Gregarius » BetaNews.Com » décembre 27, 2010

BetaNews.Com (4 non lus)

Samsung to release iPod touch competitor at CES 2011

Publié: décembre 27, 2010, 11:53pm CET par Ed Oswald

By Ed Oswald, Betanews

Attempting to more completely take on Apple, Samsung on Monday said that it planned to release the Galaxy Player. The touch screen device would essentially be like its Galaxy S smartphone without the cellular capability: just like the difference between the iPhone and the iPod touch.
8, 16, and 32GB versions of the device would be made available, which would run on Android 2.2 "Froyo." The form factor would follow one similar to the iPod touch, and include a 4-inch LCD screen, Bluetooth capability, and front and rear facing cameras.
The release of the Galaxy Player has been confirmed to come during CES 2011, enthusiast blog Samsung Hub reports. Samsung did not specify a retail release date.
Samsung's success with its Galaxy Tab tablet -- the only device in the category other than Apple's iPad to sell in considerable numbers -- may be fueling its desire to take on the Cupertino company on yet another front. That said, no company has yet been able to make a serious dent in its dominance of the digital music industry.
It won't be easy for Samsung: the company has only dabbled in music devices, and it lacks an integrated solution a la iTunes and the iPod. Several other companies, most notably Sony, Creative and Microsoft, have tried to compete with Apple but none have managed to make a dent in one of Cupertino's key businesses.
As well as being the debut of the Galaxy Player, Samsung also plans to show two other Android powered portable music devices: the YP-G50 and the YP-GB70.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
2011: Time for tech enthusiasts to act more charitably

Publié: décembre 27, 2010, 10:05pm CET

By Dave Nickason

I wish technology enthusiasts could focus more on the good that can be done for people and communities and less on whether their phone matches their shoes or who uses what product. Fanboyism is out of control and detracts from things that are more important.
Microsoft doesn't suck, and neither does Apple, Google or any other company with high revenue and long-term success. If someone writes an even slightly pro-Apple article, the Microsoft fanboys go crazy, and vice versa. These companies are all successful, and their products sell well. Shouldn't we all focus on something else?
Somehow in technology, we've reached the point of religious war, where the fans of Company A not only buy their products with enthusiasm, but put hours into finding ways to disparage the products of Company B, and reviling anyone who would even consider buying one. If you love Toyota but your neighbor buys a Honda, you don't set their house on fire or move away. So why is there so much anger vented toward someone who likes an iPod, while you prefer Zune?
It seems that authors avoid these wars better than the commenters, but when someone writes an article praising a product, it's boring and pointless to read a dozen comments calling the author a fanboy or worse.
Tech bloggers and reviewers are a separate problem. When seeking information about a product, I want to read primarily about that product and less about the competition. Some authors can only write about one product by comparing it to another. Someone will write an article about an Android phone that reads like it was written by Apple CEO Steve Jobs -- Android sucks because iPhone does this, this and that.
When I read about a product from a major manufacturer, I assume people will buy that product, and I'm not interested in an article that's nothing more than unflattering comparisons to other products. I want to read about the product being written about, not every competing product with the implication that something else is better. It's not a zero-sum game where in order for one thing to be good, something else has to be bad.
There's a real lack of charity expressed by commenters or writers, either toward one another or to other products. Likewise, why must everyone obsess about the tiniest product details and chase every rumor. Tech publications, blogs and their readers focus too much on the latest and greatest -- hardware, features, convenience, etc. -- but with little mention of how technology can actually make the world a better place for humanity.
Another kind of charity is missing, of using all this great technology enthusiasts rave about to help others. It's something to think about as the new year approaches and people make resolutions for 2011.
Of all the tech happenings in 2010, the one I remember most is not whose phone OS does copy and paste and whose does not. It's that as of last month, World Community Grid volunteers have donated over 400,000 years of computing time to research on problems like childhood cancer and AIDS -- and that's not a typo. It's a bunch of geeks donating some spare computing resources to doing good work for the benefit of others.
Charity should be everyone's resolution for 2011 -- how we treat each other as tech enthusiasts and how we use technology to make the lives of every one of the world's 7 billion people a little better.
Dave Nickason is responsible for IT -- among other functions -- for a 22-employee law firm in New York State. He has been a Microsoft MVP for Small Business Server since 2004 and enjoys exploring how technology can level the playing field between small business and enterprises. Nickason also is a Betanews reader.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Why 2011 isn't 1995 for Apple

Publié: décembre 27, 2010, 6:38pm CET

By Robert Scoble

In 1995 I remember waiting in lines to buy Windows 95. It effectively ended the design lead Apple had for 11 years in personal computers. From then on Microsoft had both the thought leadership and the market share. Apple ended up with less than 10 percent market share. Microsoft had most of the rest.
Lots of people think that Apple could repeat 1995 in 2011. This time with iOS instead of Macintosh OS and with Google in the place of Microsoft.
We forget one little thing: 1995 was different.
Here's how.
In 1995 Microsoft had a huge marketshare lead with DOS. That meant it had a huge army of developers who didn't want to switch over to Apple's system, which they saw as very closed and inflexible. I remember developers coming into the consumer electronics store I helped run in the 1980s and they'd complain bitterly about Apple's policies (Apple was far less flexible back then than it is today and forced developers to fit into a "look and feel" set of guidelines).
But I look at who is making money. Back in 1995 developers were mostly making money from DOS. Remember, this caused WordPerfect and Borland to make bad bets. They bet on DOS for too long, while Microsoft CEO Bill Gates went and built some of the first and best Macintosh apps. The lesson, though, doesn't pass from 1995 to 2011. Today where are most of the developers making their money? iOS (according to Sephora, Starbucks, OpenTable, eBay, and many other developers). So, Android has to convince developers to switch, or do both platforms at same time. That's quite different.
Plus, back in 1995, who owned the best distribution and supply chains? Microsoft did. Today? Apple does. Apple didn't have stores back in 1995 that will ensure its products get seen in the marketplace. Back then Microsoft could outspend Apple for shelf space at Frys and other retailers. Plus, Microsoft's model of having many OEMs building hardware for its OS was far superior to Apple's approach. Today that's not really true, because the OEMs aren't really able to bring that much value to the table and Apple has the best supply chains in China locked up (I visited one of them about two years ago and keep in touch with the folks there and that's still the case). So, it's not very likely that a Google phone will ship with better screens or better materials. At least not in volume. That is a huge difference from 1995 to today.
Other differences? Apple has outspent Microsoft on advertising around the world. Look at this picture. It's in Paris subway. Apple bought every square inch of advertising space (it bought the entire subway system's advertising space, it seemed, iPad ads were plastered down the entire trackway). Google isn't able to get its message there. That didn't happen in 1995. Remember how dominant Microsoft's advertising was back then? Microsoft even convinced the Empire State Building to change its colors that evening.
Let's go back to how closed Apple is. Most apps this month got approved in less than a week. Some even got approved in less than four days. During the Christmas rush. Is this as good as Android's (you can ship in minutes) policy? No. But, on the other hand, there are quality controls which consumers appreciate. The apps -- overall -- are better on iOS than on Android. Just check out TweetDeck. It crashes every few minutes on my Android phone. Twitter isn't nearly as nice. Facebook isn't as nice. And most apps aren't as well designed, nor crash resistant, as on iOS.
I am sensing a switch, though. Fred Wilson is leading the charge. But other developers are grumbling about Apple and want there to be an alternative and they are all comparing notes with each other. "How's Angry Birds doing with its advertising-only Android apps?" they ask. Very well, the answer comes back. So that means more developers will take the bet on Android, but so far I haven't seen many go "Android only." Why not? Because they know most of the PR comes from journalists who use mostly iOS devices and most of the best users are on iOS devices too (Sephora's lead mobile developer told me 80 percent of the users who pull out a mobile phone in her stores are using iOS, that is echoed by nearly every developer I talk with). Even Swype, which has been kept from delivering their keyboard on iOS devices showed me a prototype of it running on an iPad and the inventor whispered "if Steve Jobs wants to talk, we'd love to ship this on iOS."
So, when someone says that Apple is repeating the mistakes of 1995 (yes, I've been guilty of saying that in the past couple of years too) you should tell them that 2011 is not even close to the same set of conditions as 1995 has.
Photo Credit: Robert Scoble
Reprinted with permission
Robert Scoble is a long-time tech and video blogger who works for Rackspace, where he is part of the building 43 project. He started blogging in 2000 at scobelizer.com; from 2003-2006 he was a high-profile Microsoft evangelist blogger, and he helped start Channel 9. Scoble grew up in Silicon Valley. He is @scobleizer on Twitter.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
10 for 2010: Microsoft stories that mattered

Publié: décembre 27, 2010, 1:29am CET par Joe Wilcox

By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

It's that time of year when everybody who is anybody or nobody writes retrospectives. I start with Microsoft, by highlighting 10 of my stories you should have read in 2010. You've got time now during the end-of-year lull or even a week off before the New Year. They're organized by importance, from least to most -- that is 10 to 1.
I didn't easily choose just 10. I weighed importance based on relevance of the analysis to Microsoft in 2010 and even in coming years. Not all readers will agree on which is more or less important, or perhaps not at all.
I will say this now: 2010 was an important year for Microsoft -- and not just because the company launched Azure, shipped new Office version or saw enterprises upgrading Windows and Windows Server again. Microsoft made an important course correction that I'll write about in a few days. The old dog is learning new tricks.
I will followup with similar posts on Apple and Google, highlighting the important stories about them, too. With that introduction, I present 10 Microsoft stories that mattered in 2010.
10. "It's a shame about Ray Ozzie": Microsoft's chief software architect fell on his sword for the good of the company. Ozzie and his supporters lost the internal squabble between the Office-Windows-Windows Server hawks and the open cloud computing doves. Not that he was ever one of "Ballmer's boys." This post presents the negative perspective on Microsoft's Office-Windows-Windows Server apps stack push to the cloud. See #2 for the positive benefits. Posted: October 25.
9. "Windows Phone 7 is doomed": Microsoft's problem isn't technology, but time. Short of bribing developers and customers to use Windows Phone 7, Microsoft cannot correct its mobile platform mistakes fast enough. Apple and Google will lock in customers the way Microsoft and its partners did with DOS/Windows PCs during the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s.
To be clear: I rather like Windows Phone 7. Whether or not I eat crow about "doomed" in 2011 or even 2012 may depend on the continued Windows 7 marketing push, which is simply exceptional. See #7 for a more positive perspective of Windows Phone's future. Posted: July 2.
8. "Three post-CES goals for Microsoft": This post will get some followup by me as the Consumer Electronics Show approaches on January 6, 2011. Two of the goals: Set shorter marketing and product development goals and hold smaller, more-intimate product events. Posted: January 8.
7. "The bright spot in Microsoft's mobile OS disaster is...": ...There's no place to go but up. But up doesn't have to be an arduous climb. To regain mobile momentum lost to Apple, Google and Research in Motion, Microsoft must change the rules of engagement, like David did in the Biblical battle with Goliath. Already, with the approach to the Windows Phone 7 user interface and product marketing, Microsoft is applying "David thinking." Posted: September 27.
6. "I have lost confidence in Steve Ballmer's leadership": The June 17 Windows Embedded Handheld announcement shattered my remaining confidence in Microsoft's CEO. A long-time Ballmer supporter, I could do so no longer. I stood by my man, but he failed me.
However, Ballmer renewed some hope following the company's annual Financial Analysts Meeting. See #5. Posted: June 18.
5. "Steve Ballmer has one more chance to save his job": Going into Microsoft's annual Financial Analysts Meeting, calls increased for Ballmer's ouster as CEO. The challenge: For Ballmer to show he is in charge. The post highlights 10 Microsoft weaknesses going into FAM and 10 strengths for fiscal 2011. By the way, Ballmer did surprisingly well showing vision during the keynote. Posted: July 28.
4. "Five reasons why Microsoft can't compete (and Steve Ballmer isn't one of them)": Microsoft's problems are strategic and structural, and they're by no means unresolvable. Among them: US and European antitrust cases put lawyers and non-technologists in charge of important final product decisions, which negatively has affected development for nearly a decade. Another: Microsoft lost control of file formats, during Ballmer's 10-year tenure. Posted: June 22.
3. "Why won't Wall Street give Microsoft a break?": Microsoft's stock has been moribund, rarely rising about $30 a share since 2000, the same year Steve Ballmer became chief executive. Revenue rose from $5.8 billion in fiscal 2001 first quarter to $16.2 billion during same quarter in FY 2011. The company is consistently profitable, and its products are used everywhere. Why doesn't Wall Street get it? Part of the problem is undeserved negative perceptions about Microsoft and even more undeserved positive perceptions about Apple. Posted: November 7.
2. "Microsoft shouldn't break up, but break away from its antiquated business model": On the tenth anniversary of Microsoft's antitrust settlement with the US Justice Department and eight states, it was appropriate to look back at the breakup question. In early 2000, US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered that Microsoft break up into two companies for violating US antitrust law. Should Microsoft break up now, creating smaller, more flexible companies capable of stronger stock performance?
"No" is the answer. This post explains five hugely important problems Microsoft's cloud strategy solves for the company. It puts another perspective on Office-Windows-Windows Server apps stack push to the cloud discussed in #10. Posted: November 17.
1. "The Windows era is over": Prediction made in the post: The year 2010 will mark dramatic shifts away from Microsoft's monopoly to something else. Change is inevitable, and like IBM in the 1980s, Microsoft can't hold back its destiny during this decade. Mobile device-to-cloud competition's shifting relevance bears striking similarities to the move from mainframes to PCs, and it is a long, ongoing trend.
Whether the measure is Microsoft's push into the cloud, smartphones' dramatic sales gains (pushed by iPhone and Android handsets) or the success of cloud-hosted social sharing services like Facebook, the prediction has punch for the first half of decade 2010. Posted: May 26.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010