers should not suffer due to the inability of these two companies to successfully negotiate a deal. We urge both parties to quickly reach a resolution for the benefit of viewers," Media Bureau Chief of the Federal Communications Commission, William Lake said today.

But for Cablevision subscribers who just want to watch the Oscars tonight, they are going to have to tune in over the air. For customers who may not have a DTV-compliant antenna or who are just sore from the whole thing, Cablevision is also offering all of its iO TV customers the opportunity to choose from its entire slate of on demand movies for free, including 10 movies that are up for Academy Awards tonight.

'Hero' goes down: Microsoft cutbacks spell the end of Essential Business Server

Publié: mars 5, 2010, 7:43pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

The crowd outside the Nokia Theater in Los Angeles for the 'Heroes Happen Here' launch of Windows Server 2008, February 27, 2008. Two years ago, during a private premiere event entitled "Heroes Happen Here" held at the same Nokia Theater in Los Angeles where the Emmy Awards are now staged, and introduced by none other than Tom Brokaw, Microsoft rolled out a truckload of new server software product lines to help cement the company's new prominence in businesses and enterprises. One of the "heroes" that day, as Microsoft phrased it, was Essential Business Server, an effort to market a ready-from-the-get-go three- or four-server database and mail management package for businesses that have a few dozen employees, but may not yet be enterprises.

It was a solid idea. But today it was left to EBS' own product managers to announce on their team blog this morning that Microsoft has made a decision to cancel the product. The excuse they gave was especially disheartening, as it essentially caved in to the arguments naysayers used against EBS' viability from the beginning.

"Since the launch of EBS, several changes have occurred that drove our decision to streamline our server product portfolio," the team wrote. "First, midsize businesses are rapidly turning to technologies such as management, virtualization, and cloud computing as a means to cut costs, improve efficiency, and increase competitiveness. Those capabilities are already available through other offerings, including Windows Server 2008 R2, Microsoft System Center and the Microsoft Business Productivity Online Suite (BPOS)."

In other words, the functionality is already out there. But the original value proposition for EBS was this simple: Sure, it's out there, but mid-sized businesses aren't auto-equipped with the IT wizardry to know what to do with it, how to put it together. EBS offered users in the bigger-than-small, smaller-than-huge margin between the two big categories, one solid option for a manageable business network from day one.

Today, the team says, that option is moving toward the cloud. While their explanation implies that the customers are moving there, practical experience tells us that the marketers are moving there in hopes of taking their customers with them. Microsoft is busy marketing hosted storage options for Exchange and now SQL databases, which at one level directly compete with EBS.

Essential Business Server was the brainchild of one of Microsoft's smartest people, a technically-minded manager (something you don't see very often anywhere) named Steven VanRoekel. He was the one who sold Microsoft on the idea, and as he told Betanews in 2008, he led the design of the product based on the advice compiled by a 25-person advisory board. That board spoke directly with existing SBS and other Microsoft customers, determined what it was they used and what kinds of problems they had administering it, and developed a packaged option around solving their concerns.

The original plan, VanRoekel told us, was to integrate cloud services into EBS as they became available, rather than allow both product lines to fork. Smart people get discovered, however, and VanRoekel moved up in the world. Specifically, he moved to Washington, and is now Managing Director of the Federal Communications Commission, reporting directly to Chairman Julius Genachowski. His departure from Microsoft left a leadership void for his product that would never be filled.

Unlike an ordinary retail product, EBS isn't just something a manufacturer can cancel and expect customers to scatter like herded sheep to their replacement barn. As a server product, customers have expected EBS to be upgraded periodically with features that help it retain the value they've already invested (and are continuing to invest) in it. Toward that end, Microsoft has posted an offer on the EBS Web site, inviting existing EBS customers the opportunity to transition for free to the individual component products of EBS.

But according to the EBS Web site's small print, that's not exactly an upgrade. EBS never actually made the transition to Windows Server 2008 R2 (once again, see "VanRoekel," "move to FCC"). So the free option will only allow EBS customers to move their three or four servers to the 2008 Standard Edition of Windows Server 2008 -- an edition which lacks the improvements made to the system kernel for the Windows 7 era.

Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 and Microsoft System Center Essentials 2007 (the administrative package) are also being offered for free. But those aren't the latest editions either: The 2010 version of Exchange Server is available now, and the Release Candidate of SCE 2010 is currently being publicly tested. Upgrading to these latest editions for mid-level businesses will mean entering into negotiations for volume licensing, for which EBS was designed to be an alternative.

The Small Business Server project will continue, and we're told there remains good reason to keep our eye on the evolution of that product.

Samsung previews Blu-ray notebooks, new netbooks, demos all-in-one PC

Publié: mars 5, 2010, 6:05pm CET par Jacqueline Emigh

In New York City last night, Samsung gave a sneak peek at three new laptops that are headed to Best Buy for later this week, and also showed a prototype of an all-in-one PC that might or might not turn into a product.

Set to be sold through Best Buy starting this weekend, Samsung's new "Red" laptops include the 14" R480, 15" R580, and 17" R780. The R480, priced at $729.99, and R580, priced at $829.99, will be sold in Best Buy stores, while the R780 will be available only through BestBuy.com.

The R480 and R580 will be shipped with internal Blu-ray drives, whereas the R780 will not, noted Gary R. Schultz, product manager for mobile computing at Samsung Electronics America, Inc., during an interview at the event. But Samsung decided to leave the Blu-ray drive out of the R780 so as to keep its price point more in line with those of the 14" and 15" models. The R780 is priced at $929.99, or $100 more than the R580.

During last night's premiere event, Samsung situated each of these new laptops, along with several netbooks first rolled out at CES in January, in a variety of "vignettes," including a mock airport terminal, college dorm room, home office and living room. There, we found the new R480 laptop playing Blu-ray movies displayed on Samsung TVs.

Still touting its Blu-ray superiority, Samsung shows off the Sulu-like prowess of its BD-endowed notebooks.

The R480 laptop comes with an Intel Core i3 processor, 14" LED backlit HD LCD, Blu-ray drive, 4 GB of RAM, Intel GMA 4500MHD integrated graphics, Wi-Fi, HDMI out, and 500 GB of storage. The R580 steps up to an Intel Core i5 processor, 15.6" LED backlit HD screen, Blu-ray drive, 4 GB of RAM, Nvidia GeForce 310M graphics, Wi-Fi, HDMI out, and 500 GB of storage.

The R780 subtracts the Blu-ray, but leaves in the Intel Core i5 processor. It then adds a 17.3" LED backlit HD screen, DVD drive, 4 GB of RAM, Nvidia GeForce 330M graphics, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and 500 GB of storage.

Each of the three laptops from Samsung will ship with Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit) pre-loaded.

Three netbooks premiered by Samsung during an evening launch event in New York City, March 4, 2010.

One of Samsung's new netbooks, the N210, is also exclusive to Best Buy, and is already available in stores for $379. Other Samsung netbooks -- including the N135, N150, and ruggedized and "spill proof" NB30 -- are being sold in multiple venues. Samsung's netbook sales are particularly brisk on Amazon.com, said Shultz. The N220, also launched at CES, is not yet available to US consumers. All Samsung's new netbooks use Intel Atom 450 processors.

According to Schultz, research by Samsung indicates that, while consumers might intend to tote their netbooks along with them outside the house, 70% of all netbooks are actually still used strictly at home, as "secondary PCs" that are moved about only from room to room.

In the home office vignette, the company demo'd a "concept model" of an all-in-one PC. With the demo, aimed to gauge feedback from journalists for a possible product in this space, Schultz said.

An all-in-one desktop PC concept displayed by Samsung, March 4, 2010.

Samsung rivals such as Sony and HP have long been out on the market with all-in-one PCs for the home. Now, Lenovo plans to introduce an enterprise-oriented all-in-one PC over the next year or two.

So, iPad will change the PC industry? Yeah, right

Publié: mars 5, 2010, 5:51pm CET par Joe Wilcox

It's fraking Friday and to celebrate Gartner analysts are predicting Apple's iPad is going to change everything you know about the PC market. Everything. Betanews readers, will you let such prognostications go unanswered?

"Apple's iPad is just one of many new devices coming to market that will change the entire PC ecosystem and overlap it with the mobile phone industry," Ranjit Atwal, Principal Gartner analyst, said in a statement. "This will create significantly more opportunities for PC vendors as well as significantly more threats." Threats to whom or to what? The traditional PC.

"Apple will begin taking orders for iPad on March 12, the company announced today. Buyers can pick up their purchases on April 3 at a local Apple Store as alternative option to shipping. I'm already on record giving "12 reasons why I won't buy an iPad." I haven't found a reason yet. Have you?

Gartner predicted that PC shipments would rise 19.7 percent in 2010 to 366.1 million units from 305.8 million units in 2009. Worldwide PC spending is expected to rise 12.2 percent year over year to $245 billion. The big growth will be in mobile PCs, which accounted for 55 percent of PC shipments last year. Gartner predicts 70 percent by 2012.

"The PC industry will be overwhelmingly driven by mobile PCs, thanks to strong home growth in both emerging and mature markets," George Shiffler, Gartner research director, said in a statement."We expect mobile PCs to drive 90 percent of PC growth over the next three years."

Once again, netbooks -- or what Gartner calls mini-notebooks greatly contributed to sales growth and boost in the mobile-to-desktop ratio. However, netbooks "contribution is expected to decline noticeably afterward, as they face growing competition from new ultra-low-voltage (ULV) ultraportables and next-generation tablets. Desk-based PC shipment growth will be minimal and limited to emerging markets." What's going to suck the wind from netbooks' sails: The iPad and other tablets. Gartner expects 10.5 million unit shipments this year, with iPad presumably leading the way.

In the past, Gartner showed much less enthusiasm for the Tablet PC, a concept Microsoft tried to jumpstart in the early "Noughties." In a November 2002 statement, Gartner analyst Leslie Fiering asserted: "Only the bravest will implement Tablet PCs widely toward the end of 2003." It's true that the Tablet PC never found a mass market.

Gartner is making bold predictions about iPad -- and also other smaller form factor-connected devices -- in part because of cloud computing. "Vendors can no longer afford to just think in terms of traditional PC form factors or architectures," Atwal asserted. "With the rise of Web-delivered applications, many users no longer need a traditional PC running a resident general-purpose operating system and fast x86 CPU to satisfy their computing needs."

The PC's Cloudy Future

Yesterday, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer asserted he was betting the company on cloud services. My question: How many times is some Microsoft senior executive going to make a "betting the company" claim before the bet pays off. I've heard that assertion many times before. Haven't you?

Still, Ballmer's heart is in the right place -- the cloud. Microsoft should embrace the cloud. About three years ago, I started warning about the platform transition underway. The cloud (and mobile device) is shifting computing and informational relevance away from the PC much as the PC shifted relevance away from the mainframe in the 1980s and 1990s. I explained in February 2007 post "Microsoft Seeks More Mobile Relevance:

IBM had a huge monopoly in mainframe computers, which only large businesses could afford. The size and cost of mainframes greatly constrained informational utility; people consumed information from terminals tethered to the big computers. When the PC came along, IBM embraced it, seeing no direct threat to its computing dominance.
However, Microsoft and its IBM-PC clone partners did compete with mainframes. The PC extended informational and computing utility to more customers, for a fraction of mainframe costs. IBM's mainframe monopoly continued, but its relevance changed as the PC economy exploded. IBM most certainly continued and it remains a computing and services giant even today. But the PC also changed IBM's business and the relevance of the mainframe.
The Web platform promises even greater informational and computing freedom: Access anytime, anywhere, on anything. The broader threat is really the Internet, which Microsoft tried to push back in the late 1990s during the browser wars, when Internet Explorer was integrated with Windows. The Internet offered huge informational utility, with no Windows required.
A decade later, Microsoft grapples with a renewed Internet threat, but fiercer than before. The success of Google search has increased informational utility; there are more informational clients (such as the cell phone); and more developers are developing for the Web platform. The Internet remains Microsoft's biggest informational threat and, at the same time, opportunity. Microsoft has pushed back by doing what it does well: code client software, which can help maintain or pull back informational relevance to the desktop. Web platform companies like Google seek to pull relevance to the browser and the Web.

I'm a firm believer in the mobile-to-cloud applications stack displacing the Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack. That's one reason why yesterday I asked: "Will the smartphone replace the PC in three years?" Sure I can see mobile PCs and smartphones make huge gains, but iPad and other tablets? I still contend that there will ultimately be too much functional overlap between iPad (and similar devices) with smartphones below and laptops above -- a problem that helped doom earlier tablet PCs. That said, there is an undeniable shift to mobile computers, whether laptops or smartphones. The PC is by no means dead, but how people use it (e.g., more cloud applications) already is fast changing.

"Connected" is the key word of focus. Gartner's predictions assume there will be overlap between tablet PCs and handsets -- meaning they have 3G radios and presumably would be available subsidized by telcos. Subsidies already are the major driver of connected-netbook sales in some geographies, particularly Europe. Will the prevailing winds favor iPad and other tablets or smaller portable PCs?

For opinionated Betanews readers there are two main questions: Will iPad lead a tablet revolution that will change the PC as we know it? Will mobile devices -- smartphones included -- rapidly displace desktop PCs, essentially making them irrelevant within two or even three years? Please answer these questions -- or anything else from this post -- in comments.

Apple iPad and first iPad-specific app hit stores on April 3

Publié: mars 5, 2010, 5:01pm CET par Tim Conneally

Apple's iPad, which was unveiled at the end of January, will be available in US retail on Saturday April 3, the company announced today; and pre-orders will begin on March 12.

Steve Jobs with iPad The first iPads available will not be equipped with 3G radios, and will be Wi-Fi only, these models go for $499 for 16 GB, $599 for 32 GB, $699 for 64 GB. The AT&T 3G-enabled models will be available in late April for $629 for 16 GB, $729 for 32 GB and $829 for 64 GB. At that time, the device will also launch internationally in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK. More countries are expected to follow later this year.

An important part of this launch will be the availability of iBooks, the first app designed specifically for iPad (and a recycled Apple trademark) The free application turns the iPad into an eBook reader, and comes with the built-in Apple iBookstore, which is an obvious competitor to Amazon's Kindle Store and Barnes & Noble's eBookstore.

Though the iBookstore is expected to only support ePub formatted books at first, publishers have already begun to take advantage of the iBooks application. This week Penguin Books gave a rather compelling presentation in London which showed off some of the company's ideas which trump other eBook offerings by adding a veneer of interactivity. Travel guides from Penguin, for example, include the ability to create trip itineraries and link to GPS maps; children's books respond to the accelerometer or act as infinitely re-useable coloring books.

Other publishers are in the iPad game as well, unfortunately with a lot less to show off than Penguin. When the iPad launched in January, Apple said HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, and Macmillan were all partners in the iBookstore. At the end of February, Macmillan introduced Dynamicbooks, the company's burgeoning line of online interactive textbooks. The company only has 11 titles available now, but expects more than a hundred by next Fall.

The company said it would reach out to Apple about creating iPad-formatted Dynamicbooks, but there is no evidence that Macmillan will be launching with anything other than standard ePub books.

Android gets its first Microsoft app: TagReader

Publié: mars 5, 2010, 1:37am CET par Tim Conneally

Microsoft HCCB Tag

Barcode and QR code reader applications are now standard fare for smartphones and can be commonly found for free in any of the major app stores. But far less common are comprehensive services that let users make their own QR codes for free.

This is why Microsoft's TagReader, which was released in the Android Market today, is worth checking out. It's similar to any number of barcode scanners available on the Android platform, except that it is designed to read Microsoft's unique "Tags."

Microsoft Tag is currently in beta, and lets Windows Live users create unique optical codes that Microsoft calls HCCBs (High Capacity Color Barcodes) -- such as the one pictured above -- which link to Web-based content when scanned by a mobile phone's camera.

Microsoft Tags are similar to QR codes in that they can carry a text message, trigger a browser link, link to a vCard, or automatically dial a phone number. They can then be rendered as PDF, WMF, JPEG, PNG, GIF, or TIFF files in sizes from 0.75 inches all the way up to 120 inches.

There are a number of practical uses for optical codes which have already been exploited in the real world. Advertisements sometimes incorporate them to link to additional Web-based content on the viewer's phone, and business cards sometimes feature them automatically place a call or send a message to the card's creator. But uses are not limited to promotion and advertisement, any real-world item can be endowed with Web-based context. For example, you could attach an optical tag to a sealed box, and the tag could tell you the contents of the box when scanned.

But how is Microsoft Tag any different from the free online QR makers one can easily find on the Web? First, it's linked to an account where every tag a user makes is treated as a campaign. They are stored in a big list of tags, and each record in this list shows when the tag was activated, whether it's currently active, what type of content it links to, and detailed analytics showing how many times the code was scanned and accessed. If you were adding Microsoft Tags to a billboard or a newspaper advertisement, the tags could provide a rough gauge of the real-world penetration of those ads.

The Android app itself is actually the most forgettable aspect of the Microsoft Tag ecosystem, and is simply a way to get more users scanning tags. The application is available now in the Android Market.

Is Apple afraid of Google?

Publié: mars 5, 2010, 12:06am CET par Carmi Levy

After reading through the avalanche of reactions to Apple's wide-ranging lawsuit filed Monday against handheld vendor HTC, I'm beginning to think that Apple may very well fear the rise of Google. And an indirect legal assault on the eminent provider of Android-powered devices is easier, cheaper, and less risky than a direct attack on Google itself.

What has Apple to lose?

On the one hand, it's somewhat laughable to think that Apple would be afraid of anybody. In less than three years, the iPhone has redefined the smartphone market. Whereas we used to view smartphones as basic phones with e-mail and Web capability, the iPhone has expanded our thinking tremendously. Today's smartphones are full-on application platforms that are rewriting what we can get done while we're on the go. Apple's been at the forefront of this transition, and its continued growth on all fronts -- unit sales, revenue, and platform expansion, among other metrics -- should be enough to inspire confidence in Cupertino that it can easily weather any potential challenger.

On the other hand, it's not too much of a stretch to conclude that Apple has the most to lose if someone else comes along and threatens to steal some of its thunder. And while initial efforts to bring Android-based devices to market were less than impressive (the G1 was about as desirable as a Yugo, and early versions of Android only hinted at the new operating system's potential), Google has since found its groove. Many of the hottest new designs out there are now powered by Android, and the Android Market has staked out a strong second-place in the online app storefront wars.

Which largely explains why it took Apple almost a year-and-a-half after HTC launched its first Android-powered device, to move ahead with its multi-faceted lawsuit. It makes little sense to burn legal resources if the target in question isn't threatening to slice into your market share and revenue. This is probably one of the only small comforts, for instance, that Palm has left: It's too inconsequential at this point to become a target of Apple's wrath.

Letting history serve as guide

Carmi Levy Wide Angle Zoom (v.2) Apple has learned the hard way that ownership of intellectual property -- the ability to stake your claim on what belongs to you and you alone -- is critical to its survival. This is especially true in the technology world, where intellectual property is so often intangible, and IP ownership can be so difficult to define. When you fail to leverage control, you run the risk of being leapfrogged.

But that lesson has led Apple down a familiar path, even when that path has led nowhere before. Apple's futile attempts long ago to squash Microsoft Windows continue to guide the company's strategy today. Had Apple succeeded back then in asserting its ownership of key elements of the graphical user interface, today's desktop operating system landscape might look markedly different.

Apple clearly hopes that by playing tough with mobile competitors, it'll set itself up for one of two outcomes: Either it will ink licensing deals with virtually any handheld vendor it chooses to pursue, and in doing so guarantee itself a long-term source of revenue; or in the absence of a partnership or legal victory, its litigation-happy strategies will cast enough of a chill over the industry that competitors are afraid to push too hard lest they find themselves in Apple's crosshairs.

It's this second potential outcome that should give pause to anyone with even a passing interest in the evolution of mobile technology. While Apple has every right to pursue its interests in court to ensure that competitors do not undeservedly profit from its earlier investments, consumers have a similar right to an openly competitive market where players don't first have to negotiate legal minefields before bringing new products and services to market. And left unchecked, Apple's campaign (first Nokia, now HTC) to assert its ownership of every shred of IP related to the iPhone, could slow down the pace of innovation just as compelling and competitive platforms reach critical mass.

If Apple wins, how much incentive will remain for competitors and would-be competitors to throw themselves into the market? Even if it doesn't win, the message has been sent: If you know the lion is out there, you'll likely just stay home.

The Google tangent

I don't see Google staying home anytime soon. The search giant has too much invested in its multi-pronged efforts to grow and expand its level of control over the mobile platforms through which its services are delivered. But unlike Apple and RIM, Google isn't in this fight alone. Aside from its self-branded Nexus One phone (ironically, a product of HTC) it isn't a primary handset vendor. Does it have sufficiently deep pockets -- and resolve -- to keep its Open Handset Alliance together if an Apple victory poisons the waters for its platform partners?

No one really knows how Google will respond to this flanking attack, if it will even respond at all. But it's clear that Apple's campaign against HTC isn't really about HTC at all. Rather, it's targeting key vendors whose size and influence will prompt other competitors to take notice...and take cover. There will be more lawsuits, and resources on both sides that should have gone into developing and marketing innovative products will instead be directed toward funding court costs and lawyers' fees.

Once upon a time, Apple portrayed itself as David to Microsoft's Goliath as it battled the ultimately dominant force from Redmond. A generation later, the world's attention has shifted from PCs and laptops to mobile devices, and Apple now finds itself in the role of Goliath. It knows full well that dominance isn't permanent, and anything that can be done to slow down new entrants should indeed be done. That it continues to let a certain degree of historically entrenched fear guide its actions isn't necessarily a negative thing. Tension, after all, is a great driver of increased performance. But at this level, at this scale, and at this crucial moment in the history of the mobile market, it runs the risk of slamming the industry it helped define into neutral as lesser-endowed players run for the hills.

In that respect, Apple really shouldn't be living in fear of HTC, Nokia, or any other potential competitor. The real fear belongs to consumers like us, and it should be directed back at Apple.

Did a Microsoft VP really suggest an Internet tax for cybersecurity?

Publié: mars 4, 2010, 11:59pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

In a keynote speech to the RSA security convention in San Francisco on Tuesday, Microsoft Corporate Vice President for Trustworthy Computing Scott Charney, spoke to the issue of whether a global organization on the order of the World Health Organization or the Centers for Disease Control -- a public/private cooperative -- should be established to help secure the Internet and its billions of users worldwide. During that speech, Charney tossed out a number of ideas as to how such an organization could conceivably be funded.

A transcript of Charney's comments verified by Microsoft for Betanews this afternoon indicates that he suggested such an organization could conceivably be charged with the task of empowering government regulators in member countries to impose restrictions on the behaviors of enterprises and Internet users whose policies endanger global Internet users at large.

Bracketed additions in the comments below were added by Betanews for clarification.

"The attacks are happening at light speed; we have to respond at light speed. So, we should think about inspection and quarantine," Charney told the RSA conference attendees. "Now, there are some obvious questions. Why should we be doing this for people? Will people accept it socially and politically? Well, we've done it with smoking. People used to smoke, and we said, look, you're going to kill yourself, but if you want to die, go ahead. You're causing cost to the health care system; we'll eat those costs, go ahead and kill yourself. Then, of course, the EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] comes out with secondhand smoke [regulations]. Suddenly, smoking is banned everywhere. You have a right to infect and give yourself illness, you don't have the right to infect your neighbor.

"Well, the computers are the same way. We've told people run anti-virus, patch, backup your data. But if you don't do that stuff and you lose all your stuff, that's a risk you can accept. But today you're not just accepting it for yourself, you're contaminating everyone around you, right?" Charney continued. "And we do this in other areas like vaccinations. If you have kids who go to public schools, they get vaccinated or they don't go. We do those under enforcement."

That probably would have been the set of comments that generated the most headlines, had it not been for where Charney went from there: How would such an organization be funded?

Microsoft Corporate Vice President for Trustworthy Computing Scott Charney "And then there's a question of who would pay for that," he said. "Well, maybe markets will make it work, but if not, there are other models: use taxes for those who use the Internet. We pay a fee to put phone service in rural areas, we pay a tax on our airline ticket for security. You could say it's a public safety issue and do it with general taxation."

Spokespersons for Microsoft did not make attempts to clarify or restate Charney's comments this afternoon, nor did they try to align his points of view with, or disassociate them from, those of the company. They did point out highlights, though they declined to elaborate. One of the highlights they did point out was Charney's suggestion of "general taxation."

The reason those comments rang a bell with Washington insiders yesterday was because, on the same day as the speech, Sen. Dick Durbin (D - Illinois) convened a hearing on the very subject of government involvement in compelling companies, especially software firms and Web publishers, to abide by a common code of conduct in their Internet affairs. During the hearing, Sen. Durbin said he was drafting legislation that would, in his words, "require Internet companies to take reasonable steps to protect human rights or face civil or criminal liability."

A spokesperson for Sen. Durbin told Betanews this afternoon that the draft legislation remains in its early stages, and is not yet ready for public distribution.

While adherence to human rights codes may not be considered in the same department as security policy, inevitably, the topic of privacy protection will breach the boundaries between those departments, casting a spotlight onto issues such as how well databases with personally identifiable information are protected from outside sources. Durbin specifically cited the Global Network Initiative as a model for the code of conduct he would like to see implemented; and in explaining how little respect that code gets, he said that of the GNI's many members, only three private companies have bothered to embrace it thus far: Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo.

The parallels between the two events were difficult to ignore, leading some to imagine the possibility of a multi-national organization with CDC-like power to order the quarantine, as Charney put it, of offending Internet-using enterprises.

But some of the other comments Charney made during the keynote -- those in-between the highlights Microsoft's spokespersons pointed out to us -- suggest that he may very well have been speaking extemporaneously. Perhaps in recognition of the importance of his previous words, Charney halted his train of thought, and rambled in search of a new one.

This is how Charney wrapped up his topic before proceeding to the subject of cloud computing: "And there's also a good role for government here. If access providers are going to scan for content, what content can they scan for, if you want to protect networks and you have to limit the activity to network protecting activity, not worry about copyrighted material or speech or other kinds of things. But we do have to innovate, and this example gives you another reason to constantly think about alignment, and how would you get social acceptance, political acceptance, find the right economic model, and have IT, which does do, of course, things like NAP and NAC today, how do we use IT to achieve these objectives. So, we have some interesting opportunities here."

He may have been searching for the phrase, "Let's move on, shall we?" And perhaps that's something CEO Steve Ballmer might have said if he had shared the stage.

Update ribbon (small)

8:05 pm EST March 4, 2010 · This evening, after the initial publication of this story, a Microsoft spokesperson contacted Betanews to say Scott Charney did not intend to suggest the creation or imposition of a tax to pay for a global or government cybersecurity initiative.

"Scott Charney did not suggest a new Internet tax to fund cybersecurity programs. As part of his keynote at RSA he recommended that the industry and government look at developing the equivalent of the World Health Organization to combat malware on the Internet," the spokesperson said. "Within this context he mentioned the need to explore how to develop a sustainable funding model for this initiative, not suggesting that any particular funding model is best."

The road back to par: Radical reconstructive surgery planned for Firefox 4.0

Publié: mars 4, 2010, 11:08pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

In the early 2000s, Web browsers were considered by software architects to be launching platforms for other types of program interpreters, such as Java and .NET. The HTML in the Web page simply got the code going, and the network of pages a business would use to launch Web apps was considered the "intranet." But as browsers have matured (rapidly in recent months), they have become the interpreter for Web applications -- not a launching point for Java, but a proving ground for a highly evolved JavaScript.

Mozilla not only saw this trend coming, but frankly drove this trend in this direction some years ago, with the move to add just-in-time (JIT) compilation to its Firefox JavaScript interpreter. The JavaScript engine Mozilla introduced in version 3.5, dubbed TraceMonkey, borrows a concept from these language frameworks by tracing the direction of JS instructions ahead of time, catabolizing those instructions into loops, and generating a kind of intermediate code that can be very simply recompiled into machine code (assembly) at run time.

It was a superb idea. But not even a whole year after its launch, Mozilla engineers are already noting the design may be obsolete, even outmoded, and maybe in retrospect not even particularly well-executed.

In typically introspective Mozilla fashion, JIT compiler engineer Dave Anderson came out with it last week on his blog for the organization, fittingly entitled "Mystery Bail Theater:" TraceMonkey is very good, except for those times when it's very not. "TraceMonkey is pretty powerful. It carefully observes loops and converts them to super-fast assembly," Anderson wrote. "That's great and all, but there's a problem: sometimes tracing doesn't work. Loops can throw curveballs that cause tracing to stop. Especially with recursion, or lots of nesting, it can be very difficult to build good traces on complex code."

A mockup of the latest UI changes planned for Firefox 4.0, which now include a relocated Home button and a new Bookmarks button.

A mockup of the latest UI changes planned for Firefox 4.0, which now include a relocated Home button and a new Bookmarks button. [Courtesy Mozilla]

The absolute timetable for the production of Firefox 4.0 isn't known. That's not because Mozilla keeps it under wraps; it's because it's not really determined yet. The latter part of the year is the cloudy window we're seeing now. The spotlight feature of 4.0, up to this point, is said to be its completely remodeled front-end, borrowing more minimalist ideas from Google Chrome, Apple Safari, and now Opera. But now that speed is a principal issue in browser users' criteria, the next point-release of Firefox will need to at least make up the performance ground that now separates it from all other alternative (non-IE) browsers in the field.

Setting an absolute date may depend on how long it takes for the Firefox code base to recover, if you will, from an extensive surgical procedure -- quite literally, a graft. Users who've been wondering why Mozilla doesn't just simply adopt WebKit as its browser engine, will be interested to learn it's actually working to embrace a piece of it -- not conceptually, but literally.

That surgery will very likely begin with Firefox 3.7 as the patient (which may be why the organization has not yet declared beta status for it yet). The result may be released as a test of Firefox 3.7 or 4.0, perhaps depending upon how far along the UI changes for 4.0 have come in the interim. Version 3.6 improved on the way 3.5 implemented tracing, the process which previews JavaScript code and condenses it to intermediate code. That simplified code called low-level intermediate representation (LIR), which looks and feels a lot like assembly language, is compiled by a component Mozilla calls Nanojit.

On paper, Nanojit's procedure should work faster than WebKit, the open source browser engine used by Safari and adopted by Chrome. It doesn't, for reasons Mozilla's Anderson describes as pertaining to the growing multitude of exceptions of code that simply can't be compiled down.

"What we've found is that when tracing works, we're faster than the generic approach," Dave Anderson writes. "But when tracing fails, we have to fall back to our old-school interpreter. At that point your JavaScript runs about as fast as it would in 2007-2008 (i.e. before Firefox 3.5, Safari 4, Chrome, etc.)."

An example of just one kind of fallback exception that happens frequently was described in a recent blog post by Mozilla contributor David Mandelin: "Tracing works by generating type-specialized native code for program paths. So if a program has 1000 paths in its hottest loop, TraceMonkey would have to generate 1000 paths to run it natively with tracing. But that would use up way too much memory for code, so instead TraceMonkey stops after a certain number of paths and falls back to the interpreter."

By contrast, Anderson described, WebKit has a component called Nitro that compiles not threads that are traced in advance, but big chunks of code -- entire methods. Its process is called inline threading.

In recent Betanews tests using, ironically, code whose corrections were suggested by Opera Software, we got a glimpse of the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches: When optimizing the very same loop a hundred thousand, or a million, times, Firefox's Nanojit methodology executes the resulting code much quicker than any other browser, including the new Opera 10.5 and Chrome 5 dev builds. That's why, in this one test battery of ours, Firefox 3.7 Alpha 2 scores a 4.34 versus the WebKit/Safari daily build's score of 3.91, and all other competitors slower from there.

Repeating the same stuff over and over is one case where TraceMonkey, to use Anderson's analogy, applies rocket boosters. But real-world code doesn't repeat stuff a million times. In those cases, TraceMonkey's boosters never come on. Nitro ends up being more efficient -- it has optimizations for certain types of methods planned well in advance, whereas Nanojit starts from scratch.

The architectural solution, which is being improved upon even as I write this, is being called JaegerMonkey. Using this architecture, developers are transplanting the TraceMonkey component with the inline threading component of Nitro (with permission), which will optimize the JS code the same way WebKit does. Then they will bolt TraceMonkey back onto the Nitro graft, to trace and improve the exceptions that Nitro cannot optimize. As Mandelin reports, Mozilla contributors such as Anderson and Luke Wagner have been making adjustments and improvements to Nitro, to make it fit better in the Mozilla scheme.

"We've barely started and the results are already really promising," reports Anderson. "Running SunSpider on my machine, the whole-method JIT is 30% faster than the interpreter on x86, and 45% faster on x64. This is with barely any optimization work!"

Sadly, the odd man out appears to be Nanojit, one of the components that was responsible for the huge speed gains in Firefox 3.5. The work of Mozilla contributor Nicholas Nethercote, Nanojit was being redeveloped for a new Firefox version as late as last month, with an eye toward optimizing the assembly-like code base that it generates.

As notes from Mozilla planning meetings indicate, they considered using Nethercote's optimized Nanojit, but finally opted against it. "The main problem is that there is not enough control over the results to get the best code. In particular, there are tricks for calling stub functions (functions that implement JS ops that are not inlined) very efficiently that Nanojit doesn't currently support. We think there will be other tricks with manual register allocation and such that are also not currently supported. We don't want to gate this work on Nanojit development or junk Nanojit up with features that will be non-useful for it's current applications. Also, the compilation time is much longer for LIR than for using an assembler."

Next: The road from here to there...

The road from here to there

To help Firefox make the quantum leap from its current state to a level competitive with the others, version 3.7 will serve as a kind of waypoint. Already, we're seeing some other performance features being tried in the new Alpha 2 and the latest daily development builds of Alpha 3.

A @font-face rendering test using both HTML and SVG paragraphs, shown in Mozilla Firefox 3.7 Alpha 2.

The latest builds now feature Mozilla's first round of minimalistic tweaks to the skin, which include getting rid of one button in the controls. Since there's no reason why the Refresh and Stop buttons would be used together, they're now the same button, with the icon changing as necessary (Stop as the page is loading, Refresh once it's finished).

Last November, Firefox 3.7 alpha code was commandeered for an unofficial test of rendering using Direct2D, the Windows graphics library that replaces the decades-old GDI. Internet Explorer 9 is slated to use Direct2D, and the early IE9 tests we saw last year (the only ones revealed thus far) showed tremendous gains in the graphics department. But the Mozilla engineer's test was somewhat inconclusive, resulting in a build that actually appeared to slow down page load time when rendering with Direct2D instead of GDI.

Comparative browser load times for Firefox 3.7 Alpha 2 and 3 with and without Direct2D library support, on Windows 7 RTM.

Comparative Web page load times for Firefox 3.7 Alpha 2 rendering with GDI graphics library, and Firefox 3.7 Alpha 3 rendering with Direct2D graphics library.

Now with Direct2D support having been officially welded into the latest Firefox 3.7 alphas for the first time, the results are a little more like what folks expected: In a test (originally suggested to us by Microsoft) of page load times for 26 leading Web sites, a daily Alpha 3 build with Direct2D rendering turned on did load pages, on average, 5% faster than the latest general Alpha 2 with Direct2D turned off. But as the graph shows, test results per page could vary wildly, and more often than not, Alpha 3 was much faster than that.

From what I can see with my own two eyes, Direct2D rendering on Firefox 3.7 (and the early IE9, for that matter) is crisper, cleaner, and snappier than with GDI. As this feature becomes more prevalent in browsers everywhere, in turn, it will become relevant to more users. So at some time in the near future, it will become necessary to include graphics library rendering time as an element of Betanews' "comprehensive" browser tests, if we truly wish to go on using that word to describe them.

It's usually Microsoft that keeps telling us that true browser performance is something its user can see and feel. Coming from the manufacturer of the perennial slowest browser in the field, that must be a heartfelt statement. In the next few weeks, Microsoft will be making its case for browser performance -- something it hasn't been able to lay claim to for some time. Until that company gives folks reason to go back to being disappointed, IE9 will be perceived as gaining on Firefox.

Which means, Mozilla cannot afford any more to evolve on its own schedule; in this competitive environment (which is what it said it wanted), the schedule is set for it. Firefox 3.7 needs to put all these improvements together and demonstrate it can continue to revolutionize browser architecture, even if it doesn't quite catch up with Safari or the others just yet. But then, it needs to knock Firefox 4.0 into the stratosphere, because in a market that's becoming more knowledgeable about its environment by the day, consumers don't place bets on the also-ran for very long.

Windows Mobile 5 and 6 get the latest Opera Mini 5 beta

Publié: mars 4, 2010, 9:43pm CET par Tim Conneally

Opera Mini 5 beta main story banner Opera Software today has released the first native version of Opera Mini 5 beta for Windows Mobile 5 and 6 devices. Since this version does not require Java support, like the beta released a little over six months ago, nearly any Windows Mobile device can install this one.

It is identical in most respects to the Java-based version released in beta late last year, with the Speed Dial homescreen, tabbed browsing, password management, and support for Opera Link, which unifies users' mobile bookmarks and features with those from their desktop Opera browsers.

On Windows Mobile 6.5 devices, this browser is practically indistinguishable from the Opera Mobile 10 beta, which was launched last November. The two products are identical in appearance and basic functionality.

The main differences between the versions can be found in their settings menus. Opera Mini has Opera Turbo server-side compression on at all times, and the user can select the quality of in-page images to alter the speed at which pages are loaded. Opera Mobile lets the user turn Opera Turbo on and off as needed and customize the level of zoom for page viewing.

Opera Turbo makes a significant impact on browsing speeds, and Opera Software claims it has the ability to compress traffic by up to 90%, which not only speeds up the experience, but lowers expenses on pay-per-megabyte data plans.

I tested the Opera Mini 5 beta for Windows Mobile 6.5 over a 2G EDGE connection and found the experience to be quite good. Though it doesn't provide as granular a zoom function as Opera Mobile 10 does, you can make due with the tiny zoomed-out mode to locate text or images you want to view in zoomed-in mode. As a desktop Opera user, I become more fond of Opera Link every time I test a new version of Mini or Mobile. All of my desktop shortcuts and bookmarks are instantly available whenever I install a new version, and there is an instant familiarity that vastly improves the experience.

While it does not offer the media support that Skyfire is so famous for on the Windows Mobile platform, Opera Mini 5 is quick, and the browsing experience is great. Though there are sometimes gesture mistakes, the browser is quite "finger friendly" even on resistive Windows Mobile devices.

You're not going to find it in the Windows Mobile Marketplace, though. So to download the new beta, point IE Mobile to m.opera.com/next.

Appeals court rules redesigned EchoStar box still infringes on TiVo's DVR

Publié: mars 4, 2010, 7:04pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

In a precedent-setting win for the company perceived as the originator of "time-shift" video recording, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has fully affirmed a lower court's judgment that satellite service provider EchoStar's software continued to infringe upon TiVo's patents even after making significant changes to address its complaints. This despite what EchoStar (whose DVR boxes are also used by former sister company Dish Network) had called "Herculean" efforts to steer clear of TiVo's intellectual property, and a preliminary US Patent Office rejection last August casting doubt on the validity of TiVo's patents.

At issue was whether EchoStar modified the software for two of its recorders, called the 50X and Broadcom series (the latter named after the supplier of its key hardware), in such a way that it didn't store video in a stream similar to TiVo's patented methodology. Last June, after a jury found in favor of TiVo on the infringement charge, a US district court slapped an injunction on EchoStar and Dish Network boxes. EchoStar did not appeal that injunction, and it may have thought it wasn't really enforced while courts jostled back and forth over possible penalties. That prompted TiVo to move the district court to find EchoStar in contempt. It did, and today the Appeals Court upheld that finding.

In the appeals panel's 2-1 decision today, they refuted the notion that a trial on the reformed EchoStar software should have been a separate proceeding, on account of the software being completely reformed. TiVo argued that the changes were trivial, and the higher court agreed.

"We also reject EchoStar's and the dissent's [Judge Randall Rader's] argument that the district court was required to limit its analysis to whether the modified devices had eliminated start-code detection and indexing," wrote judge H. R. Mayer and Alan Lourie for the majority (PDF available here). "EchoStar argues that a contempt hearing is proper only when the redesigned devices are alleged to infringe in the exact same manner that has already been adjudicated to infringe. We disagree. The test for colorable differences is not divorced from the scope of the claim that has previously been found to have been infringed. Modifications that EchoStar made to its software based on what it alone considered to be the basis of the jury's infringement finding cannot guarantee the creation of substantial open issues with respect to infringement. Where the court is clearly convinced, based on evidence presented at trial, that there are no substantial open issues on continuing infringement of the asserted claims, we see no reason to disallow summary proceedings."

While EchoStar apparently strongly protested the district court's injunction, the two judges wondered why it didn't formally appeal that injunction. "The fact that there were numerous other issues on appeal cannot excuse its failure to appeal the injunction," the judges wrote. "Had EchoStar brought an appeal on the injunction, we could have addressed its legitimacy. The time to do so has long passed."

The EchoStar injunction applies to all of its DVRs, not just those two models; and in his dissent, Judge Rader called that injunction too broad and unfair. "Under its strained interpretation of its earlier injunction, the district court effectively required EchoStar to go into each of its customers' homes and physically remove each cable box containing any DVR functionality -- infringing or not! The trial court required this course of action even in the face of both parties' recognition that a satellite link could more easily remove or replace the 'infringing' technology. In other words, if EchoStar would enter each home and replace each of its cable boxes with identical cable boxes uploaded with the same software, it would escape contempt. These absurdities spring from the 'disablement provision,' [of the District Court order, which reads in part,] 'The DVR functionality, i.e., disable all storage to and playback from a hard disk drive of television data) [sic] shall not be enabled in any new placements of the Infringing Products.'"

Judge Rader didn't see how EchoStar changing its product to fulfill the same function as a TiVo, but in a different way, constituted contempt of a court order in favor of the way TiVo performed the function originally.

"In its redesign efforts, EchoStar eliminated its video frame start-code detection in its entirety," the dissenting judge wrote. "Rather than parsing through all the video and audio data before storing onto the system, the modified design, upon request from the user, statistically estimates where a given frame might appear long after storage of the video and audio data. This change was a critical component of a vast redesign effort by fifteen engineers working full time for over 800 total hours. Before proceeding, EchoStar got two separate approvals of this change from an independent law firm."

Judge Rader believes TiVo should not have been able to resurrect an old argument about what infringed what -- which TiVo itself rejected prior to EchoStar's software overhaul -- to apply to new software that wasn't the subject of the original claim. In his closing, he wrote, "If Tivo believes that Echostar's new design still infringes its patent, it should file a new infringement suit, not attempt to short circuit a full proceeding. In its current form, this decision discourages good faith efforts to design around an infringement verdict."

In celebrating its victory, TiVo released this statement early this afternoon: "This ruling paves the way for TiVo to receive the approximately $300 million in damages and contempt sanctions awarded to us for EchoStar's continued infringement through July 1, 2009. We will also seek further damages and contempt sanctions for the period of continued infringement thereafter. We will continue our efforts to protect our intellectual property from further infringement." Neither Dish Network nor EchoStar had released a comment at the time of this publication.

Flash
Flash Player 9 or higher is required to view the chart
Click here to download Flash Player nowif (typeof(embedWikichart) != "undefined") {embedWikichart("http://charts.wikinvest.com/WikiChartMini.swf","wikichartContainer_0C61CF7D-B9CB-EAAF-4205-2A5B6C769C72","570","365",{"showAnnotations":"true","liveQuote":"true","startDate":"24-02-2010","endDate":"04-03-2010","embedCodeDate":"2010-3-4","ticker":"TIVO"},{});}View the full TIVO chart at Wikinvest

Hands-on with Gesture Search for Android 2.0

Publié: mars 4, 2010, 6:41pm CET par Tim Conneally

Devices running Android 2.0 and later can now download from the Android Market the Google Gesture Search lab, an application which recognizes letters drawn on the touchscreen and uses them as live in-phone search terms.

The standalone application can search your contacts, browser bookmarks, installed applications by name, or music by artist name, album name or track name, all queries are limited to within your device, and do not yet reach deeper into applications for Web or content searching.

Since it is just a lab at present, Gesture has a number of serious limitations. Most notably, it lacks support for all of the devices running Android 1.5 and 1.6, lacks international support, and lacks support for numeric input.

But Gesture is still an interesting experiment thanks to its surprisingly accurate suggestion logic. Unlike the Graffiti handwriting recognition system on old Palm OS devices, it doesn't use a single-stroke input method, and the input can be extremely varied. Yet the application still recognizes the alphabet.

Google Gesture search for Android In testing it, I began at a letter's standard block state, then gradually began to deviate from that form until I was drawing something completely unintelligible. As you get further from the letter's original state, the search suggestion list gets longer. As you enter subsequent letters, the list gets more finely tuned. This means you can actually be quite carefree when entering letters.

Of course, that sort of testing rapidly deteriorated into a game of Pictionary with Gesture Search. The "peace sign" seemed to always result in a W, while the "anarchy sign" interchangeably would result in a B, Q, or M. A stick figure seems most prone to turn into a P, and painting the entire screen with one continuous gesture is a crap shoot.

To test the application's mettle, I made a bunch of nonsensical browser bookmarks with intentionally difficult names such as "Ijiij" and "jijii," or "aoaoa" and "ooao," and results were surprisingly consistent.

The suggestion logic worked well with all of my tests until I started running "Uvuvu" and "Uuvuu." The application never suggested the first one, and without fail suggested the second. I changed the destination of the bookmarks just to make sure it wasn't being influenced by something there, but it never suggested "Uvuvu" under any circumstances.

Gestures would make a useful complement to voice search on Android, but the limited scope of this Lab has a lot of users more concerned about fragmentation than about making their searches easier.

Will the smartphone replace the PC in three years?

Publié: mars 4, 2010, 6:10pm CET par Joe Wilcox

It's the question to ask after the bold statement made yesterday by Google's John Herlihy. According to Silicon Republic, Herlihy told Digital Landscapes conference attendees that: "In three years time, desktops will be irrelevant. In Japan, most research is done today on smartphones, not PCs."

My answer is an easy "Yes" for desktops, assuming Herlihy meant desktop PCs. Mobile PCs will take longer -- not much, unless 3G radios come to be standard equipment on most laptops; that's for displacement, not irrelevance. Yesterday I asked Betanews readers: "Has your smartphone changed your life?" The smartphone most certainly will change your life if it displaces the PC. How much more dramatic will be the change whenever PCs should become irrelevant?

No doubt, plenty of Betanews readers will disagree with Herlihy's assertion. Great. Please share your opinions in comments. This is a topic deserving heated discussion, and it's one PC and handset manufacturers had better carefully watch. The winds of change are in the air, but will they blow slowly across the current computing landscape or quickly?

"The digital world is fundamentally different to the traditional business world," Herlihy told Digital Landscape attendees. "Things happen much faster, Websites spring up from nowhere, a video could be a YouTube hit in hours." He is absolutely right, and the social media boom is glaring example of how rapidly things can change in short order.

Before 2005, newspaper revenues remained high, while declining slowly. Fast forward four years and the industry started to rapidly collapse -- but, of course, not go away. According to a report released this week by PEW Internet, 94 percent of US Internet users get news online. Only 38 percent of Americans get news offline only -- and the numbers skew much higher for the old than the young.

Social media is a large part of the change, as Facebook and Twitter status messages, blogs and other sources augment or even replace traditional news sources -- all of it free and some of it supported by Google search keywords and related services. People take Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for granted, but these are all relatively new services released just beyond the time horizon of Herlihy's mobile prediction.

YouTube officially opened in November 2005; Google purchased the service less than a year later. Facebook opened to the public in 2006 and Twitter a few months later (I signed up for Twitter on Dec. 26, 2006). Most of the most popular or growing popular tools for community and self expression launched within the last four years: Disqus, FriendFeed, tumblr, Twine, Qik and USTREAM, among many, many others. New social sharing services seemingly appear every day. Google Buzz and Chatroulette are among the most recent.

Apple's iPhone released in June 2007. The supporting App Store -- now with more than 140,000 applications and 3 billion-plus downloads -- launched in July 2008. Google purchased Android in 2005, and the first supporting smartphone shipped in late 2008. In Android's first full year (2009), handset manufacturers sold 6.8 million smartphones, according to Gartner. Google released the Chrome Web browser in late 2008 and is already testing version 5. These are changes all occurring within just three years.

These technologies have dramatically reshaped cultures and societies across the planet. All of it happened in less than five years. For people clinging to the PC's importance, look around you at the rapid cloud services-driven social networking changes. The PC could easily be displaced that fast.

The pattern of technological displacement is centuries old and fairly consistent. Something new comes along and slowly erodes the existing technology. But pace picks up until there is a dramatic shift to the new from the old occurring within a short time span. Some older technologies continue for a time and disappear, while many others remain but in new niches. Some recent -- and not-too-hard-to-grasp -- examples:

Horse drawn carriages and trains
Trains and automobiles
Telegraphs and telephones
Mainframes and PCs

There are so many other examoples, but I'm trying to make a simple point not give a history lesson. Trains were displaced by autos in the United States but they didn't go away. PCs displaced mainframes, but they're still used as well. Landlines and wireless phones are near their dramatic changing point in many mature markets. Newspapers are in process of being displaced by Web content for PCs and mobile devices, but are likely to co-exist with them for a long time.

Three years -- most certainly five -- is not an unrealistic time horizon at all. Even if it proves wrong, Google is acting like change will come rapidly. Last month, Google CEO Eric Schmidt asserted the company would put mobile first -- yes, before the PC. There is no Windows monopoly on mobile handsets to stop Google, Apple or any other would-be mobile competitor from rapidly advancing. Cloud services, whether delivered by applications or browsers, promise anytime and anywhere access to anything.

I've blogged about this coming change plenty in the past. It's why I've been so hard on Microsoft's stalled handset operating system strategy and why I called Windows Mobile 7 Series a "lost cause." But there it is -- a goal for Microsoft from Google. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer seems so obsessed chasing Google, now he has a goal to meet: Three years. He shouldn't dally. The recent social media revolution is clear example of how fast the new thing can push the old aside.

RealDVD permanently banned in US, Real pays Hollywood $4.5 million

Publié: mars 4, 2010, 1:02am CET par Tim Conneally

The battle over RealNetworks' DVD copying software, called RealDVD, has finally come to a close, and Real has lost.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the United States District Court, Northern District of California ruled today in favor of the DVD Copy Control Association, who argued that RealDVD actually made illegal copies that violated the Content Scramble System (CSS) license agreement.

The case began in late 2008 when RealDVD was only a couple of weeks old. RealNetworks preemptively sued the DVD Copy Control Association for the right to copy DVDs, using a previous case (DVD CCA v. Kaleidescape Inc.) as a hopeful legal precedent.

A temporary injunction was imposed as the case played out, and lower courts banned the software. One year into the case, Judge Patel determined that RealDVD's methods for avoiding CSS were at the very least a breach of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and upheld the lower court's ruling.

RealNetworks countersued, arguing that the motion picture industry was an illegal cartel that sought to corner the market for unprotected content (a.k.a., "digital copy"), but the judge again ruled in favor of the DVD Copy Control Association.

Today, Real said it has settled and will drop all of its appeals. The permanent injunction will stand, and Real will pay the studios a $4.5 million settlement.

"Almost from the moment this product was introduced, it was clear RealDVD violated the CSS license," Jacob Pak, President of DVD CCA said in a prepared statement today. "Now, after months of arguments from both sides, the legal message is clear: Making a DVD copier is a breach of the CSS license. This case demonstrates how important it is to uphold legal agreements that are essential to fostering and maintaining a vibrant competitive industry."

Bob Kimball, acting CEO of Real, said, "Until this dispute, Real had always enjoyed a productive working relationship with Hollywood. With this litigation resolved, I hope that in the future we can find mutually beneficial ways to use Real technology to bring Hollywood's great work to consumers."

$1 billion takeover bid may mean the end of Novell's makeover addiction

Publié: mars 3, 2010, 11:42pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

Novell 'N' top story badge Yesterday's surprise $1 billion buyout offer for Novell from the New York-based private investment group Elliott Management came with a letter, made public yesterday, spelling out the investors' goal for the company. "Novell is a long-established company that we have followed closely for a considerable period of time," the firm wrote. "Over the past several years, the Company has attempted to diversify away from its legacy division with a series of acquisitions and changes in strategic focus that have largely been unsuccessful. As a result, we believe the Company's stock has meaningfully underperformed all relevant indices and peers."

If by "the past several years," Elliott meant "the dawn of time," it may very well have been accurate. Novell is a company that, in many people's minds, is defined by its propensity towards strategy shifts. Elliott Management's members collectively own 8.5% of Novell common stock. If their proposal ends up being approved, Novell's strategy could shift again -- this time, very dramatically. And if you can interpret their message as a signal of disappointment in Novell's inability to focus on its fundamentals, then you may see the possible result of all this: a divestiture of Novell's stake in SUSE Linux, the world's #2 Linux distribution.

Getting rid of what Novell execs may perceive as excess ballast, but what the world may perceive as valuable property, has become a periodic ritual for this company. Every few years since the mid-1980s, about as regular as the next Olympics, those who have had the interesting fortune of being Novell chief executives -- Ray Noorda, Robert Frankenberg, Eric Schmidt, Chris Stone, Jack Messman, Ron Hovsepian -- have come forth with their vision for the company. Everything is fine, fantastic, copacetic. Nothing to worry about, each one typically began. But the future will be altogether different. And to understand what that bright future will become -- 1996, 2002, 2006, and beyond -- close your eyes, if you will, and imagine an entirely different world...

Last December, Novell outlined what it called a holistic solution (are you keeping your eyes closed?) to the problem of automating the modern information workforce. From this point forward, company executives said, Novell would be devoting itself to a new model of enterprise marketing called intelligent workload management. It defined the concept as nothing short of a top-to-bottom re-envisioning of enterprise network resourced, using a model based, it would appear, on Newtonian physics.

"Intelligent Workload Management is a new and more effective model of computing that enables IT organizations to manage and optimize computing resources in a policy-driven, secure and compliant manner across physical, virtual and cloud environments to deliver business services for end customers," reads last December's announcement. "A workload is a portable, self-contained unit of work built through the integration of the operating system, middleware, and application. With Intelligent Workload Management, organizations can build, secure, manage and measure workloads."

The technology behind this concept may not be as psychedelic as it sounds on the surface. As distributed applications become less bound to an instance of an operating system, SUSE Linux or Windows Server becomes not so much their "environment" as their "provider." Virtualization has made it possible for OS instances to traverse processor boundaries without affecting workflow. Now, it's foreseeable that applications, or the components of them, can traverse those same boundaries independently of the operating system, removing one more layer from the process. However, those freed applications will need to be administered the way operating systems are today, and Novell foresees a need for tools to that end.

That makes sense. But it seems that somewhere along the way in the marketing process, Novell felt it necessary to justify all the identities it had tried to assume in the past -- the office applications producer, the infrastructure architect, "the identity guys" -- in order to make it appear this new 2010 strategy is the single thread that pulls everything together like lacing ones boots.

Flash
Flash Player 9 or higher is required to view the chart
Click here to download Flash Player nowif (typeof(embedWikichart) != "undefined") {embedWikichart("http://charts.wikinvest.com/WikiChartMini.swf","wikichartContainer_11607EC3-B753-D8EE-1738-2654A79D7C4B","600","365",{"liveQuote":"true","startDate":"02-01-1990","ticker":"NOVL","endDate":"03-03-2010","embedCodeDate":"2010-3-3","showAnnotations":"true"},{});}View the full NOVL chart at Wikinvest

But the need to characterize a practical strategy as some kind of holistic vision, an inspiration heard in the whisper of the trees when spending a week alone fly-fishing in the wilderness, has become a kind of disease that afflicted Novell, starting in the mid-1990s. The company was already making headway with its Novell Directory Services, the innovative registry of network resources that was its first truly successful product line after NetWare (NOS). But CEO Robert Frankenberg wanted to take that concept further, not so much with a technology as a vision, which he introduced at COMDEX in 1994.

Frankenberg asked his audience essentially to close their eyes, and imagine a three-dimensional world where users would experience their data and workflow environments using pictorial representations of everyday and household items. He called this vision the "NetTop" (emphasis on the capital "N"), and introduced a type of embedded system called NEST that he said could be implanted into real office resources, such as telephones, televisions, and staplers, so that they could be "NetWare-ready," with avatars of sorts in the virtual world.

And yes, the vision had a catchy title: "Pervasive computing," the then-CEO projected, "is more than connecting information systems and computing devices. It's connecting people with other people and the information they need, giving them the power to act on that information anytime, anyplace."

At that time, Frankenberg's Novell was busy supercharging NetWare and its recently acquired intellectual property in UNIX (or so it had believed) to become ready for this all-encompassing, pervasive environment. The concept was called SuperNOS, but it was actually never to be. In the fall of 1995, after this fusion dream fell apart, Novell entered into its UNIX agreement with Hewlett-Packard and SCO, in the beginning of what was to become the ugliest single chapter in the history of computing.

In that agreement, Novell thought it had divested itself of what it was calling UnixWare (close your eyes and imagine a bigger, brighter UNIX), but all the while enabling UNIX to still become cultivated so that it could support the services for it that Novell was building. But letting go of UNIX made Novell focus its resources on NOS, in a move which would-be partner Oracle's CEO Larry Ellison famously predicted in 1995 would be the decline and fall of the company: "Novell will be less and less important every year," Ellison said. "If they have to treat [NetWare] as a 'star' and spread R&D on it, it's a mistake. UNIX and NT will take share from Novell."

In 1996, in another attempt to remake itself, Novell shed itself of its investment in WordPerfect, selling it to Corel for about a tenth of its value. In 2004, blaming Microsoft for the devaluation, Novell sued Microsoft as part of its effort to re-establish some semblance of its former swagger. But that lawsuit would be terminated in 2007, when another attempt at remaking Novell led the company to shift its attention away from the courtroom, and in so doing, it said, reduce some of the conflict in the world. (Imagine there's no litigation. I wonder if you can.)

In-between those three major strategy makeovers, there were actually two more. In 1999, Novell imagined a re-emergence of NetWare (not NOS, not SuperNOS, but NetWare), after embracing the fact that the Internet would be built on TCP/IP rather than IPX/SPX. This was Eric Schmidt's doing. Imagine a company that didn't always produce big software all the time, but rather constructed a big base of Web services built on eDirectory, and improved incrementally through small releases of standards-compliant code. Again, another good idea, in theory. But the company was so poor at articulating its vision for a global virtual phone book that analysts were comparing the eDirectory vision to that of Yahoo. Isn't there already a big directory on the Internet, they asked?

Schmidt's co-successors, CEO Jack Messman and Vice Chairman Chris Stone, tried to address that problem with a new vision for the company. Close your eyes for a moment, and imagine there are four pillars. We'll call them Nsure, exteNd, Nterprise, and Ngage. These would represent four categories of services, with Nsure representing what would be the company's push into that under-addressed part of the Internet, secure identity management. Novell's goal was nothing less than to become perceived as "the identity company." As Stone described it at the time, "This campaign is intended to address the positioning so that when you ask people next year they'll say, 'Oh, yeah. They're the identity guys.'"

The four pillars would be holding up not so much the Internet as we have come to know it, but rather something Messman in the fall of 2002 as "One Net." Imagine, if you will...well, imagine nothing. No boundaries, because information tends to flow, and you don't want things like boundaries getting in the way.

"With Novell Nsure, Novell exteNd, Novell Nterprise and Novell Ngage, we have the solutions our customers have been telling us they need to achieve One Net -- a world without information boundaries," Messman announced. "Identity is security in a One Net world. Only by knowing who is accessing the network, and what they are entitled to see, can companies effectively manage their disparate relationships in a Web environment."

Novell has never been devoid of good ideas, or even good technology. But it has chronically suffered from an excess of "the vision thing," the need to encapsulate a practical methodology using ill-fitting metaphors. And it may be last December's move by Hovsepian to fold "One Net" into yet another vision of the "intelligent workload" -- once again, exercising the irresistible urge to make a practical concept holistic -- that drove Elliott Management's investors yesterday to finally say, "Enough."

A group of Silicon Valley geeks try to bring about immigration reform with the Startup Visa Act

Publié: mars 3, 2010, 11:16pm CET par Tim Conneally

At the end of February, Senators John Kerry (D - Mass.) and Richard Lugar (R - Indiana) introduced the Startup Visa Act of 2010, which will let immigrant entrepreneurs earn a two-year visa if they get at least $250,000 in venture capital investment, and then earn them legal US residence if that startup creates five or more new jobs, gets a second round of funding of over $1 million, or nets $1 million or more in revenue.

"Global competition for talent and investment grows more intense daily and the United States must step up or be left behind," Sen. Kerry said in introducing the bill. "Everywhere Dick Lugar and I travel for the Foreign Relations Committee, we see firsthand the entrepreneurial spirit driving the economies of our competitors. Creating a new magnet for innovations and innovators to come to the United States and create jobs here will offer our economy a double shot in the arm -- robust job creation at home and reaffirmation that we're the world's best place to do business."

This week, a group of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and venture capitalists led by former PayPal executive turned startup investor and advisor Dave McClure will be heading to Washington DC to promote the bill to legislators in hopes of showing the power that this bill holds.

"There are no lobbyists, no campaign contributions, no PR agencies," McClure writes on the site dedicated to the bill. "This is a 100% grass-roots movement of citizens who want to encourage job creation and innovation in the United States."

More than 160 notable VCs and investors have voiced their support for the bill, and there are plenty of ways for citizens to join in on the startupvisa.com campaign page.

Steve Ballmer talks Bing, Google, Xbox and Windows Phone

Publié: mars 3, 2010, 11:04pm CET par Joe Wilcox

For anyone that missed Microsoft CEO's Q&A during the Search Marketing Expo West yesterday, a transcript is now available online. I went through and picked out key quotes, so that you don't have to read the whole thing.

Several things stand out from Ballmer's comments:

1) Mobile operators that want a search engine other than Bing can't have Windows Phone 7 Series.

2) Microsoft almost certainly is stirring up trouble for Google in Europe through third parties.

3) Microsoft isn't interested -- at least for now -- in releasing a Bing application for Android phones.

4) A Bing for iPhone search deal is still possible, simply because Ballmer deflected the question rather than denying it.

5) Twitter is a great Microsoft partner, but the value of an acquisition is "not clear."

My favorite quote from the Q&A: "I haven't found that when you're trying to sell something to somebody yelling is very effective." How funny is that. coming from boisterous Ballmer?

Bing

When asked if Microsoft could be No.1 in search, Ballmer answered: "There's no good answer to this question...If you say yes, you sound arrogant. If you say no, you sound like you have no faith. So the answer is, yes, someday."

The truth of the matter is the number one thing that Google benefits from in search is they did it right first. And put culture aside and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I love our culture, I think we've got great people, they're innovative, they're doing great things, but we started later.

Ballmer's Binging family: "We have Bing evangelists, age 18, age 11, and age 15. We are definitely a religiously pro-Bing family...My dad worked at Ford for 30 years, I still drive a Lincoln. I hope my kids 30, 40, 50 years from now, they'll still be using Bing."

I love to make the assertion about apartments in Paris. I have a buddy from Stanford who rents apartments in Paris and if she wasn't my buddy you wouldn't find her on page one of Bing, you would find her on page one of the other guy, and that is a quality. From the standpoint of the searcher if you're looking for an apartment in Paris it's not going to show US in the algorithmic results. So, it's really important for us to get scale in terms of value to the searcher themselves.

Is Bing Cashback a success: "The Cashback has been interesting. I would say it has worked. It hasn't worked fantastically. I mean, in the sense that it has completely changed the economic structure of the business."

Google Competition

Regarding Microsoft encouraging third-party antitrust complaints against Google in Europe:

As in our case, a lot of times initial complaints will come from a competitor. We're clearly a competitor, there are other competitors, as well. But, we have a blog post on our public policy blog that kind of makes clear we're not being silent in this game, we're expressing some of the issues and frustrations that we see, and certainly sometimes unsolicited, but oftentimes because we've been asked.

Google in China: "I think we all understand, the real force in China isn't Google and it's not Bing, it's Baidu."

Google's book search deal: "The book deal essentially takes somebody who has a very strong position, and gives them a stronger position relative to everybody else in the space. It doesn't seem right to me, let alone what it might mean for publishers' rights. So, we'll express our points of view, but ultimately it's up to the regulators."

Smartphones

Regarding Bing replacing Google on iPhone: "I read that rumor...It was very funny, I was in Europe someplace, and I read it, after a journalist had asked me about it. Weird how rumors start."

Do I search when I'm out on the move? The answer is too much relative to what my wife thinks I should be doing when I'm driving. So, I'm trying to -- I'm trying to tame my search behavior while I'm -- I mean, literally I only have a phone when I'm in the car, because if I'm not in the car I'm in a meeting, and it's impolite, for me at least, to bring phones to most meetings.

About Bing for Android phones: "It's not like our open religious principles can be questioned here, but it is a little bit tricky to understand exactly where the market opportunity might lie for us in the mix of Android kind of cacophonous implementations."

Stop and take it outside of the specific Android-Windows phone debates. How does Apple make money on phones, basically with a licensing fee on their own phones. It's a positive gross margin on the phone. If you offer a phone of high value, there is money to be made. We happen to, in our model, split that with a phone manufacturer who makes some of the money that Apple might have made and we make some of the money that Apple might have made.

Search-engine choice on Windows Phones: "My guess is we're not going to get a huge amount of operator support for Windows Phones who don't want Bing. I mean, in some senses it's an essential part of the definition of the Windows Phone, and if you have an operator who would want to do something with another search player, they'll probably do it with a non-Windows Phone."

Xbox

"How many hours of practice do you need on Xbox to catch your kids?...Ten thousand hours. Ten thousand hours of Xbox and you can be as good as your eight-year-old."

Twitter

Should Microsoft buy Twitter:

Not clear. I mean, we have a great relationship and partnership with Twitter. Not clear to me. I mean, I would hate to not have that partnership. Whether we need to own the company or not I think is far less clear. In some senses, as an independent, they have a lot of value and a lot of credibility, I think, with their user community. Would they have that same credibility with the user community if they were captive? Not clear.

Does Ballmer have a stealth Twitter account: "Of course."

Exclusive Video: In-depth with TiVo's new Premiere interface

Publié: mars 3, 2010, 10:56pm CET par Tim Conneally

Though it's still technically a work in progress, TiVo's new higher resolution interface lets the Premiere DVR take better advantage of your HDTV. We sat down with TiVo's Director of Product Marketing, Bob Poniatowski to take a look at all the new features.

Hulu 'losing' Stewart and Colbert is only a big deal to Hulu's ad revenue

Publié: mars 3, 2010, 8:53pm CET par Tim Conneally

Hulu has been increasing in popularity, and its ads are getting more valuable, but two of the video site's most popular shows, The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report, are being pulled.

Playing a Hulu video through Google Chrome

Hulu, a joint venture between NBC Universal, the Fox division of News Corp., and now the ABC division of Disney, now racks up over a billion video views per month. (Viacom was at one time merged with CBS, the proprietor of TV.com, but is now separate.) Viacom is removing the two shows from Hulu at the end of the day on March 9, after having been available on the popular site for a little less than two years.

"In the past 21 months, we've had very strong results for both Hulu and Comedy Central, in terms of the views and revenue we've generated, thanks to a couple of key trends," said Andy Forssell, Hulu's Senior Vice President of Content and Distribution. "First, more and more of our viewers have voted with their time by making these shows a regular part of their day. And second, we've driven steadily increasing revenue per view as advertisers voted with their budgets to take advantage of innovative ad formats and very strong advertising effectiveness. After a series of discussions with the team at Comedy Central, though, we ultimately were unable to secure the rights to extend these shows for a much longer period of time."

Full episodes and short clips of the shows will remain available on Comedy Central's site, and individually on thedailyshow.com and colbertnation.com. Additionally, the "videos" section of The Daily Show's site has an archive of clips dating all the way back to March 1999.

Hulu is the number one online TV destination site, and its viewership has been steadily increasing since its launch. In December, ComScore's Video Metrix showed the number of program views has grown by about 100 million per month to over 1 billion views monthly. Even so, the popular video site still has difficulty getting content providers behind it.

In the beginning of 2009, for example, Hulu and CBS Interactive got into an altercation over content distribution. CBS revamped TV.com and launched it as a video content site to compete with Hulu in 2009. NBC Universal and News Corp. then pulled all of the Hulu content from TV.com, citing contractual discrepancies. Today, CBS content remains available on Hulu, but TV.com does not link to Hulu for content. Instead, it links to sites such as ABC.com and NBC.com for full episodes, and Fox programs are presented only as clips and highlights, not full episodes.

This sort of distribution is actually already in place for many (if not most) of Viacom's programs. Viacom's brands -- which include MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, and Paramount -- are indexed by Hulu, but most of the content for those powerful brands is hosted on Viacom's own sites.

Although The New York Times reported today this content removal represents "first major fracture between television show owners and the wildly popular video Web site," it simply is not. Everyone wants to monetize their own content in their own way.

Has your smartphone changed your life?

Publié: mars 3, 2010, 8:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

That's the question I pose to Betanews readers on this fine Spring afternoon. If "Yes" then please further answer: How has your smartphone changed your life?

I'm raising the questions today because of AFP news story "Australia is social networking capital of the world." (Mike Cherng tweeted the story -- my thanks to him.) Reporter Amy Coopes quotes Danielle Warby: "My smartphone changed my life. Serious. It has my calendar, all my contacts and is an easy and intuitive communication tool."

I'm with Warby. My smartphones changed my life, starting with the original iPhone, which I described as "life changing" two weeks after buying it in June 2007. I've used many smartphones since -- and a few before -- including all three iPhone versions; several HTC models, including the AT&T 8525, Google Nexus One and T-Mobile MyTouch; Nokia E71, N97 and N900, among others.

In assessing the original iPhone's value I identified five areas as important: Synchronization, mobile Web, mobile mail, battery life and joy (from the user interface). I would add as important for more modern smartphones: Social media, mobile applications and quality photos and video (with easy sharing capabilities). Some enterprising marketer should use something like "Your life in your pocket," or "My life in my pocket" as a slogan to sell smartphones.

The smartphone can be life changing because it's so personal, in terms of how and how often the device is carried and how it is used to connect and to extend relationships. There's a real intimacy about cell phones -- smartphones, particularly -- that no other technology device matches. Probably many geeks reading this post are long-time smartphone users. But how many of you often use a smartphone as a makeshift PC on the go?

The South by Southwest conference convenes late next week in Austin. Following last year's event, Gizmodo's Jack Loftus blogged:

The tech and media savvy hipsters currently at SXSW could very well be a snapshot of things to come. The conference is chock full of smartphones, but there's nary a notebook (or netbook) in sight. It's anecdotal evidence, sure, but these folks are undoubtedly ahead of the curve on technology. And what they're saying is they're more comfortable using mobile devices as a primary computing and communications tool than they are with notebooks, or even netbooks.

There's a reason why AT&T loudly promises that there will be adequate service for SXSW 2010: Many attendees will pack smartphones -- and many will be iPhones.

Buzz? So What?

Sure there is big buzz about smartphones, but how important are they really? According to Gartner, cell phone sales -- not shipments -- were 1.21 billion in 2009, with 380 million sold in fourth quarter. Smartphones: 172.4 million for the year and 53.8 million for fourth quarter. Smartphone sales grew by over 41 percent year over year in 2009. Android's smartphone market share increased by 680 percent, while unit sales rose by 961.4 percent. Among American adult cell phone owners, 33 percent get news from cell phones; 88 percent of adults who have mobile Internet, according to PEW Internet.

In a report issued today, ComScore revealed that in January 30.8 percent of smartphone owners used their mobile Web browser to access social networking sites, up from 22.5 percent a year earlier. By comparison, only 6.8 percent accessed social networking sites from standard phones, up from 4.5 percent in January 2009.

Nokia C5 Clearly manufacturers see potential in smartphones, which I repeatedly have asserted will replace the PC as primary connected-computing device in this decade (within five years in some markets, I predict). Yesterday, Apple sued HTC for infringing iPhone patents. It's competition by litigation -- like Apple-Nokia patent infringement lawsuits (one is suing the other).

Today, Nokia released Skype for Symbian^1-based devices, making free voice calls over 3G a possibility for some 200 million handsets. These include E and N Series devices.

Yesterday's Nokia C Series announcement is huge, not that many American bloggers or journalists seem to get it. Nokia is brilliantly taking smartphone OS features downmarket to standard handsets. Nokia, the global handset market share leader according to Gartner and IDC, sells more low- and mid-tier phones than any other category. The first device, the C5, will sell for €135 (US $185) unsubsidized. The phone is tiny, cheap but robust, particularly connected features like social sharing and networking.

Nokia is taking the right approach for persevering and extending sales particularly in emerging markets. Apple's iPhone might have sex appeal, but the C5 has worldwide mass market appeal. Come second quarter, dumb phones will be much smarter coming from the world's handset leader. Will the C5 pack enough punch to be life changing for many current dumb phone users in markets like Brazil, China, India and Russia (commonly referred to as BRIC)? That's a future question to answer.

The point: 2010 promises dramatic changes for the handset market. That brings me back to my questions for Betanews readers: Has your smartphone changed your life? If so, how? And how long ago (That's the bragging rights question for longtime smartphone users)? Please respond in comments or by email: joewilcox at live dot com. I'll collect the best responses for a follow-up post.

The latest European export: Who else wants a browser 'choice screen?'

Publié: mars 3, 2010, 6:09pm CET par Scott M. Fulton, III

The final browser choice screen, available from browserchoice.eu

It's only been a few days since Microsoft's rollout of the browser choice screen for European Internet Explorer users. But already, the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS, not to be confused with the European Commission, a legislative body), which is credited with pressing the EC forward on the browser bundling issue, is claiming victory not just with regard to exposing users to the choice they have, but with helping to advance the developmental progress of the Web.

Now, ECIS legal counsel Thomas Vinje is calling upon other trade regulatory and legislative bodies worldwide to follow Europe's example, arguing in a statement yesterday (PDF available here) that everyone should be entitled to the same ballot.

"The ability of...applications to run quickly and with improved features depends upon progress in Web browsers. As we know from experience, that is driven by competition that offers rewards to companies that build the quickest, most versatile browsers," Vinje stated. "The European initiative will help spur competition, but leaves most of the world's computers with operating systems that are tied to Internet Explorer. We call on competition authorities around the world to look closely at what has happened in Europe, and to act on behalf of their consumers. Only then will we get a fully competitive market that will drive intense competition to build better browsers."

Vinje's statement comes as global analytics firm StatCounter released one of the stranger statistics to emerge from this whole affair. Although it's way too early to call this a verified trend, StatCounter statistics show usage share of Internet Explorer 6 among European users spiked sharply higher, by better than three points, just since the official rollout date of the browser choice screen March 1. Amazingly, Internet Explorer 8 usage share spiked down to pre-February lows, while the uptick in Mozilla Firefox 3.6 adoption tapered off as well.

Source: StatCounter Global Stats - Browser Version Market Share

So much for the "Internet Explorer 6 death watch."

Assuming for the moment that this isn't a trend, what other regulatory agencies would be interested in compelling Microsoft to impose a choice screen in their regions, or in imposing restrictions forcing it to do so?

In much of the rest of the world, the heat of antitrust scrutiny against Microsoft has actually cooled, even below the typical "low boil" point. Although the new antitrust chief at the US Justice Dept., Christine Varney, was an outspoken critic of Microsoft's abuse of Netscape during her time as a corporate attorney, she has essentially sided with the 2008 viewpoint expressed by DOJ that Microsoft has turned a corner and is cooperating. Last December's Joint Status Report indicated that DOJ was happy with how Microsoft addressed the issue of giving Vista and XP users upgrading to IE8 the option of testing the browser before making it the default, or not making it the default at all.

The Status Report went on to dismiss many of the usual complaints against the company with the following language: "Since the prior full Status Report, filed on April 16, 2009, fifteen third-party complaints have been received by the United States. All of these complaints were non-substantive and did not raise any issues regarding Microsoft's compliance with, or the United States' enforcement of, the Final Judgment."

Last June, a district court in Seoul, South Korea, did find Microsoft guilty of charges dating back to 2001, brought forth by that country's Fair Trade Commission, that the company abused its market dominance by bundling Windows Media Player with Windows. But in an extremely unusual twist, the Seoul court overturned the lower court's 2005 judgment in favor of the original plaintiffs, two third-party producers of media players, stating in so doing that the bad fortune those companies encountered was not on account of Media Player. It chose to fine Microsoft instead, probably as a way of putting the whole matter of bundling behind it.

In September 2009, Russia's Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) dropped its antitrust investigation of Microsoft, which centered around charges that by discontinuing sales of Windows XP, it forced Russian consumers to purchase Vista. The statement FAS issued at the time said it found no evidence that Microsoft violated any laws.

With antitrust action in Japan cooling way below "simmer" and closer to "off," attention could turn to China, where the Maxthon browser is based. Maxthon has historically borrowed IE's browsing engine, but adopted the open source WebKit engine as an alternative with Version 3 last September. But last August, in an interview for China Times, Maxthon CEO Jeff Chen pointed to what he perceived as IE's already declining usage share in China, as an indication that the existing conditions there may already be making the browser market fairer.

"In China, the competition is more confined comparatively. We hope that browser developers in China can give user experience and technology improvements the highest priority, collaboratively advance relevant technologies, and facilitate Web site standardization," Chen told the reporter. "These will be instrumental to unifying the Internet industry in China with the rest of the world. The market share of IE is dropping rapidly in China. At this rate, a full-scale browser war could soon break out in China. We hope that developers would compete constructively and improve together for the benefit of users."

So while ECIS may be looking for an avenue for spreading the news, the demand for its product in foreign markets may actually have subsided.

Nokia launches Skype for Symbian^1, free 3G calls for 200 million users

Publié: mars 3, 2010, 4:32pm CET par Tim Conneally

It's been just over a year since Nokia first announced it would be bringing Skype to its top-of-the-line N-Series smartphones. Today Nokia announced the popular voice and text chat client is available on all Symbian^1-based devices, making free voice calls over 3G a possibility for some 200 million handsets.

The free Skype client can be downloaded from the Ovi Store. It lets users make free Skype-to-Skype calls; send and receive instant messages to and from individuals or groups; share pictures, videos and other files; receive calls through an online number; see when other Skype users are live and available; and import contacts from the native phone address book.

The initial list of compatible handsets includes: N97, N97 mini, X6, 5800 XpressMusic and 5530 in the all-touch form factor, and E72, E71, E90, E63, E66, E51, N96, N95, N95 8Gb, N85, N82, N81, N81 8 Gb, N79, N78, 6220 classic, 6210 Navigator, and 5320.

Since Skype effectively gives away for free what the telephone companies have long charged for, the technology for Skype on mobile devices is actually quite old. Skype co-founder Niklas Zennstrom said they intended to have the service on Nokia phones as far back as 2005, but mobile networks viewed Skype as a threat to their business model.

But now that mobile networks are making their slow upgrades to all-data networks, they're changing their tune. Last February 16, Verizon Wireless made the huge announcement that it will begin supporting free Skype calls over its 3G network, and it appears that things are changing dramatically for the popular soft phone and indeed for mobile VoIP as a whole.

Up Close with TiVo's new Bluetooth QWERTY remote

Publié: mars 3, 2010, 4:37am CET par Tim Conneally

TiVo QWERTY

Though the focus of tonight's TiVo unveiling was a new TiVo Premiere DVR, the company was especially proud of the upgrade to the remote control due out later this year. TiVo's new Bluetooth remote features a QWERTY keyboard to aid searching and finding content.

Shaped identically to the standard TiVo "peanut" remote, the new model slides horizontally to reveal a chiclet keyboard with a D-pad and a numeric keypad. This feature adds some girth to the usual remote's size and also contributes to a somewhat flimsy feel. This, however, could be due to the fact that all the remotes we handled were pre-production versions that looked to have been handled quite a bit. TiVo QWERTY remote

Since TiVo doesn't have Bluetooth radios built in, the remote comes with a USB dongle that is plugged into an available USB port on TiVo Series3, TiVo HD, or TiVo Premiere boxes.

Though D-Link's Boxee Box also has a full QWERTY keyboard on its remote, that particular device is otherwise very simple, with an iPod-like D-pad and a menu, enter, and play buttons. TiVo's new remote has just about 80 buttons in total.

The device is far from elegant, but its utility is hard to dispute. It clings very closely to TiVo's traditional design and users will no doubt feel quite at home using it.

TiVo details Premiere upgrade pricing for existing customers, and it's not bad

Publié: mars 3, 2010, 4:07am CET par Nate Mook

By Nate Mook, Betanews

TiVo Premiere Now that TiVo has unveiled its Series 4 platform of TiVo boxes, known as the Premiere and Premiere XL, the big question for existing users is: How do I upgrade? We cornered a few executives at the launch event in New York to get the answer. And no, your existing TiVo box will not receive the new user interface.

In short, there are two separate upgrade paths. One for lifetime subscription customers and another for customers wanting to pay monthly. Why two different approaches? TiVo says its because each customer has different priorities.

For existing TiVo customers wanting a lifetime subscription with the new box, they must pay full price for a TiVo Premiere or TiVo Premiere XL -- $299 and $499, respectively. However, they will receive $200 off the lifetime subscription price of the box, making it $299.

For those existing subscribers who want to upgrade but pay monthly, TiVo is offering a 20% discount on the Premiere or Premiere XL hardware. That lowers the price of the base model to $260. And if monthly customers keep their existing hardware active, they can benefit from the multi-service discount.

Notably missing this time around is an option for transferring an existing lifetime subscription to a new Premiere box, as you could when the Series 3 platform was launched. TiVo says it wants to start fresh, and the advantage is that existing customers can keep their current TiVos active.

TiVo says it will update its website soon with detailed information on the upgrade offers.

TiVo revamps its UI with new Premiere DVRs, fuses Web, music, movies, and TV

Publié: mars 3, 2010, 1:00am CET par Tim Conneally