Gregarius » BetaNews.Com » avril 21, 2010

BetaNews.Com (6 non lus)

Latest ACTA draft finally released, ISP 'safe harbor' limitations considered

Publié: avril 21, 2010, 10:02pm CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

As promised, the world's trade negotiators have finally released a public and, to a limited extent, redacted version of the current draft document for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Releasing a draft of a global trade agreement is actually unprecedented, say many diplomats.
Though the authors of certain passages under consideration -- many of them marked by [square brackets] -- have been redacted from public view, it's clear that new legal limitations on an Internet service provider's ability to claim "safe harbor," excusing it from secondary liability for copyright (or patent) infringement, are being considered. That option is believed to have been proposed by the United States delegation, as indicated by a leaked document from the European Union (PDF available here from Wired). However, another option that would not limit ISP safe harbor provisions, is listed in the draft document under equal consideration.
The first option under consideration for Section 4, Article 2.18, paragraph 3 (actually a pair of options, the second contingent upon the first) defines the limitation of liability for an ISP that, by definition, doesn't alter the content of the information it provides to subscribers on behalf of other services. Note that sections in [square brackets] are proposed text, some of which may appear next to other proposed text set off in the same way. References to footnotes here have been removed.
Option 1
[ 3. Each Party recognizes that some persons use the services of third parties, including online service providers,...for engaging in [ patent, industrial design and trademark,] copyright or related rights infringement. Each Party also recognizes that legal uncertainty with respect to application of copyright and related rights, limitations, exceptions, and defenses in the digital environment may present barriers to the economic growth of, and opportunities in, electronic commerce.] Accordingly, in order to facilitate the continued development of an industry engaged in providing information services online while also ensuring that measures to take adequate and effective action against copyright or related rights infringement are available and reasonable each Party [shall][ may]:
(a) provide limitations on the scope of civil remedies available against an online service provider for infringing activities that occur by
(i) automatic technical processes, and
(ii) the actions of the provider's users that are not directed or initiated by that provider and when the provider does not select the material, and
(iii) the provider referring or linking users to an online location, when, in cases of subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), the provider does not have actual knowledge of the infringement and is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; and ]
Option 2
[Each Party recognizes that some persons use the services of third parties, including online service providers,...for engaging in intellectual property rights infringements.
(a) In this respect, each Party shall provide limitation on the [liability of] [scope of civil remedies available against an] on-line service provider[s] for infringing activities that occur by
(i) automatic technical processes [ that keep the provider from taking measures to prevent the infringement], or
(ii) the actions of the provider´s users that are not initiated nor modified by that provided and when the provider does not select the material or
(iii) the storage of information provided by the recipient of the service or at the request of the recipient of the service,
when exercising the activities as stipulated in paragraph 3(a)(ii) and/or (iii) the online service providers act [takes appropriate measures] expeditiously, in accordance with applicable law [s], [such as those] to remove or disable access to infringing material or infringing activity upon obtaining actual knowledge of the infringement [or the fact that the information at the initial source has been removed or disabled.] [or having reasonable grounds to know that the infringement is occurring]]
There's a preamble of sorts here that says, of course, we recognize that ISPs are legitimate businesses and we all want them to prosper. To that end, we're bound to disagree on the meanings of certain terms and legal minutiae, especially as the Internet continues to evolve. Nevertheless, we should set forth here and now to resolve that an ISP's liability -- given that it's likely to be innocent anyway -- should be limited when all it does is provide the pipeline. One of the proposed footnotes (not yet adopted) would stipulate that an online service provider by definition provides only access to content without modifying it (and if it does something differently, then it's not an ISP or "OSP" by that same definition).
Option 2 above would have the more forgiving portions of that language kick in only if the ISP published policies prohibiting the use of the service for piracy or copyright infringement, and if it also took pro-active steps to block access to infringing material once the ISP learned it was available. Exactly how it would take such steps is unspecified by this particular optional passage, although one can imagine blocking access to a Web site, or even restricting the use of -- or throttling the capabilities of -- an Internet application, as one acceptable possibility.
Another optional passage immediately following, which would become subparagraph (b) if adopted, is clearer as to what pro-active measures would be acceptable. To recap, "in order to facilitate the continued development of an industry...each Party [shall][ may]:"
Option 1
(b) condition the application of the provisions of subparagraph (a) on meeting the following requirements:
(i) an online service provider adopting and reasonably implementing a policy...to address the unauthorized storage or transmission of materials protected by copyright or related rights [except that no Party may condition the limitations in subparagraph (a) on the online service provider's monitoring its services or affirmatively seeking facts indicating that infringing activity is occurring]; and
(ii) an online service provider expeditiously removing or disabling access to material or [activity][alleged infringement], upon receipt [of legally sufficient notice of alleged infringement,][of an order from a competent authority] and in the absence of a legally sufficient response from the relevant subscriber of the online service provider indicating that the notice was the result of mistake or misidentification.
except that the provisions of (ii) shall not be applied to the extent that the online service provider is acting solely as a conduit for transmissions through its system or network.]
It's a confusing section, especially since it would appear to directly contradict the section that came before it...but that's not unprecedented in a trade agreement at all. The original proposition here appears to stipulate that ISPs should adopt policies to prevent infringing content from being transmitted. Further, if it receives an order related to the availability of that content (maybe from a judge, maybe not from a judge) then it should act. Now, it may be up to nations to determine what "act" means; and perhaps it does not mean changing the definition of ISP (or "OSP") to the extent that it stops "acting solely as a conduit" and becomes a filtering system.
Evidently, there's an ongoing argument over this problem: When does an ISP stop being a conduit and start becoming the content police? If, by definition, it is unaware of what's going on inside the conduit, then some argue it should remain innocent. That innocence can then be broken, say the authors of the above option, if they receive a certified letter from an attorney saying there's theft, theft!, going on inside that conduit. At that point, if the ISP does nothing, then it's aiding and abetting that theft.
As today's newly released old text indicates, this is a very old argument that is nowhere close to being resolved. In a statement this afternoon, European Union Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht celebrated the fact that this dispute is now public. "I am very glad that the EU convinced its partners to release the negotiation text. The text makes clear what ACTA is really about: It will provide our industry and creators with better protection in overseas markets which is essential for business to thrive. It will not have a negative impact on European citizens."
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Will iPad cannibalize Mac sales?

Publié: avril 21, 2010, 8:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

Clearly Apple is preparing for such a circumstance, or that's my interpretation of last night's fiscal 2010 second quarter earnings call. The question isn't if iPad will cannibalize Mac sales but when. If the cannibals are coming, they'll first strike during back-to-school buying season.
Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer tipped off the company's thinking early in the conference call: "We expect gross margins to be about 36 percent down from 41.7 percent in the March quarter and reflecting approximately $36 million related to stock based compensation expense. We expect about 25 percent of the sequential gross margin decline to be driven by the first quarter of iPad sales." Whoa, one-quarter?
"As we said in January when we announced the iPad we have been very aggressive with pricing and are delivering tremendous value to customers," Oppenheimer asserted. "We think the market for the iPad will be large, and we want to capitalize on our first-mover advantage."
There are two intertwined issues related to Oppenheimer's statements: Mac cannibalization and margins. I'll start with margins. Whenever Apple launches a new product, the company absorbs additional upfront costs. Apple secrecy means that CEO Steve Jobs announces his "one more thing" product on Day X but availability is Weeks Y or Months Z later. Manufacturing ramps up in earnest after the product announcement, which is atypical of most industries. To get the product from Asia to Western retail, Apple typically absorbs higher upfront airfreight costs.
This dynamic is one reason why purchasers of new "one more thing" products pay more upfront. Their privilege of being among the first buyers helps to soften the blow Apple's cockeyed manufacturing and distribution system places on margins. This process is underway now in the United States, and Apple will repeat it in nine additional countries next month.
Margins Teardown
Based on various iPad teardowns, the tablet's base hardware cost ranges from $230 to $300. The teardown by iSuppli puts the $499 iPad product cost around $260 and $348.10 for the $699 model (both are WiFi; 3G models ship next week in the United States). By comparison, Apple makes oodles more on iPhone. Right after iPhone 3GS launched, iSuppli put component cost at around $179. While consumers pay $199 for the smartphone, carrier AT&T subsidizes what Apple charges, which is in the $500-$600 range (ASP is $600, according to Apple, which includes 32GB model). Additionally, falling component prices and economies of scale should put Apple's iPhone 3GS margins much higher today than June 2009.
Like iPhone and Mac products, Apple's base profit for iPad is pretty good. However, the aforementioned higher initial manufacturing and distribution costs sap profits by as much as half (based on my guesstimates). Assuming Oppenheimer is right about iPad demand, greater upfront sales volume would further sap margins, since Apple would pay more to get the product to market before achieving benefits from economies of scale. Higher sales volume would mean lower margins and a lowering of broder Apple margins.
During yesterday's Apple conference call, Sanford Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi put startling perspective on Apple's falling margin guidance and iPad's contribution to it:
Let me just switch to one other topic if I may and Peter I think this is probably for you. Bear with me, I'm gonna, I'm gonna just plug through some numbers. You said gross margin is going to decline 600 basis points sequentially in the quarter that would be due to the iPad. So that is 150 basis point negative impact from the iPad.
If you assume the iPad is 10 points lower gross margin than the company average which is way, way lower than most, you know, third-party tear-down services which it would suggest it basically means for that contribution to be true for your guidance iPad would need to be 15 percent of your revenue or $2 billion. So either iPad is gonna be more than $2 billion in terms of revenue per your guidance for next quarter and have a gross margin that is less than 10 points less than the company average or the gross margins of the iPad are more than 10 points lower than the company average.
Apple COO Timothy Cook partly dodged, party answered the question, nearly repeating what Oppenheimer said earlier in the call:
I would point out that when we priced iPad we priced it very aggressively in order to deliver tremendous value to our customers. We think the market size for the iPad is very large, and we want to capitalize on our first mover advantage. So, as we have done in other products, although I am not forecasting it, you can see that we have a good track record of writing down the cost curves with value engineering and volume manufacturing or at least that's certainly been our experience with other products.
For iPad to reach 15 percent of revenue, Apple would have to ship 3.3 million units at an average selling price of $600 or 4 million at $500 ASP. The impact on margins would be colossal. But the margin pulldown could be just as strong if Apple shipped 1-2 million iPads, in process cannibalizing some Mac sales.
Wading the Price Gap
Until iPad, Apple computer selling prices were quite high, with the $999 white Macbook being entry point for most people to join the elite -- some might say elitist -- Mac club. In February, I reported that "Nine out of 10 premium PCs sold at retail is a Mac." Apple sells high and also reaps some of the highest margins in the tech industry. The Mac tablet changes the dynamic. Now, suddenly, the cheapest, functional Mac you can buy is $499, filling a hole between $399 and $999.
As I explained in a separate late-January post, "iPad fills a gaping hole in the Mac product line between the aforementioned $399 and $999." Various iPad models sell between $429 and $829. "Apple now offers portable computers -- and that's how I classify iPhone, iPod touch and iPad along with Macs -- ranging from $99 to $2,499. From a pricing strategy perspective, iPad is a brilliant product, because it fills the gap between iPhone/iPod touch and Macbook without price cuts or risk to the Mac's premium brand status."
But there is risk to Mac sales, which would be greater during back-to-school buying season than any other time of year. Suddenly the cheapest Mac that schools can buy costs $499, too. Particularly for K-12 institutions, iPad could be a viable alternative to MacBook, particularly with budgets crimped by the lingering effects of recession on the tax base. Back-to-school buying season would also be the test of iPad's sales mettle, whether or not the product can succeed or will be doomed to ruin like the Power Mac G4 Cube. Low back-to-school iPad sales would perhaps be worse than many.
There are positive benefits to consider, as well -- schools that: might not buy any Apple product this year, otherwise would purchase Windows PCs or would swap out Macs for Windows computers; because of price. Now they could buy iPad. By whatever measure of increasing sales -- higher in general or cannibalizing Mac sales -- iPad would crimp Apple margins.
Yesterday, RBC Capital Markets analyst Mike Abramsky asked the obvious question: "Just wondering why you didn't see, or whether you expect any touch cannibalization from the iPad and what is your sense or do you think iPad is cannibalizing maybe competitive netbooks?"
Cook responded:
I can only tell you in the quarter we finished, Q2 that we finished in March. Although we announced the iPad in January there was nothing obvious in the iPod numbers or the Mac numbers to suggest cannibalization. There is an obvious difference announcing and people know it is coming and it is starting to sell. So that part of the equation we don't know yet. We will find out. We are thrilled with how the iPad is selling and the enormous response that we have received. We also announced new MacBook Pros that you probably saw last week and the whole line change. So we are also happy about how the Mac business is positioned and the level of product innovation in those notebooks. It is enormous. It is taking battery life up to 10 hours. That is absolutely amazing.
That's executive-speak for: "Yeah, we think so but aren't sure and so don't want to say for fear of causing a run on Apple shares." On the one hand, Cook lets be the possibility of cannibalization, while at the same time emphasizing newly upgraded MacBook Pros. The response is oh-so media-trained executive deflection. Media professionals teach executives at companies like Apple to deflect tough questions by ignoring them and shifting focus to strengths.
Of course, Apple executives expect at least some cannibalization of Macs by iPad. Apple's iPad pricing tells the story -- the aforementioned filling the pricing gap between $399 and $999. Then there is the guidance about margins declines to consider. Cannibalization is inevitable. The questions are: "When?" and "By how much?" Will there be a big surge of iPad orders during back-to-school season or will the lower pricing release pent-up sales among consumers pining for a Mac but unwilling or unable to spend $999? Or both?
[Editor's Note: I initially used quotes provided courtesy of Seeking Alpha but corrected them after re-listening to Apple's FY 2010 Q2 conference call.]
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Adobe gives up on Flash for iPhone and iPad, but leaves the door open

Publié: avril 21, 2010, 5:14pm CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

In an indirect yet obvious way, Section 3.3.1 of Apple's new iPhone developers' agreement binds developers to a promise that whatever they bring to the iPhone will be created exclusively for the iPhone. It effectively bans the use of cross-platform tools or middleware like Adobe Flash, by saying anything Apple approves must be coded in the company's own Objective-C, or in C or C++.
If Adobe were to have proceeded with its previous plans to forge an official, working Flash platform for iPhone, that would have been the defiant move. Instead, Mike Chambers, the company's product manager for Adobe Integrated Runtime (AIR), found himself yesterday afternoon sounding the retreat.
"We will still be shipping the ability to target the iPhone and iPad in Flash CS5," Chambers wrote. "However, we are not currently planning any additional investments in that feature."
It isn't clear to anyone, including Chambers, exactly how Apple will be able to enforce its provisions. The two possibilities are very strict policing of each and every one of its thousands of incoming App Store entries, or selective rejections that are intended to send a very clear message (similar to the record industry's former strategy of selectively prosecuting file sharers). But as Chambers said yesterday, if Apple were to be selective, the selections that would send the clearest message would more likely concern Flash than Titanium, MonoTouch, or Unity.
Adobe won't stop developers from using the tools the company already baked into its Creative Suite 5, for targeting the iPhone if they so choose, Chambers said. He just warned that if they do so, Apple may make their lives difficult. He said that personally, he'll devote the attention he would have paid to iPhone to the Android platform instead, inviting fellow Flash developers to follow suit.
To that end, in an interview with Fox Business last week, Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen said Flash development for smartphones has reached the point where the latest versions may be released "in the second half of the year." Narayen made clear it won't be Adobe doing the releasing, but rather the companies that handle their respective platforms -- specifically Google, RIM, and Palm.
Apple's insistence on restricting development to its own tools and to an absence of middleware could have a detrimental effect on the quality of the iPhone platform over time. First, middleware such as Unity made it feasible for smaller development shops to get a handle on iPhone OS -- whether they were developing cross-platform or not -- engaged and excited an entire realm of developers who felt they could exploit the power of the platform using tools they could manage.
Unity is perhaps the most popular cross-platform game development tool that supports the iPhone platform. Like MonoTouch, its scripting engine is Mono, the open source work-alike for the .NET Framework funded by Novell. Although that scripting is essentially C#, the object-oriented C created by Microsoft (Objective-C is the object-oriented C originally conceived for the NeXT platform, brought to Apple when it reacquired Steve Jobs' services in 1996), the tools built by Unity around that platform are much more intuitive, and the language as a whole is both more popular and more widely taught. At the time of the iPhone's unveiling, the TIOBE Programming Community Index ranked Objective-C the #38 most popular language in the world, actually declining to #42 by April 2009. Today, Objective-C has risen all the way to #11, though C# (#6 and climbing) picks up new converts at about the same pace.
Objective-C's converts have apparently come rather suddenly, probably in anticipation of Apple shutting the door on approvals for apps built using other tools.
Second, Apple's move forces a decision among professional apps developers and service providers: Should they risk everything on one platform, even if it's a successful one?
That's not a decision that developers enjoy making. As Microsoft Chief Software Designer Ray Ozzie told reporters last November, from his discussions with mobile developers, he saw apps companies preferring to leverage as many platforms as they could, in order to justify the development costs they were putting in. Using widely accepted cross-platform tools helps lower those costs; using a tool that targets just one platform, and that requires specialization, raises those costs and thus reduces margins.
Ozzie foresaw a time when "app phones," as he called them (iPhone being one) were known not just for what features they contained, but what popular apps they were capable of running. And to be a popular app, you need to be available more than one place. (It's notable that Robbie Bach wasn't in the room to hear this at the time.) "If there's a market there, all the apps that count will be ported. Every app that matters will be ported to every one of them, because if there's a set of users and it costs $50,000 of consulting time to have somebody port a little app, it's going to get ported," Ozzie said. "So I just don't think there's going to be significant differentiation at the app level."
Apple's move disallows differentiation at the app level, at least on paper. But that's only if it enforces that differentiation. In a discussion among Unity developers today, developers there are hopeful that as long as their toolset can be used to produce binary code that can then be compiled by Apple's Xcode -- its prescribed iPhone OS developers' toolkit -- they will still be able to use libraries such as Unity iPhone 1.7 -- released just days ago -- to create their products.
The hope here among Unity developers is that Apple's only grievance is with the existence of middleware or JIT compilers or interpreters on its platform, which would enable developers to bypass its strictly regulated deployment channel. That hope could have been brightened last week by the announcement from the makers of PhoneGap, an iPhone app development tool that doesn't use Objective-C, but rather enables apps to be built using common Web app languages such as JavaScript and CSS. Last Wednesday, PhoneGap announced it had communicated directly with Apple, and that it was told its tools were not in violation of Section 3.3.1.
In comments for that announcement yesterday, however, one independent Web developer whose profile lists cross-platform work, including .NET, advised PhoneGap developers to adhere to the spirit of Section 3.3.1 anyway. "Apple has strict iPhone / iPad Design Guidelines and you should follow [them] as much as you can," he wrote. "Don't do just 'porting,' that's why this Apple vs. Flash fight started and as you can see, Apple is winning! Rethink your app for the Apple devices if you can."
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Twelve billion iBalls fall into Gizmodo's lap

Publié: avril 21, 2010, 1:21am CEST par Carmi Levy

By Carmi Levy, Betanews

What's a mobile device prototype worth?
Depends on who you are. If you're Apple, it's priceless. When you tightly control every aspect of the product development process, anything that subverts the message is a potential risk to the brand. Loss of control to a company like Apple is unthinkable. If you're Gizmodo, the answer is $5,000 -- which is the amount the tech blog reportedly paid to an unnamed individual who supposedly found the prototype of Apple's upcoming fourth-generation iPhone in a California bar.
In return for taking the super-secret device public and outing the poor Apple engineer, Gray Powell, who left the device in a bar in the first place, Gizmodo cashed in on an audience bonanza. For better or for worse, online readers are hungry for news about anything remotely connected to Apple. So a full-on overview of an inadvertently leaked next-generation device would be more than enough to whip the masses into a frenzy.
But at what cost? The mysterious individual who apparently picked up the forgotten device at the bar made some excuse about trying to return it to Apple. According to Gizmodo, he called Apple, was given a ticket number, and after being handed off between folks who seemingly didn't take him seriously, was never contacted again. After living in limbo for weeks, the device ended up in Gizmodo's hands.
A lucrative payday
The payoff for all this was lots of eyeballs. And in a world where audience size correlates directly to advertising revenue, this episode has doubtless added a nice bump to Gizmodo's bottom line. As a journalist whose work is often compensated based on audience size, I understand the flurry of possibilities that flowed through the minds of the folks at Gizmodo. You can do the right thing, or you can do the profitable thing. But if the two are mutually exclusive, doing the right thing too often will have you eating ramen noodles while your less morally-upright competition enjoys steak.
I guess it all comes down to honesty. Mysterious bar dude took a device he knew wasn't his, and after a cursory attempt to reunite it with its owner -- and a few weeks of apparent soul searching -- decided to cash in on the unit's obvious market value. Gizmodo bought the device under not entirely legitimate circumstances (did the seller provide a receipt?) with the full knowledge that it was sitting on a potential media frenzy time bomb.
I don't want to sound too much like a doting grandparent, but what we have here is little more than opportunistic theft.
Sure, no one picked the iPhone out of Mr. Powell's pocket. After enjoying some German beer, he updated his Facebook status to that extent, and did a fine job leaving it behind when he headed home. We've all been there before, and in most cases I'd like to believe that the Good Samaritans around us would more often than not choose to ensure said unattended device found its way back to its rightful owner.
But in this case, no one returned it. Along the way, the device was cracked open, sold, and photographed for all the world to see. Some unidentified guy made $5,000 selling something that was not his to sell. A reputable tech blog willingly spent $5,000 on a device whose proper ownership could not be clearly established. While Apple has asked for the device to be returned and Gizmodo has wisely agreed to do just that, the damage has already been done, both to a device that likely isn't as factory-fresh as it was when Mr. Powell last updated his Facebook status, and to the fortunes of a company whose marketing plan for its next major product release has just been turned inside-out.
Gizmodo and its advertisers have clearly had a great week because of all the attention surrounding this surreptitious "reveal," but one wonders whether the long-term impact will make us all feel a little dirty. We are, after all, the reason online and conventional publications go to such great lengths to get the scoop and share the news before everyone else. Winners profit and losers disappear...a process that's been playing out in media since long before the Internet became a factor.
A blog too far
But lines are crossed when money changes hands for goods that may or may not have been either stolen or, at best, obtained under questionable circumstances. It opens up the door to further escalations in the gotta-publish-it-now arms race that seemingly drives today's tech blogosphere. What's next? Will wannabe-scoopsters stake out every bar within a 30-mile radius of Apple's Cupertino headquarters in the hopes of scamming other less-than-security-conscious employees out of their under-development handsets? Will vendors start attaching small incendiary devices that automatically ignite if the individual responsible for their care and feeding drifts further than six feet away? The possibilities are endless, and more than a little frightening, but it's clear that Apple's already-near-maniacal security processes, including chaining devices to desks and keeping engineers in windowless rooms, are about to go into a higher state of overdrive.
So where does Apple go from here? Its stock price took a bit of a hit in the immediate aftermath, but will likely not suffer any permanent damage. And although it's pretty apparent now what the iPhone 4G will be, the market for this device probably hasn't changed much. Okay, maybe it's grown a whisker or too, but for the most part, buyers won't care one way or another that some fairly final product details were leaked a bit early. The ultimate market for this device won't shrink because of this affair.
As far as Mr. Powell is concerned, one hopes he's not unduly punished for his role in this. He made a mistake, but in a world full of nicer people, that mistake might not have led to Gizmodo getting its hands on it. For all Apple's inconvenience, it should thank its forgetful engineer for laying the groundwork for yet another spontaneous round of viral media coverage.
Meanwhile, in an interview today with Nick Denton, the publisher of Gizmodo's parent company Gawker Media, for the Village Voice, the blogger -- who formerly wrote for Gizmodo -- asked Denton whether the scruples of any other publication, such as The New York Times, would have stopped it from running the same story. "Is there a bigger scoop in technology journalism?" Denton responded. "Any decent journalist ought to be willing to sell their mother for a story like this." When pressed about whether he'd sell his own mom, he then added, "My mother's dead." She certainly is.
We're all left to wonder if our demand for instant knowledge of tomorrow's must-have products is forcing some people to play fast and loose with the basic rules of honesty and community.
Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Firefox starts reining in Flash, Silverlight, QuickTime

Publié: avril 21, 2010, 12:40am CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

Download Mozilla Firefox 3.6.4 public beta for Windows from Fileforum now.
Starting today, an ambitious project from the Mozilla Foundation called "Lorentz" makes its first public, experimental debut, with the release of a public beta of Firefox 3.6.4. Mozilla doesn't often promote a public beta of a point release, but this time, the organization needs data from the field regarding the stability of a critical new feature that could help it regain lost traction against competitors Google, Opera, and Apple.
The one major problem with the Mozilla Firefox Web browser -- what makes users, including myself, keep an eye on the competition for a better alternative -- is how often it crashes. According to Mozilla's live statistics, the latest stable version 3.6.3 crashed at least once for every two active users whose browsers reported their telemetry to Mozilla's servers by default, on April 5 and again on April 11.
Judging from the signature data delivered to Mozilla's servers by its crash reporter system, in recent months, most of those crashes have actually been triggered by plug-ins. For instance, engineers believe as many as half the crashes over the last four weeks that were responsible for 189,762 crashes (as of the time of this writing Tuesday afternoon) may have been caused by a non-updated version of Adobe Reader or Acrobat. Some 90,134 crashes (about 2.7% of the total) are caused by Skype. In previous months, Adobe Flash has tallied as much as 25% of live reported crashes.
The Lorentz project is step two in Mozilla's bid to remodel Firefox architecture to take better control of its plug-ins. Step one came last November, with the introduction of Firefox 3.6 and its hardening of policies with regard to running just any binary component. With Firefox 3.6.4, Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, and Microsoft Silverlight -- three of the most used plug-ins in the browser user's arsenal -- will be run as protected processes. When they crash, they should no longer bring down Firefox with them.
"This version of Firefox will offer uninterrupted browsing for Windows and Linux users when there is a crash in the Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, or Microsoft Silverlight plugins," writes Firefox product director Mike Beltzner this afternoon. "If a crash in one of these plugins happens, Firefox will continue to run and users will be able to submit a crash report before reloading the page to try again."
The first, very early, Betanews tests on the new public beta were...well, inconclusive, at least at the moment. We tried several Silverlight pages that we knew were old, and that caused problems with more recent versions in the past. But with the new Silverlight 4, the runtime's own process control kicks in, evidently precluding situations which used to cause the browser to crash. As we get more time to test, we'll let you know what we find.
A quick check this afternoon of the latest crash reports from Mozilla show that nearly half of the crashes reported by testers of version 3.6.4 (including daily alpha builds) over the past week, come not from a plug-in but from a Windows kernel call related to multithreading. That could be the first big sign of real improvement to Firefox...something the browser sorely needs.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Apple Q2 2010 by the numbers: Best non-holiday quarter ever

Publié: avril 21, 2010, 12:20am CEST par Joe Wilcox
By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

Can nothing stop Apple?
The Cupertino, Calif.-based company's quarterly earnings again rose high above Wall Street consensus, which already was $600 million to $1 billion above guidance. Today, after the bell, Apple reported $13.5 billion revenue and net profits of $3.07 billion, or $3.33 a share, under the new reporting method implemented last quarter. A year earlier, Apple reported revenue of $9.08 billion and $1.62 billion net quarterly profit, or $1.79 per share. Fiscal 2010 second quarter ended March 27, 2010.
Three months ago, Apple forecast revenue between $11 billion and $11.4 billion, with earnings per share ranging between $2.06 and $2.18. Analyst estimates were much higher than Apple guidance: $12.04 billion average revenue consensus and $2.45 earnings per share. Apple blew past the Street. Again.
In a statement, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said: "We're thrilled to report our best non-holiday quarter ever, with revenues up 49 percent and profits up 90 percent."
For fiscal 2010 third quarter, Apple forecasts between $13 billion and $13.4 billion in revenue, with earnings per share ranging between $2.28 and $2.39. Gross margins are projected to be 36 percent, a substantial decline. Apple expects sales of iPad to account for about 25 percent of the gross margins decline. "Customers are loving the iPad," Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer said during a conference call late this afternoon. Apple expects to have iPad in nine countries by end of May.
Tim Cook, Apple's COO, responded to analyst concerns that either iPad volumes would be higher than expected or margins substantially less than projected. "We priced it very aggressively," he said. "We think the market size of the iPad is very large, and we want to capitalize on our first-mover advantage."
My interpretation: Apple could be anticipating that iPad will cannibalize some Mac sales and/or high iPad sales volume during the back-to-school buying season. "There was nothing obvious in the iPod numbers or the Mac numbers to suggest cannibalization," Cook said. However, he observed that iPad's announcement in January may not have affected sales the way the released product might. "That part of the equation, we don't know yet."
Q2 2010 Revenue by Product
- Desktop: $1.53 billion, up 45 percent from $1.06 billion a year earlier.
- Portables: $2.23 billion, up 17 percent from $1.8 billion a year earlier.
- iPod: $1.86 billion, up 12 percent from $1.67 billion a year earlier.
- Music: $1.33 billion, up 27 percent from $1.05 billion a year earlier.
- iPhone: $5.5 billion, up 124 percent from $2.43 billion a year earlier.
- Peripherals: $472 million, up 32 percent from $357 million a year earlier.
- Software & Services: $634 million, up 1 percent from $626 million a year earlier.
Apple shipped 2.94 million Macs during the quarter, for 33 percent year-over-year growth. Wall Street consensus was around 2.7 million.
While Apple posted strong year-over-year results, units and revenue sequentially declined in nearly every segment -- not surprising given the holiday quarter's strong sales. However, Oppenheimer said sequential declines were smaller than is typical.
Apple's gross margin was 41.7 percent, up from 39.9 percent a year earlier. International sales accounted for a stunning 58 percent of revenue. Apple ended the quarter with $41.7 billion in cash, up from $39.8 billion three months earlier. Priority for cash is "preservation of capital," Oppenheimer told financial analysts today.
Q2 2010 Unit Shipments by Product
- Desktop: 1.15 million units, up 40 percent from 818,000 units a year earlier.
- Portables: 1.8 million units, up 28 percent from 1.4 million units a year earlier.
- iPod: 10.9 million units, down 1 percent from 11 million units a year earlier.
- iPhone: 8.75 million units, up 131 percent from 3.8 million units a year earlier.
iPhone. Apple shipped -- what company executives really mean by sold -- 8.75 million iPhones worldwide during fiscal second quarter. A year earlier, Apple shipped 3.8 million iPhones. Apple shipments into the channel are usually several million units higher than numbers released by Gartner, which measures actual sales. During the quarter, iPhone was available from 151 carriers in 88 countries.
Wall Street analyst estimates ranged from about 6 million to nearly 9 million units. Revenue rose 124 percent year over year, giving the biggest boost to Apple's quarter. The smartphone and supporting services accounted for about 41 percent of total Apple revenue.
Computers. Apple shipped 2.94 million Macs during the quarter, up from 2.6 million units a year earlier. Wall Street consensus ranged from about 2.78 million to 3.4 million shipments worldwide, with consensus around 2.7 million. Oppenheimer said Apple ended the quarter with about three-to-four weeks of inventory in the channel.
Last week, Gartner and IDC released preliminary first calendar quarter PC shipment data. In the United States, Apple shipped 1.4 million computers, for 34 percent year-over-year growth, according to Gartner. However, IDC put Apple shipments lower, at 1.1 million, with growth a much lower 8.3 percent.
Q2 2010 Revenue by Geography
- Americas: $5 billion, up 26 percent from $3.9 billion a year earlier.
- Europe: $4.05 billion, up 63 percent from $2.5 billion a year earlier.
- Japan: $887 million, up 51 percent from $587 million a year earlier.
- Asia Pacific: $1.89 billion, up 184 percent from $665 million a year earlier.
- Retail: $1.7 billion, up 22 percent from $1.4 billion a year earlier.
Apple ranked fifth in the United States, falling yet another place, with 8 percent market share, down 7.2 percent year over year, according to Gartner. But IDC reported that Apple's market share declined to 6.4 percent, from 7.2 percent. Just two years ago, Apple had risen to third place in US PC shipments. However, despite all the hoopla about increasing Mac sales, Apple US ranking declined, with risk the company might fall back out of the top five in some future quarter.
Gartner and IDC won't tabulate Apple's worldwide ranking until the final figures are released, and generally the information is not publicly available. But the last time I could get data, Q3 2009, Apple ranked No. 7 in worldwide PC market share, according to IDC.
iPod. Apple shipped 10.9 million iPods during fiscal second quarter, down from 11 million a year earlier. Analyst consensus for Q2 was around 9.4 million units. While units declined, revenue rose 12 percent from a year earlier. Oppenheimer described iPod growth as the strongest in two years. Apple ended the quarter with about four-to-six weeks of inventory, on par with projections. The iTunes Store ended the quarter with a library of 12 million songs.
Q2 2010 Unit Shipments by Geography
- Americas: 971,000 units, up 20 percent from 809,000 units a year earlier.
- Europe: 899,000 units, up 37 percent from 658,000 units a year earlier.
- Japan: 129,000 units, up 18 percent from 109,000 units a year earlier.
- Asia Pacific: 338,000 units, up 67 percent from 202,000 units a year earlier.
- Retail: 606,000 units, up 38 percent from 438,000 units a year earlier.
Retail. Revenue rose 22 percent year over year, with Apple retail stores selling 606,000 units, compared to 434,000 a year earlier. Apple opened three new stores in the quarter, for a total of 286 retail outlets worldwide. There was an average 284 stores open in the quarter, with average revenue of $5.9 million compared to $5.5 million a year earlier. Sales rose by average 8 percent per store. Apple retail stores had 47 million visitors during the quarter up 20 percent from 39.1 million a year earlier. Apple expects to open 40-50 new stores during fiscal 2010.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010